Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Basic Choices and Constraints on Long-Term Energy Supplies



If France can do it, why not "us"?

bc

John Denker wrote:

Ludwik Kowalski wrote in part:



So far the only practical solution (in terms
of costs) is nuclear.



The word "only" makes that a two-way statement:
a) Nuclear is practical.
b) All other solutions are not practical.

I don't find either part of that to be self evident.

Evidence against part (a) includes the fact that (according
to the best estimates) there's not enough extractable U235
to make much of a difference to the overall energy supply.
Remember that less than 1% of natural uranium is U235.

That situation changes dramatically IF (big IF) we are
willing to deploy breeder reactors. But that is not
obviously cost-effective. How do you reckon the NPV (net
present value) of a risk of nuclear weapon proliferation?
As far as I know, the industry doesn't even have plans
for proposing a plan for building a single commercial
breeder, let alone deriving most of our energy from such.
Why is that?

As for part (b), the last time I did the calculations,
http://www.av8n.com/physics/energy-reserves.html
the cost of solar-generated electricity was already
very nearly competitive on the wholesale market, so if
fuel costs went up (and were expected to stay up) the
teeter-totter would flip rather dramatically toward
solar ... and would stay flipped forever more.