Explaining my dismissal of fossil fuel alternatives that are NOT nuclear fission

I’ve been engaging in a discussion with several commenters who strongly disagree with my assertion that atomic fission is the ONLY technology that has the technical potential to beat hydrocarbon combustion in the market. It can provide cheaper, cleaner and more reliable heat that can be converted into useful power in almost exactly the same ways that we have invented to turn combustion heat into power.

Some of that conversation is interesting enough to promote to the front page of the blog so that it is not buried deep in comment threads that few people have time to read. This post continues the conversation that I published yesterday in response to the State of the Union Address.

Commenter EL wrote:

Rod Adams wrote: “@EL, Pretend I am from Missouri. Stop pointing to academic studies and models created by “many fine people.”

I gave my rebuttal to these comments on “academic studies and models” that you so effortlessly dismiss and discount in the other thread. For those who might be interested, it’s probably worth reading the whole thread (and see if you are in agreement on the merits or deficits of new and advanced technologies, assessment of investment and regulatory risk, timing in current and future global markets, basic common ground … or whether there are some obstacles that are just too great to overcome and that engineering and markets cannot solve on a practical or cost-effective basis).

I argue my points, I think, objectively and forcefully (while I also keep an open mind). It’s my hope others will do the same (otherwise, there is little hope that any further debate will yield any positive fruit or rose petals, in honor of the upcoming holiday, and we better all hunker down and get very used to a long and bumpy ride on the non-renewable oil, coal, and natural gas crazy train).


The following response is a combination of several of my comments joined together and slightly edited to produce a more coherent, stand alone piece that is not so dependent on the context of other people’s comments.

@EL

Full_sailsHumans have known that there was energy that was free for the taking in the wind and in the sun for as long as we have been aware beings. Windmills and sails have been used for power for thousands of years. They were used to produce electrical power almost as soon as electricity was discovered. People have been collecting and using solar energy for tasks like salt making, curing, and drying leaves for thousands of years. The photovoltaic effect was discovered at least 110 years ago.

Don’t give me this anti technology mumbo jumbo that we have only just begun to try to figure out ways to collect useful energy from these well known sources. Don’t try to tell me that human beings have always found that hydrocarbons were just too cheap to beat; massive fortunes have been made by controlling supplies of those products and pricing them at levels that were painful for many customers.
Read more »

German solar photovoltaic performance – informative graphic site

A friend just posted a link to a site that everyone who wants effective energy decision making should bookmark. It is titled Performance of Photovoltaics (PV) in Germany. The site includes animation features that illustrate the modeled output of solar installations over the course of each day. The model used should provide a reasonably good [...]

Read more »

Atomic Show #192 – Zero Carbon Options for South Australia

Ben Heard is one of the growing number of environmental professionals who have seriously evaluated all options for reducing mankind’s annual production rate of carbon dioxide and discovered that the best tool available is nuclear fission energy. As a part of his continuing journey of discovery, he worked with Brown and Pang to produce a [...]

Read more »

Power cheaper than coal – thorium AND uranium make it possible

Bob Hargraves, the author of Thorium: Energy Cheaper than Coal, recently traveled to Shanghai to present a 30 minute talk summarizing the main points of discussion that he covered in his book. The occasion of the trip was Thorium Energy Conference 2012. Bob is a professor with a good facility for numbers and a talent [...]

Read more »

Blog row in UK between EWEA and Foratom regarding magnitude of subsidies

The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) has published a blog titled Nuclear Decommissioning Costs Amount to €66 Billion in UK alone that is a direct response to a post on Foratom titled To subsidise or not to subsidise: that is the question. There seems to be a conflict brewing over energy-related actions that is worth [...]

Read more »

National Ignition Facility – No Closer to Useful Fusion Power Than Before

The New York Times recently published an article titled So Far Unfruitful, Fusion Project Faces a Frugal Congress that made me feel just a little prescient. It is no surprise to me to read that the $5 billion dollar facility is no closer to producing useful nuclear fusion today than it was when it was [...]

Read more »

Abundance is our Future but Nukes Have a Huge PR Challenge

Peter Diamandis, the head of the X Prize Foundation, recently gave a TED talk titled Abundance is Our Future. It was an inspiring, energetic talk full of optimism for the ability of technology to solve the world’s biggest challenges. In all areas of technology but one, Peter is on target. When it came to his [...]

Read more »

Damning nuclear energy with faint praise – sponsored by Shell Oil Company

The Discovery Channel is teasing a show called Earth 2050: Powering the Future. One of the primary sponsors of the show is the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company. Here is a brief teaser about future energy supplies from “renewable” sources of power. On the one hand, it was interesting to note that Discovery had classified [...]

Read more »

How fast can offshore wind be deployed? What are infrastructure requirements?

Offshore wind farm

Guest post by Andy Dawson One anti-nuclear argument that’s frequently made is that nuclear is slow to deploy – that renewables can make inroads into carbon production rather faster than can building new nuclear stations. I was recently provoked into taking a look at this, in the context of the UK’s 2020 and 2030 CO2 [...]

Read more »

95% disagree with “Beyond Nuclear”. Let’s make it 99%

One of the more powerful concepts that I studied in college was called “groupthink.” The curriculum developers in the history department at the US Naval Academy thought it was important for people in training to become leaders in the US Navy learn to seek counsel and advice from as broad a range of sources as [...]

Read more »

Fission can help avoid a post hydrocarbon economic collapse

Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy

In my engagement with the Sierra Club group on LinkedIn (note – the group is not sponsored or affiliated with the actual Sierra Club) I ran across a commenter who would probably find some kindred souls among the Peak Oil pessimists and the skeptical survivalists. Here is what he told me after I had described [...]

Read more »