When will the world reach peak fossil fuel production?

[mheslep]

Given that Nitrogen is plentiful in the atmosphere, and Hydrogen is plentiful in water, I suspect the primary reason natural gas is used is to provide both energy for the conversation as well as hydrogen in a chemical form with less binding energy than it exists in water.

Is this correct?

If so, is there an electrochemical process which can be used to manufacture NH₃ from just air and water, perhaps a catalyst or two, with no other ingredients used in the process?

1. The current process does NH3 from N from the 'air', and the H from natural gas. The required H could also be produced from water of course, given a lot of energy, taking us back around to the point that energy is nearly always the bottleneck, not material.
2. From what I recall of Bio 101, ammonia is used as fertilizer because plants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_reaction" , but they're unable to fix N from the air (there are a few exceptions IIRC) as they are able to do for carbon, and can only get N via their root systems.

 

[Proton Soup]

1. The current process does NH3 from N from the 'air', and the H from natural gas. The required H could also be produced from water of course, given a lot of energy, taking us back around to the point that energy is nearly always the bottleneck, not material.
2. From what I recall of Bio 101, ammonia is used as fertilizer because plants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_reaction" , but they're unable to fix N from the air (there are a few exceptions IIRC) as they are able to do for carbon, and can only get N via their root systems.

yeah, i think it's just the cheapest way to get the H. iirc, besides electrical hydrolysis, there is also a thermal process for cracking water that uses heat from nuclear power. this was one of the proposals for that "hydrogen economy", which would be more efficient.

 

[mheslep]

there is also a thermal process for cracking water that uses heat from nuclear power. this was one of the proposals for that "hydrogen economy", which would be more efficient.

That depends on the source of energy available. Given a ready source of heat from combustion or even a nuclear reactor then yes thermal chemical cracking is more efficient of the primary energy than first converting the heat to secondary energy in the form or electricity, followed finally by electrolysis. Given the starting point is electricity from, say, PV solar or wind turbines, then I doubt that converting to heat, rather than electrolysis, is more efficient given any practical system that inevitably wastes some heat.

 

[al loomis]

nuclear isn't an answer, it's just a delay. there is a finite amount of uranium, just like coal and oil. but it's only other use is bombs, it might be a good idea to use up uranium first. that way carbon compounds will be available longer and they are handy for toys.

 

[apeiron]

But remember also the US wants Saudi to push production up to 15 mdb this decade. Which is what will show whether Saudi is actually mature as a producer or is stiil sitting on a hidden stash.

More confirmation on this front from our friend wikileaks. Bear in mind that the cable dates from late 2007, so knock about three years off all projections .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/08/oil-saudiarabia?intcmp=239

Al-Husseini, who maintains close ties to Aramco executives, believes that the Saudi oil company has oversold its ability to increase production and will be unable to reach the stated goal of 12.5 million b/d of sustainable capacity by 2009. While stating that he does not subscribe to the theory of "peak oil," the former Aramco board member does believe that a global output plateau will be reached in the next 5 to 10 years and will last some 15 years, until world oil production begins to decline.

It is al-Husseini's belief that while Aramco can reach 12 million b/d within the next 10 years, it will be unable to meet the goal of 12.5 million b/d by 2009. The former EVP added that sustaining 12 million b/d output will only be possible for a limited period of time, and even then, only with a massive investment program.

By al-Husseini's calculations, approximately 116 billion barrels of oil have been produced by Saudi Arabia, meaning only 64 billion barrels remain before reaching this crucial point of inflection. At 12 million b/d production, this inflection point will arrive in 14 years. Thus, while Aramco will likely be able to surpass 12 million b/d in the next decade, soon after reaching that threshold the company will have to expend maximum effort to simply fend off impending output declines. Al-Husseini believes that what will result is a plateau in total output that will last approximately 15 years, followed by decreasing output.

Al-Husseini estimates that moving forward, satisfying increases in global demand will require bringing online annually at least 6 million b/d of worldwide output, 2 million to satisfy increased demand and 4 million to compensate for declining production in existing fields.

He estimates that the current floor price of oil, removing all geopolitical instability and financial speculation, is approximately 70 - 75 USD/barrel. Due to the longer-term constraints on expanding global output, al-Husseini judges that demand will continue to outpace supply and that for every million b/d shortfall that exists between demand and supply, the floor price of oil will increase 12 USD.

