The question of energy use must be looked at from the perspective of consumption. Solutions away from fossil are meaningless unless the vital issue of consumption and the industrial use of resources are altered dramatically.

Alan Larson you must first answer your own question – what are your qualifications to question my numbers and replace them with what appears to be your own opinions?

That said, the 750 nukes is based on the current and continued demand for electrical energy using fossil. Nukes do not replace the demand for massive transporation needs which today is based on oil. So, if you were to replace our fossil demands with nukes the estimate given today’s technology is roughly 750 nukes (we have somewhere just above 100 today; all of which require massive doses of subsidization as they are down as much as up).

Alan this is not simply an engineering problem. It is a human problem which requires more than a technological fix. You cannot deal with this problem unless you are willing to look at consumption and the uneconomics of growth. “Engineering” is not going to cure the fact that our economic mantra of growth is more costly by any measure than simply to stop growing and re-think our economics to one within a sustainable model.

Like so much we have some decades ago begun the journey on the long emergency. Such journies are easily dismissed because the status quo is such an easy path to continue on. You either intuit the insanity of endless growth, or you simply assume that what is is just what is meant to be.

If you consider our way of life, the massive waste and consumption we perform minute by minute has existed less than a nano second in the history of human kind; and yet we amazingly see it as if there is something innately human about it.

What a foolish lot we are!

Example:
“We’d need 750 nuclear power plants to begin to replace fossil fuel.
Given the problems we have with just over 100 and the incredible costs, that’s not areal option – so I’d leave the “agnostic” side step behind. What’s more nuclear is only good for electricity not the other 90% of what we use fossil for.”

How does Max Shields determine the 750 number? Nuclear plants can be built with different capacities. What incredible costs is he referring to? Does he refer to the capital costs of building the plants or operating costs of the plants? Nuclear plants are competitive. Operating costs can be low. Finally, his statement that nuclear is only good for electricity is silly. Nuclear power is a heat source. It can be used to boil water for electricity, provide the energy for chemical reactions or can be used for such purposes as pumping water for desalination or irrigation. Energy decisions are best made by informed individuals and not on a touchy feely basis.

There are economic reasons why the horizon is not dotted with windmills. Don’t you think that if wind and solar were an economic source of energy that utilities wouldn’t have already widely adopted these forms of energy? Utilities would rather not pay for the vast amounts of coal that they consume. Transporting and storing coal is a headache.

I thank the authors for the article. Continuing dialogue will eventually lead to the public realization that new nuclear plants are necessary.

Yeah. Right. Let’s compare.

Nuclear power currently cost 1.68 cents per kWh

Wind (non-subsidized) cost 4.35 to 6.56 cents per kWh

solar thermal (Sunny climate) project cost 6 cents per kWh in Southern California

home photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 37.78 cents per kWh

home photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 83.13 cents per kWh

commercial photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 27.49 cents per kWh

commercial photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 60.47 cents per kWh

industrial photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 21.41 cents per kWh

industrial photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 47.11 cents per kWh

After $45 billion in federal subsidies and R&D for wind and solar, they currently produce barely 1% of our total electricity in the US.

After $65 billion in federal subsidies and R&D for the nuclear industry (less than 6 billion of that for the Light Water Reactors that power the nuclear industry), nuclear power produces 20% of our total electricity in the US.

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/

I guess we need a monster hurricane or two, or a severe drought or three, or a huge rise in ocean levels. That is the only kind of thing that will rouse the sheeple out of their apathy, force them to get rid of the current cabal of leaders who are taking us to hell!

No, the Democratic, Faith-based Capitalist (DFC) system is stuffed. Get the full story on my blog!

We’d need 750 nuclear power plants to begin to replace fossil fuel.
Given the problems we have with just over 100 and the incredible costs, that’s not areal option – so I’d leave the “agnostic” side step behind. What’s more nuclear is only good for electricity not the other 90% of what we use fossil for.

The US has created a deadend society. We need to reduce, drastically, total consumption. We need to move people BACK to dense cities and out of the suburbs where we can optimize efficient energy use. The party is OVER.

Technology is NOT going to fix this problem. Technology is not a source of energy. ALL of our FOOD REQUIRES fossil. The energy fossil provides touches every inch of our lives. The end – and I don’t mean this as some kind of “chicken little” – is of fossil here. We have yet to feel it; but it is clearly here. Peak oil occurred a few decades ago. The demand for fossil continues to grow expotentially and it will out strip supply. When that happens – BAM! No major oil sources in 40 years. Alternatives will not REPLACE fossil. Let me say it again – WE HAVE CREATED A DEADEND SOCIETY.

To correct this we will need to utterly change our expectations and our living habits (“life style”) that are nearly all based on cheap fossil. This will be very difficult; BUT it will be unavoidable.

Chances are we will not move fast enough but will have the beginnings of what will be needed and we’ll need to exploit those for survival.

The answer is not in a lab somewhere; nor will Orville and Wilbur invent a new thing-a-ma-doozy.

Our CONSUMPTION has made the problem expotentially unsustainable. That’s not simply a nice word for “farmer’s markets” for lilly white burb dwellers with some extra cash.

Solutions are possible when we realize the PARTY is OVER.

Hansen goes on to talk about 4th generation nuclear power in the Trip Report it’s on his web site. To me the reasons are simple why we may not make it. You know the survival of the human race. Profit all that money and the power the fossil fuel industry has to stop or slow any progress trying to be made. We can’t get there from here. There is a lot to be said about Nationalizing energy. On this present path it doesn’t look good. Solar-thermal will work and can be done in time the hardest part is the low-loss national electric grid. Wind and nuclear if the money that so far has been stopping by the people with the money for funding of research. Of course energy is only one part a big part but farming practices and the way we cut forests is a big one. It all comes back to the money profit the economic system. Bit of a problem but if we can’t change now we probably won’t get a second chance. In the past it was this civilization didn’t make it or that one but this time we all get a piece of the action. The damn problem is it is a little slow but the end result is to late have a nice day. In twenty years from today on this present path tuff doesn’t begin to explain it. Think of this as kind of a war.