[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls

[Stan Rhodes]

Michel, I'm disappointed and frustrated with your post. You did not read
what I linked, you just knee-jerked, as you did the first time in dismissing
Ryan.  Let me reframe the problem in terms of scope and requirements, so you
understand why I'm saying what I'm saying.

The question facing the world: what current technology can replace existing
fossil fuel electricity generation WITH similar production capacity AND fuel
cost BUT with a lower life cycle emission of CO2?

In certain situations, geothermal, or hydroelectric, or OTEC can do this.
In most cases they can't, and fossil fuels are used.  Nuclear was never
claimed to be a flawless solution, but is superior to all existing solutions
for MWe generation because it can match the capacity and cost of fossil
fuels, but beat the emissions.

Whether people like it or not, that's the reality of power consumption and
needs: it boils down to fossil fuels vs nuclear for the majority of the
world's power generation.

Solid waste is a consideration too: radioactive solid waste created by a
nuclear plant producing 1k MWe is less than a natural gas, oil, or coal
plant of the same output.  Compare: natural gas, at 200k tons, nuclear at
about 850 tons.  30 of those tons are spent fuel, and highly radioactive,
but can be reprocessed.

Even if we couldn't reprocess that fuel, nuclear still wins the comparison
with fossil fuels.  Arguments about the dangers of waste miss the point: we
only need something better than fossil fuels, and there is no other
contender.  Thankfully, the safety record of nuclear is so much better than
fossil fuels, there's no argument there anyway.  I'm all for nuclear
watchdogs, standards, and individuals looking out for safety.  Industries
need precisely that sort of thing to help keep them honest and safe, but
pro-safety is not the same as anti-nuclear.  As a side note, the "where to
bury waste" has always been a false dilemma.  Why not create a few research
facilities to monitor the waste while pursuing better disposal options?

As Ryan said, ruling out nuclear is impossible.  I don't know what he means
by "minimize," because right now, if the world doesn't get the power from
nuclear, it will use fossil fuels.  Until we develop a replacement for
nuclear that fits the criteria previously mentioned, we must use it.

To clarify my position on a few points without being exhaustive, I offer the
following:
1) Research into other technologies should be continued;
2) OTEC seems to be a solid choice for most islands near the equator (after
a bit more research, I'm impressed by it);
3) Wind is lousy because of highly variable generation capacity (like
solar), and the huge concrete foundations that must be sunk for the towers.
4) Where heat capture can be used, it should be, such as homes (in the
north, at least) with south-facing windows, supplemental solar hot-water
heating, etc;
5) Small-scale solar is the only viable option I know of to empower "low
watt" poor, and is useful in other low watt applications.

-- Stan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090612/0d859be0/attachment-0001.html>