He stated that the IEA's expectation that Saudi Arabia and the Middle East will lead the market in reaching global output levels of over 100 million barrels/day is unrealistic, and it is incumbent upon political leaders to begin understanding and preparing for this "inconvenient truth."

Al-Husseini was clear to add that he does not view himself as part of the "peak oil camp," and does not agree with analysts such as Matthew Simmons. He considers himself optimistic about the future of energy, but pragmatic with regards to what resources are available and what level of production is possible.

The last comment is a little amusing given the bleak assessment. If you check what people were saying even five years ago, you will see who was closer to "the truth" on this subject.

 

[Al68]

nuclear isn't an answer, it's just a delay. there is a finite amount of uranium, just like coal and oil...

Sure, but it's a very, very long delay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining" long just counting the uranium that can be mined very cheaply. And that's only a small fraction of the total supply.

Long before we ever get to the point where uranium supply is a problem, nuclear power will be "too cheap to meter", as was once predicted by advocates. If uranium supply was the limiting factor, it would be too cheap to meter now, and would be for a very long time.

 

[al loomis]

declining energy resources are the best possible news: so far, the only practical way to reduce fossil fuel use is to raise the price and induce economic collapse., this may save us from the venus solution, at the cost of mass starvation, another positive actor on energy use, and the first world food war. it might be the first water war too, but aside from desal, energy neutral.

political management of humanities problems have absurdly ineffectual, but gaia has a range of mechanistic solutions which are coming into play.

 

[apeiron]

Long before we ever get to the point where uranium supply is a problem, nuclear power will be "too cheap to meter", as was once predicted by advocates. If uranium supply was the limiting factor, it would be too cheap to meter now, and would be for a very long time.

What do you actually mean here? It sounds like you are saying nuclear "done right" would be indeed "too cheap to measure" and only some mysterious factor (it's not limited supply) is preventing this being the case.

Please supply an explanation backed up by sources if this is what you mean.

 

[Al68]

What do you actually mean here? It sounds like you are saying nuclear "done right" would be indeed "too cheap to measure" and only some mysterious factor (it's not limited supply) is preventing this being the case.

I made no claim of any "mysterious" factor. The factors preventing nuclear from being "too cheap to meter" are not "mysterious" at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate#Economics" are very expensive to build and cost almost as much to operate as a coal plant.

But the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate#Economics"is very cheap relative to other plant types.

A cost factor isn't "mysterious" simply because it's unrelated to uranium supply.

 

[apeiron]

Very interesting to see how various people are spinning the reaction to the leaked cable.

The Wall Street Journal is making sound like el Husseini is backing away from a misinterpretation...
http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2011/02/09/saudi-oil-reserves-and-the-wikileaks-chinese-whispers-effect/

But the meat of the cable is not about the proper interpretation of reserve figures (as mentioned earlier in the thread, even el Husseini's own website is open about this). It is his insider view on actual production.

If the IEA says we are banking on 15 mbd from you guys, and the message back is that we're not sure about getting to 12 mbd yet - and that only for a decade rather than the 50 years Aramco chief recently promised in a public statement - then...whoops.

Meanwhile over at Fox News, there is confusion...
http://mediamatters.org/research/201102090025

"Hey, this is a heck of surprise. Means we better get drilling like crazy in the US again I guess." Where do they get these guys?

And across to the Economist for the most plausible spin...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/oil_prices

"The market already knew all this in 2007. And the Saudis have just decided to limit production to get the most dollar out of the decline phase of the Hubert curve."

This is both probably true, and beside the point. The central issue is that the existing economy is based on cheap energy.

If there are other equally cheap substitutes out there (like "too cheap to meter" nuclear), then nothing need change. If basic energy costs double or treble, then this will be a very big shock.

Of course there is huge scope in the most wealthy countries to conserve fuel use. But then also they are the most able to continue to pay the market rate the longest. So cue just huge trouble in the populous poor parts of the world.

Except then, we are talking about some of the major oil producers. Oh well.

 

[apeiron]

I made no claim of any "mysterious" factor. The factors preventing nuclear from being "too cheap to meter" are not "mysterious" at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate#Economics" are very expensive to build and cost almost as much to operate as a coal plant.

