Posted by: energyblogwalter | June 14, 2006

Nuclear issue will frame next vote :: Toronto Star June 14th, 2006

Toronto Star June 14th, 2006 : Nuclear issue will frame next vote

To: Letter to the Editor and Mr. Urquhart;

Contrary to your article, Peak Oil will be far and away the more
important issue socially and politically as this is much sooner at 5
years away. Making nuclear power plants for the next 20 years as
described in your story will not be possible under such a situation
anyway.

Serious oil executives and scientists have been trying to warn people.
Unfortunately we’re not listening. Chevron has been running gentle
ads in the USA regarding a change, but the underlying story of Peak
Oil has yet to be widely reported.

Peak Oil is not the end of oil, just the height of oil extraction
forevermore taking more money to get less and less. Effectively the
end of growth. Nuclear power relies on the smelting of aluminum,
mining of uranium, and various others complex industrial processes
needing oil to make a single power plant, and why they take so long to
build.

Viewed from Peak Oil, as we pass over the sine-wave hump of the Peak
to watch as our demand outstrips supply, we will be unable to waste
all those resources to make one nuclear plant and will find ourselves
focusing our efforts instead to matching the decline of oil at 2.5%
globally per year.

Nuclear was the past, as we face an Oil Depletion Protocol present,
ending up with a Conservation future.

Walter

Advertisements

Responses

  1. From email reply: Where is the electricity going to come from, then?

  2. That’s a good question. It’ll be the home.

    It’ll be in the subtraction of demand to match supply, not the
    increase of supply to match demand. I think that world is over. The
    main issue (at some point) will have to be the time to market for
    solution-X to match and keep pace with yearly oil depletion rates.

    A writer on this Richard Heinberg and echoed by Bartlett a Republican
    senator, have said something like If we had 20 years, sure nuclear is
    one answer as we’d have enough time. If we had 10 years, alternatives
    might be it, but 5 years? How? It’s going to be tight. Our ability
    to plan ahead is also the question.

    Silly analogy: If I weight 500 pounds and I’m wondering where I’m
    going to keep eating 4000 calories a day the answer isn’t maintaining
    that 4000 calories. It’s finding out what I can deal with or what’s a
    healthy usage. Right now I don’t think we know, being the #1 energy
    per capita consumer in the world. Our perspective just doesn’t allow
    us to know the difference as we eye the salad bar. The psychology of
    previous investment prevents the question. Everyday is the same.

    I found out about real conservation during the blackout when I lived
    in the Annex at the time, (it wasn’t so bad after all) but we forgot
    by now. Many examples throughout the world exist, Sweden of course
    (Swedes rock again), Japan, Germany etc. At least we can get started
    instead of being last again.

    If we learn to live with less maybe we’ll find out it’s not so bad.
    At a global depletion of 2.5% per year for oil, we might as well get
    to know our new diet before it’s forced upon us. Make some design
    choices while the lights are still on. Ditch the suburbia’s.

    Could be even worse too, but nobody can do a global audit says Matt
    Simmons author of Twilight in the Desert. He goes on to suggest
    either we get a worldwide audit in place or we fully deserve what’s
    coming our way. Many argue to start prudently planning now. So my
    post is to try to start these questions. Most Peak Oil websites are a
    bit scary but it’s possible to see the opportunities. The biggest is
    the home.

    For my vote, instead of spending $40 billion on a megaproject, make
    the home the centre-piece, let it become the source of new investment
    in new electricity and less waste. Bonus: No need to worry about
    zoning or NIMBYizm.

    If your bank and housing developer worked together and offered you a
    better mortgage or insurance rating if you installed a water-less
    water heater (hot water on demand not a tank heated all day),
    geothermal ground cooling instead of air conditioning, and either
    solar panels and/or passive solar design (doesn’t have to be panels if
    the house actually faces the sun on a street designed accordingly) the
    savings would require less generation capacity.

    Other than net-metering options to can the excess energy for profit,
    you’d be saving the grid its massive repair headache too. Fewer
    blackouts. Yet another bonus. The home would have cashflow from
    credits of unused energy also making it attractive to banking
    opportunities.

    There are a lot of solutions. But if you mean more electricity? I
    think we’ve hit the ceiling for more. It had to happen sometime. We
    just ran out of stuff.

    Hope that helps
    Walter Spicer

    http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php (Peak Oil Primer)
    http://www.peakoil.net (ASPO: bunch of scientists)

    https://energyblog.wordpress.com (My Quirky Links)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: