Re: So what now do we do?

REPLY: This discussion again points out that we (and the rest of the world) are
in a serious position regarding our energy future. None of the reports about
world oil supplies and discovery rates are very encouraging; and natural gas
reserves, while abundant in several overseas countries, are on the wane in the
US and Canada. So our access to sufficient natural gas may be even more in
doubt than our access to oil, since getting natural gas from overseas sources
will require a huge investment in LNG technologies -shipping and port
facilities - all of which will be costly and will have significant lead times.
And of course, there are substantial environmental reasons for reducing our use
of fossil fuels
The only known technology that has the potential to provide sufficient energy
for an indefinite time period and that is not subject to the problem of
intermittent supply (as are direct solar and wind technologies) is the nuclear
fast breeder technology. An energy supply system based on fast-breeder nuclear
technology could, in principle, supply all of the energy needs of the world for
an indefinite time into the future. Of course, it would mean an eventual switch
to an all-electrified energy economy, which is certainly possible, but would
entail major, major changes in the way our society is structured - particularly
its transportation system. But currently there are no commercial fast-breeder
reactors in operation. France has permanently shut down its 1200 MWe
SuperPhenix liquid metal (sodium) fast breeder reactor for several reasons
including: high cost of operation; low operation/downtime ratio; difficulty of
servicing the reactor; and a rather poor safety record. Unless costs of the
fast breeder technology come down, its safety record improves substantially,
and we solve the socio/political problems associated with the operation of
nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, one cannot be optimistic that fast breeder
technologies have a promising future.
MIT has just published a new interdisciplinary study entitled "The Future of
Nuclear Power" (http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/org/n/nuclearpower/ ) in which
they make various recommendations regarding the expansion of the open-fuel
cycle (one time through then waste storage - no reprocessing) nuclear program
(the current US system) to three time it current level within the next 15-20
years. Their contention is that there exists a sufficient supply of uranium to
afford a significant expansion of the conventional nuclear power generating
system. They do, however, note four problems that must be solved in order for
this to occur: the construction cost of nuclear power plants must be reduced;
safety of operation must be improved (and be so perceived by the public); the
nuclear waste storage issue must be solved; and the nuclear proliferation issue
must be solved. Again most of these problems have significant socio/political
components and do not allow of a simple technical solutions.
We are living in an age when energy issues are becoming extremely critical. We
can not afford to long-delay making very important and world-shaping decisions
about our energy future. Given the fact that the US now has a significant
presence in nearly all of the major oil-rich regions of the world (including
the Caspian region , but excluding only Iran) it seems clear that our leaders -
knowingly or not - have positioned the US so that it can assure some kind of
stable access to the remaining world oil resources. But that at best will be a
stop-gap measure. We need to develop other resources on a vast array of energy
fronts. I think that there will be no one single answer to our energy future,
despite the lure of nuclear fast-breeders. Certainly energy conservation, on
the consumer level, but also on the industrial and commercial level needs to be
part - and an important part - of our energy future. But I also think that an
expanded nuclear program of some kind must be a much more significant component
of our energy future than it now is.
ken piers

>>> George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> 12/4/2003 12:39:55 PM >>>
Jay Willingham wrote:
>
> Telling people in a technology driven society to back off on using that
> technology is simply not going to work. Ask Gray Davis.

        There's a difference between telling people to stop driving cars and
asking them
to use cars more prudently & efficiently. It would not be in any serious
sense a
backing off of technology to get people to stop driving SUVs.

                                                Shalom,
                                                George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Thu Dec 4 15:47:17 2003