But the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate#Economics"is very cheap relative to other plant types.

A cost factor isn't "mysterious" simply because it's unrelated to uranium supply.

I remain baffled by what you intended by your comments. If it is just that peak uranium is a good way off even if we cranked up the nuclear industry, then that is true.

But the central issue here is about cheap (and portable) energy. So total cost per watt is what would be "cheap" or "expensive".

 

[Al68]

I remain baffled by what you intended by your comments.

What is baffling? My comments were in response to a post saying that nuclear power wasn't a solution because there was only a "finite supply" of uranium.

If it is just that peak uranium is a good way off even if we cranked up the nuclear industry, then that is true.

Very true and non-baffling and non-mysterious.

But the central issue here is about cheap (and portable) energy. So total cost per watt is what would be "cheap" or "expensive".

Right. And the total cost per watt of nuclear power has almost nothing to do with uranium supply.

 

[mugaliens]

nuclear isn't an answer, it's just a delay. there is a finite amount of uranium, just like coal and oil. but it's only other use is bombs, it might be a good idea to use up uranium first.

All known current reserves will supply the world with power for approximately the next 85 years. However, that's with a conventional reactor, which uses less than 1% of the fissile material. A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor" uses nearly all of the fissile material, while simultaneously producing fissile fuel out of non-fissile materials.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I'd like to add the point that current light water reactors (PWR/BWR) only use up about 3% of the potential energy in the fuel rods. Neutron poisons build up in the fuel making the chain reaction less stable (harder to keep going) after about 24 months of full power days. If the USA got back into the reprocessing business much more of the uranium/plutonium in the fuel rods could be "burnt" and make much more energy.

Also with the use of breeder reactors and LFT reactors to bring thorium into the energy market, the human race would be hard pressed to run out of fissionable material to use.

 

[mheslep]

Even though nuclear the figures above appear fine at a glance, I hope we can keep this thread in the habit of referencing factual claims.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Can anyone really present a factual claim that nuclear breeder reactors threaten to destroy the US coal and oil industry, leaving millions of people jobless?

I've wondered if the above claim is what prevented new nuclear plants from being built in the 70's and 80's while things like 3 Mile and Chernobyl were just convenient rally cries. Think about what the oil industry means for jobs in the financial market; we go to war over this stuff, spending trillions of dollars to protect oil and currency reserves, and sacrificing countless lives and living conditions to insure that power is kept in the same hand.

I mean, if it did collapse the US oil and coal markets, couldn't we just sell the stuff to poor countries that don't have it? Give them cars, bigger houses and better roads while increasing the US's export sector. Yes, I'm a guiness!

 

[mheslep]

Can anyone really present a factual claim that nuclear breeder reactors threaten to destroy the US coal and oil industry,...!

Yes, with some attention one can at least attempt to demonstrate whether that scenario is a) scientifically possible and b) economically feasible. Why not give it a try? The rest borders on https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380" if anything does. For instance, this

...I've wondered if the above claim is what prevented new nuclear plants from being built in the 70's and 80's while things like 3 Mile and Chernobyl were just convenient rally cries...

Begs for an anti-nuclear hand-waiver to respond in kind: "how could anyone consider nuclear after 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl." And why not, if the only goal is come up with a better conspiracy theory?

 

[apeiron]

One authorative figure in the peak oil debate is Robert Hirsch, ex manager of research at Exxon, RAND Corporation consultant, director of the US nuclear fusion programme and author of Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management, written for the United States Department of Energy.

Catching up on what he has to say these days, there is this recent slide presentation...
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impending-world-energy-mess-2010-11#-1

Of interest is slide 4 that shows oil production hit a peak in 2004 and has since plateaued.

Slide 6 shows the tight correlation between cheap oil and GDP (evidence that burning oil is the economy basically).

Then slide 10 predicts what is going to happen to the economy given even "a best case mitigation scenario" - the cornucopian belief that technological fixes can ride to the rescue once decline begins.

Hirsh and his colleague are forecasting a 10 percent drop in world GDP in just two years following peak production, about an 18 percent drop after a decade.

The mother of all depressions in other words. It will be worse of course if war and mayhem break out says Hirsh.

