h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What I meant was instead of predicting a trend rise of 2%, say, announce plans to limit it to 1.5%. I doubt the average voter would give a stuff.

>> If one person does it, it is. If one hundred people do it, it is. But if millions of people do it then it reduces overall energy needs which in turn means less energy needs to be produced which *does* impact on human CO2 output. <<

Absolutely, I agree entirely and if everyone does everything they can then we can at least delay the inevitable. But here's what I mean by pissing in the ocean:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/24/ethicalliving.g2

"If we add together what a "sustainable" carbon budget might be for the whole world, and then divide it by the global population, we get a figure of about one tonne (1,000kg) per person. Unless you live in a fossil fuel-eschewing eco-village in Somerset, there's every chance you'll be over this total at present and living a climatically unsustainable life. In fact, the national average for the UK is 9,400kg, about 10 times what would be sustainable for the planet. Still, we're not the worst, by any means: the average US carbon footprint is 19,800kg, while the impact on climate of the average Aussie is 18,000kg."

Now, focusing on the UK (apologies to those elsewhere): to be fair we have to reduce our footprints by a factor of ten, roughly speaking. Sell your 4x4 and buy a Prius and you might reduce your vehicle emissions by half. Replace your lightbulbs and insulate your home and you might reduce domestic emissions by a third (dunno). Factor in business, the rich and the belligerent for whom the rest of us have to compensate, and we need to take that level lower still. Take no holidays at all, and you might get your carbon footprint down to two or three times the sustainable level.

Given that the vast majority have to do this, and to date the vast majority have done precious little despite knowing about the problem for at least 10 years, things are looking pretty bleak.

Reductions and efficiency improvements go without saying, as do renewables, but they are a long way from being a solution.

Having caused a flurry of postings yesterday with my link to James Lovelock's preface to the book "Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy" by Bruno Comby and as the conversation has expanded to look at other forms of green energy let see if I can once again add to the debate.

So far no one has mentioned "Energy Security" this is one of the key factors in the powers that be preferring the nuclear option - yes the uranium used has to mined and imported but the volume used by a power station is relatively small making it easy to build large stockpiles in the good times (I heard somewhere that UK already has enough uranium stockpiled that all it's current power stations could operate to the end of their expected lifespan without the UK having to import any more uranium ore).

--

As to the alternative, pretty much the whole of Europe could be supplied with energy by a network of concentrated solar power plants (where the suns energy is used to power steam turbines) in the sun belt of North Africa and the Middle East distributed by a high-efficiency electricity super grid. Studies have shown that using less than 0.3% of the entire desert areas of the North Africa and the Middle East region, solar thermal power plants could generate enough electricity to supply both current demand and anticipated increases demand for Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. More info at http://www.trecers.net/concept.html and google.

Well, HappyÐude®, a skim of your link (http://www.trecers.net/concept.htm) has made me think.

Political problems? Pah!

Hiya Happy,

I acknowledge that in proportional terms the amount of uranium required is small compared to other fuels and the energy produced is correspondingly massive.(E=Mc2 and all that )

My point was even if that is preferable (stockpiles in good times as you say) it doesn't change the dynamic overall it is a mineral that has to be mined - granted it is over a much longer termbecause of the energy exchange possible but it is still finite resource that has to be taken from somewhere to someplace else. That has implications is all I'm saying. How long before we go from an OPEC to a UPEC? Because I only ever hear this debate couched in terms of carbon neutrality and this, as you say raises issues of energy security and acquisition.

I just did a quick google search so this is *NOT* definitive, however according to this website.
http://www.infomine.com/commodities/uranium.asp

The countries were uranium is presently heavily mined are:
Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Niger, Russia, Namibia, Uzbekistan, USA, Ukraine and China - with future extraction looking likely to shift to Australia.

This is the question that always comes to my mind whenever I hear nuclear energy raised, is it really the solution to the problem of only superficially so? I don't know for sure I just have questions.

Must learn to abbreviate!

OPEC ---> OUEC

Apologies if I've used this example before, but I think it puts the difference into perspective. The UK's new submarines will be fuelled during build for their entire 25-year lifespan. A single reactor the size of a dustbin will power an 8,000 tonne ship 40 times round the world, or about a million miles.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/astute/

A very rough calculation, assuming a very generous 0.1mpg for an equivalent diesel ship, gives about 10 million gallons or 50,000 tonnes of diesel to cover the same distance.

I completely agree: the difference between fossil fuels and nuclear energy is massive. I've never said otherwise. What I'm trying to say is granting that, the amount of energy which is generated from a resource which although it has a truly considerable life span is still a resource which is finite, which will therefore (eventually) run out; is still susceptible to the pressures of supply and demand and is also still a commodity that has to be got up out of the ground and sent places. whereupon the energy release and output is staggering but, which fundamentally relies upon the availably of the commodity

Over a longer scale(submarines and nuclear power plants etc) I'm not saying nuclear isn't attractive or part of the solution of other various modalities. I'm trying to query whether it is the solution in the very very long term.

and whether committing to that is a good idea.