There is also this recent Le Monde interview with Hirsh...
http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/09/16/interview-with-robert-l-hirsch-12
and
http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/09/16/interview-with-robert-l-hirsch-22/

Where he alleges an official policy of cover up...

Q: What happened after you published your 2005 report on ‘peak oil’ for the US Department of Energy (DoE) ?

A: The people that I was dealing with said : « No more work on peak oil, no more talk about it. »

Q: People that were high in the administration hierarchy ?

A: The people that I was dealing with were high in the laboratory level. They were getting their instructions from people on the political side of the DoE, at high levels.

After the work we did on the 2005 study and the follow-up of 2006, the Department of Energy headquarters completely cut off all support for oil peaking and decline analysis. The people that I was working with at the National Energy Technology Laboratory were good people, they saw the problem, they saw how difficult the consequences would be – you know, the potential for huge damage – yet they were told : « No more work, no more discussion. »

Q: That was in 2006, under Bush administration. Has anything changed with the Obama administration ?

A: It has not changed. I have friends who simply won’t talk about it now. So I have to assume that they are receiving the same kind of instructions.

...I think in the case of the United States, that there are people inside the government that understand the problem. I don’t think it’s a huge number of people. And one might say that there is a conspiracy to keep it quiet.

 

[apeiron]

I made no claim of any "mysterious" factor. The factors preventing nuclear from being "too cheap to meter" are not "mysterious" at all.

Nuclear is an emotional issue. So in the interest of rational assessments, here is the most current relative cost assessments that I have seen (from a fairly pro-nuclear source).

http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-004.pdf

we find that the levelized cost of electricity from nuclear power is 8.4¢/kWh, denominated in 2007 dollars. The levelized cost of electricity from coal, exclusive of any carbon charge, is 6.2¢/kWh, denominated in 2007 dollars. The levelized cost of electricity from gas, exclusive of any carbon charge, is 6.5¢/kWh

Of course, the nuclear option has to deal with the question already raised early in this thread (from about post #240) about the practical speed of ramping up construction at a rate to meet the demand.

My starting question on nuclear is, if it is so cheap and clean, how come countries are not already doing it? We seem on the brink and yet the nuclear renaissance is still awaiting lift-off. So either a) goverments are fools, b) nuclear does not actually pan out, or c) fossil fuels are not seen to be an issue (so back to "governments are fools" then ).

 

[nismaratwork]

Nuclear is an emotional issue. So in the interest of rational assessments, here is the most current relative cost assessments that I have seen (from a fairly pro-nuclear source).

http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-004.pdf



Of course, the nuclear option has to deal with the question already raised early in this thread (from about post #240) about the practical speed of ramping up construction at a rate to meet the demand.

My starting question on nuclear is, if it is so cheap and clean, how come countries are not already doing it? We seem on the brink and yet the nuclear renaissance is still awaiting lift-off. So either a) goverments are fools, b) nuclear does not actually pan out, or c) fossil fuels are not seen to be an issue (so back to "governments are fools" then ).

Can't fear and NIMBY, mixed with our electoral process and strong existing energy lobbies explain it well enough? I think I'll choose "a", but with the addition that the people and the government are, as the Egyptians have been saying so eloquently, "One hand". NIMBY comes from the public, not from the top.

One question: the cost for nuclear power is based in the current economic climate, right? Would that change if the US made a real choice to move from coal to Geiger clicks, and made it an exportable industry?

Your points seem to outline a void in a market that sooner or later (whichever view) is going to need filling and FAST. It seems that we could take the lead from other nations in reactor design, and the benefits that come in materials and other areas as a result. We all got together to send some fellows to walk on our moon, it seems reasonable to "moonshot" a project that could be vital to national security and the world economy.

As you say though, if it's that easy, why aren't we doing it... and back at square one. *rubs temples*

 

[apeiron]

Can't fear and NIMBY, mixed with our electoral process and strong existing energy lobbies explain it well enough? I think I'll choose "a", but with the addition that the people and the government are, as the Egyptians have been saying so eloquently, "One hand". NIMBY comes from the public, not from the top.

He's back!

Nimby is of course an issue. On the other hand, when governments really want to do things, they can manipulate public opinion. The US problem is probably that the government wanted to leave it to the free markets and it does in fact require a state-level commitment.

India wants to/must go nuclear in a big way. China and Korea are eyeing up the market leadership position. So the "moonshot" effort may well come from the East if anywhere.

 

[nismaratwork]

He's back!

Nimby is of course an issue. On the other hand, when governments really want to do things, they can manipulate public opinion. The US problem is probably that the government wanted to leave it to the free markets and it does in fact require a state-level commitment.

India wants to/must go nuclear in a big way. China and Korea are eyeing up the market leadership position. So the "moonshot" effort may well come from the East if anywhere.

True on all counts, and it seems like just another industry we're ceding for no good reason. Still, for humanity at large, it has to come from SOMEWHERE.

 

[Al68]

...My starting question on nuclear is, if it is so cheap and clean, how come countries are not already doing it?...

Who said nuclear power was cheap? Still not understand my comments? The fuel is cheap. Building and operating the plant is expensive.

And countries are already doing it, despite the high initial cost of building a nuclear power plant. And the fact that the fuel is cheap, plentiful, and very, very efficient relative to burning fossil fuels provides an incentive to continue building them, since improved efficiency, technology, efficiency of scale, and innovation can potentially drastically reduce that cost over time. After all, we are talking about a technology in its infancy.

And it should be pointed out that the above claim that nuclear power is inherently "very, very efficient relative to burning fossil fuels" is a monstrous understatement.

 

[apeiron]

Still not understand my comments?

It was the relevance that was in question.

You could argue wind is cheap too. In fact it cost nothing does it? And it will never run out. However obviously we still have to go a little futher to talk meaningfully about it as a substitute cheap energy.

 

[mheslep]

One authorative figure in the peak oil debate is Robert Hirsch, ...

Well informed, knowledgeable maybe. Not authoritative, especially not on matters of economics. The fact that Hirsch, who still keeps a working http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement" fusion reactor on his desk that he famously co-invented, attempts to go beyond his field and declaim on worldwide economic predictions discredits him in my view.Edit:
I see http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Nivedi-61110-ASPO2005-Hirsch-PEAKING-WORLD-OIL-PRODUCTION-IMPACTS-MITIGATION-RISK-MANAGEMENT-PRESENTATION-PROBLEM-CON-Business-Finance-ppt-powerpoint/" which says in part (slide 5):

Experts overestimated North American natural gas reserves and future production as late as 2001
...
US natural gas production is now flat and in decline
If wrong on natural gas what's the risk on oil?

Then when I go to check actual US production figures I see http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9050us1m.htm" , with US production up nearly 400 billion cf since 2005, and leaves me thinking Hirsch is prone to unsupported, if not crackpot, assertions on at least this subject.

 

[mheslep]

Who said nuclear power was cheap? Still not understand my comments? The fuel is cheap. Building and operating the plant is expensive.

Apparently even nuclear construction can be done relatively inexpensively, even if it is not currently inexpensive in the West.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2115378&postcount=115

 

[apeiron]

Well informed, knowledgeable maybe. Not authoritative, especially not on matters of economics.

You may not have noticed that he has two co-authors...both economists. And economists specialising in energy issues.

Roger H. Bezdek is president of Management Information Services, an economic-research firm. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1971 and has worked in academia and for the federal government.

Robert M. Wendling is vice president of Management Information Services. He received a master’s degree in economics from George Washington University in 1977. He has served as senior economist at the U.S. Department of Commerce, program manager at the U.S. Department of Energy and director of the Department of Commerce's STAT-USA office

 

[apeiron]

with US production up nearly 400 billion cf since 2005, and leaves me thinking Hirsch is prone to unsupported, if not crackpot, assertions on at least this subject.

I think your quotes are rather selective and out of context here. Are you saying that in 2005, production was not in decline? Or that in 2001, reserves weren't being over-estimated?

Of course, if you can show sources where Hirsh was calling 2005 already the US peak in natural gas production, then that might have something. But so far you haven't.

In the meantime here is a good assessment of the actual picture on natural gas...being more than a single slide of bullet points easily taken out of context, at least there is something concrete here you can now attack.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Dont-Count-on-Natural-Gas-to-Solve-US-Energy-Problems.html

In summary, a review of information related to US natural gas production (and in particular shale gas production) does not give much confidence that it can ramp up by more than a small percentage over the next 25 years. Even if it can, there is a chance that global warming gases associated with shale gas will suddenly become an EPA concern, and production will need to be scaled back.