Is it really committing though? If it buys us a century of energy security, does that not give us time for technology to come up with another solution? If the 19th Century was the coal age and the 20th the oil age, the 21st could be the nuclear age and from there, who knows?

Is it committing? I'm not sure. You might be right.

The centuries of progress idea is appealing. Maybe the 22nd century will have seen the advent of materials using nano technology and computers powerful enough to set fusion up and running as a sustainable resource.

If I were an optimist I'd like to see the public discussion conducted with these frames of reference in mind that it's a commitment for a century maybe longer. It is this that I feel is missing at present.

" I'm trying to query whether it is the solution in the very very long term."

Well, it depends on your definition of 'very very long term'...

Let's face it, the only way the human race is going to survive the extreme long term is to leave this planet before the sun switches itself off. Does that mean that we shouldn't be developing any form of energy that's reliant on the sun's output? Because in the long term, the sun itself is a finite source of energy.

Well the logic of the argument you make is yes we should develop a source of energy independent of solar activity. It doesn't imply however we *shouldn't( develop other technologies since that example lies of extreme end of the lengths of time we could discuss. Rather, from our perspective what the future goal of energy production ought to be.

Maybe SWL's suggestion of nuclear power as a staging post for something else to come along will hold true. But is that what is being proposed or argued for?

I'll try desperately to not repeat myself - what I was trying to say was exponential energy based on a finite physical resource is still subject over a considerably large amount of time (centuries maybe) to exactly the same pressures that affect fossil fuels becuase it relies on a finite physical resource being available to exploit. It that sense it is not sustainable. but that all depends on the length of time your willing to consider.

I fear I may have dragged this forum off course, since whether or not uranium is available does not indicate whether or not the energy is eco-friendly or not. I was trying to make a point about an aspect of this debate that I'e simply not heard anyone really expand on.

In the sense that green equates to being prudent with resources and not wasteful then yes, Nuclear = Green

I'm with SWL . Completely with SWL. Long-term, the only way out of this hole is through better technology.

Until then, nuclear fission is the best option. Lifetime * Volume * Environmental Damage for nuclear waste is manageable, because the volume is very small. For fossil fuels it is not. Modern fission reactors are well within acceptable risk.

Furthermore, efficiency gains are real and significant. You can't just force people to live in the cold, wheras better materials and design can mean that their heating cost is much lower.

I spent some time thinking about this , and the conclusions i have come to are this ; you will not change human nature , so any thoughts of everybody turning into tree hugging vegatarians is fantasy . What we need is vast amounts of cheap sustainable energy . Windmills just do not seem up to the job . Tidal barriers look good on paper and if they are efficant i would say go ahead . Nuclear fission may be the only practical option for now . Nuclear fusion is the ultimate goal and is an avenue we should be running down at any cost .
The lights going out would be a nightmare , this must be avoided . Our major cities would resemble Mogadishu within weeks .

best fishes.....tod

MMmm.... I was looking at google earth the other day and could not help looking in awe at the size of the Sahara desert . If you could cover this in solar panels and use the energy to power hydrogen factories on the coast . Well it would be job done wouldn't it . { i will just take .1 percent of the profits for coming up with this idea }

I'm somewhat disappointed that you have not picked up on the solar power link in my last post as it is the main alternative to nuclear power in the short to mid term with the only draw back being that most of Europe would once again be Energy Dependant on other nations (i.e. North Africa and the Middle East).

As to the long term nuclear fusion is the answer which is why there has been a sudden spate of interest in the Moon over the last few years with the USA, Russia, China, Japan, India and Europe all having Moon related projects in the pipe and calls at the UN for revision of the space treaties so that property rights can be assigned to the Moon.
I guessing that by now you are wondering what the Moon has to do with Nuclear fusion - when normal helium is used in a fusion device it gives of shower of sub-atomic particle which rapidly degrade the structure of the reactor in a very short time period (even under optimal circumstances a fusion reactor has a lifespan measured in hours) but if helium 3 (helium with one less neutron than normal helium) is used the shower is much reduced leading to a lifespan than can (theoretically) be measured over decades. Unfortunately helium 3 is incredibly rare on Earth (I understand that most of the helium 3 being used in test reactors has come from meteors that have crashed upon the Earth) it is however incredibly abundant upon the Moon and to give you idea of the economics of using the Moon as a fuel source the proponents of this option reckon that a single space shuttle could carry enough helium 3 to power the USA for a year.

Sorry HappyDude ,
I realy should read the previous posts before putting in my worth

Yes all that desert is somebody's country . However its not being used so could we just use it if we asked nicely ? Failing that we could just take it !!

best fishes....tod

"I'm somewhat disappointed that you have not picked up on the solar power link in my last post" was not aimed at you specifically Todaymueller (I don't even think you had posted when I started typing it)but more at the general direction the thread took.

I suppose the real free energy comes from the sun or gravity [ tides ] . It is converting this into usable power thats tricky . We have not worked out how to store electricity yet .

best fishes...tod

Yeah, the last time Westerners took barren wasteland from Arabs and made it productive worked out so well didn't it?