There is little evidence that shale gas producers can make money at current low prices. At higher price levels, coal becomes a cheaper alternative, and substitution becomes more difficult. Coal and petroleum consumption is so large in relationship to natural gas consumption that trying to ramp up natural gas to replace more than a very small percentage of these fuels would seem to be impossible.

 

[Al68]

It was the relevance that was in question.

How so? My comments were in response to a claim that a limited supply of uranium stands in the way of nuclear power being a good solution. My obvious point was that uranium supply is irrelevant to the cost of nuclear power. But I pointed that out already, so now I'm baffled as to why my comments were so difficult to understand.

You could argue wind is cheap too. In fact it cost nothing does it? And it will never run out.

Yes, and if someone claimed that wind power was expensive due to a limited supply of wind, my response would be similar to my comments in this thread.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well... wind does run out, just not on a human timescale. I think when our atmosphere is balsted away by an expanding sun, we can rest assured that wind will no longer be a factor.

Wind isn't magic, it's just very VERY plentiful... but not everywhere, not all of the time.

My view: we NEED nucelar power as a stop-gap until we can begin to add storage capcity to the power grid, and that's not coming soon it seems. I don't think giant building-sized liquid batteries count... there need to be storage in the grid, or we need to burn SOMETHING.

 

[Proton Soup]

can we not just dig down to the magma and steal heat stored in the earth? i mean, how many eons would it last before we shut down the magnetic shield?

 

[nismaratwork]

can we not just dig down to the magma and steal heat stored in the earth? i mean, how many eons would it last before we shut down the magnetic shield?

Heh... probably a very long time, but then it might be a poor idea to breach a magma chamber by accident, and WOW that equipment would need to be tough. Still, I get your point, and there are other ways to exploit the geomagnetic field... just not cost effective.

If you added storage to wind, solar, and even more exotic means... efficient and reusable capacitor, then suddenly it's not insane to do this. I don't mean one house with a battery, I mean long term serious storage, and a new infrastructure to transmit it.

 

[Proton Soup]

Heh... probably a very long time, but then it might be a poor idea to breach a magma chamber by accident, and WOW that equipment would need to be tough. Still, I get your point, and there are other ways to exploit the geomagnetic field... just not cost effective.

If you added storage to wind, solar, and even more exotic means... efficient and reusable capacitor, then suddenly it's not insane to do this. I don't mean one house with a battery, I mean long term serious storage, and a new infrastructure to transmit it.

capacitors that don't leak would be a blessing indeed. heck, i need to go look that up again. i was under the impression we had them lasting up to a few days already...

 

[nismaratwork]

capacitors that don't leak would be a blessing indeed. heck, i need to go look that up again. i was under the impression we had them lasting up to a few days already...

I believe so... I think it was MIT or Caltech (I always forget names) that made some real inroads into "supercapactiors" using various arrangements of carbon. It seems promising to me, but this is an area where my ignorance is profound.

Still, we need more than a few days, or we need a few days dirt cheap. Time... both will take time, and until then we have to consider whether it's coal, or clickclickclick. My preference is nuclear, because frankly with coal moving toward sequestering carbon... toxic waste is toxic waste. If we're going to deal with that, let's at least get our bang for our buck in a proven science.

 

[Al68]

My preference is nuclear, because frankly with coal moving toward sequestering carbon... toxic waste is toxic waste. If we're going to deal with that, let's at least get our bang for our buck in a proven science.

I agree with that, and would add that building and operating nuclear power plants has the added bonus of making us better at building and operating nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power has far greater potential than other energy sources. And currently operating commercial plants are far from representative of that potential.

As a single (but typical of the US Navy nuclear program) example, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Dwight_D._Eisenhower_%28CVN-69%29" nuclear aircraft carrier was commissioned in 1977, designed and built with nuclear technology in its infancy, and went in for refueling for the first time in 2001, and with a reactor design that very, very safe, to say the least.

Of course commercial nuclear plants are necessarily hamstrung by national security concerns with enriched uranium, but to say there is much room for improvement in commercial nuclear plant technology is a monumental understatement.