''Nuclear Power is the best alternative to Fossil Fuels''

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

It won't get "worse", it will get easier, as we perfect techiques even more efficiently

I doubt that very much. Perfection is a figment of the imagination and nuclear costs will be blown away by renewables beyond 2020.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I doubt that very much. Perfection is a figment of the imagination and nuclear costs will be blown away by renewables beyond 2020.

1. Nuclear energy provides a different supply to renewables. We both know this, so why do you say otherwise?

2. "Perfection is a figment of the imagination" ? What nonesense. Have you learned nothing from the projections of peak oil that didn't materialise. Needs drive improvements. We are already seeing improvements, and it is well known that future reactors are being developed to squeeze even more energy from each kg of uranium.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

No matter, in the long term renewable energy and particularly solar will simply be cheaper than other options, because their fuel ( the sun ) is not demand sensitive at all and they have shorter energy payback periods than non renewables that never pay back.

And little issues like high costs that won't go away for solar don't bother you?

Solar thermal we both know to be maintenance intensive, so its hardly a "free" energy system. If you want true baseload supply, you'll need a steady supply of gas (or you might as well use said gas for direct generation, which ever). And it isn't without other issues as we both know.

Wind turbines (the big ones) are getting more expensive. Not just due to demand, but energy costs are also cited for the reason. You may recall I said something similar before. Well there are signs it happening.

But I must reiterate, it will be great when renewables increase in what they deliver, but lets not assume that such growth is limitless. It isn't. No energy source is.

The amount that wind and solar can deliver for a given square metre is not set to increase with any great significence. One might squeeze some more (theoretical?) efficiency out of a soalr cell, but its not going to be huge improvements that can replace nuclear power stations here in energy hungry societies in the drizzly north.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

And little issues like high costs that won't go away for solar don't bother you?

No they don't bother me because they will go away. It will be game over by 2020, when solar is cheaper than coal and other fossil fuels and I expect nuclear also. Government and Industry project this price crossover to occur by then.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Solar thermal we both know to be maintenance intensive, so its hardly a "free" energy system. If you want true baseload supply, you'll need a steady supply of gas (or you might as well use said gas for direct generation, which ever). And it isn't without other issues as we both know.

Same old arguments re-hashed. Solar will provide more jobs and yet still be cheaper. Sounds like a win win. Its not about what I want, it's about what's projected by industry and government. Fossils will be relegated to the backup role, as they should be.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Wind turbines (the big ones) are getting more expensive. Not just due to demand, but energy costs are also cited for the reason. You may recall I said something similar before. Well there are signs it happening.

Price fluctuations are common in rapidly growing markets. Nothing new there. It's a long term transition and there will be ups and downs along the way. Par for the course. Renewable energy will be prevalent by 2050 because that's a likely consequence of the mandate to reduce global greenhouse emissions. Even 2020 / 20% mandates will likely help secure the future of renewable energy, because by then industry and government views are that it will be cheaper across the board.

Originally Posted by Wobs

But I must reiterate, it will be great when renewables increase in what they deliver, but lets not assume that such growth is limitless. It isn't. No energy source is.

Heard that before also. But I must reiterate, nothing is limitless, including the supply of fossil fuels and nuclear energy to the 6 billion plus people of the world for all at affordable costs and nobody that I know thinks so either. Again nothing new there you have raised.

Originally Posted by Wobs

The amount that wind and solar can deliver for a given square metre is not set to increase with any great significence. One might squeeze some more (theoretical?) efficiency out of a soalr cell, but its not going to be huge improvements that can replace nuclear power stations here in energy hungry societies in the drizzly north.

Again not a deal breaker. The world will benefit immensely from renewable energies beyond 2020, when fossil fuels and nuclear will still be going up in price and renewables are cheaper. Long distance transmission will be economically feasible to areas not ideally suited to certain forms of renewable energy. These are the views of government and industry.

You can keep going on about these same old issues, but in the mean time, I expect renewable energy networks will just keep increasing their market penetration as we head toward 2020 20% renewable energy mandates and beyond.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

1. Nuclear energy provides a different supply to renewables. We both know this, so why do you say otherwise?

By 2050 I expect nuclear and fossils will be used as backup for most of the world's 6 billion plus population and that generation of people will wonder what all the fuss was about and be happily relying on renewable energy.

Originally Posted by Wobs

2. "Perfection is a figment of the imagination" ? What nonesense. Have you learned nothing from the projections of peak oil that didn't materialise. Needs drive improvements. We are already seeing improvements, and it is well known that future reactors are being developed to squeeze even more energy from each kg of uranium.

As indicated before diminishing returns of nuclear energy improvement at affordable cost will eventually kick in. What nonsense. Have you learned nothing about the delusions of those that think oil wont become more expensive in the longer term ? The credit crisis will fade within a year or two and the oil and other mined energy resource prices will eventually march upward, continuing along their merry way in the decades ahead. There is far more scope for upside development potential for deployment of renewable energy around the world, than there is for nuclear energy. Increasing global dependence of nuclear and other mined energy resources, is only setting the world up for a big crash some time down the track. Reducing energy dependency on mined resources like uranium, will set the 6 billion plus population of this world on a better more secure long term sustainable path.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Same old arguments re-hashed. Solar will provide more jobs and yet still be cheaper. Sounds like a win win.
[/size][/font]

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Increase in living costs owing to increased in fossil fuel costs, will push up wages, which will in turn push up the running costs of solar thermal. As will the increase in gas supply of course, but don't let that bother you.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

By 2050 I expect nuclear and fossils will be used as backup for most of the world's 6 billion plus population and that generation of people will wonder what all the fuss was about and be happily relying on renewable energy.



As indicated before diminishing returns of nuclear energy improvement at affordable cost will eventually kick in. What nonsense. Have you learned nothing about the delusions of those that think oil wont become more expensive in the longer term ? The credit crisis will fade within a year or two and the oil and other mined energy resource prices will eventually march upward, continuing along their merry way in the decades ahead. There is far more scope for upside development potential for deployment of renewable energy around the world, than there is for nuclear energy. Increasing global dependence of nuclear and other mined energy resources, is only setting the world up for a big crash some time down the track. Reducing energy dependency on mined resources like uranium, will set the 6 billion plus population of this world on a better more secure long term sustainable path.

Get back to me when:
a. Learn to form your own sentences
b. Learn about resource management, and the lack of peak oil despite decades of predictions, and reasons for their errors.

But I'll restate another point that clearly needs driving home:
Who is staying that 6billion should rely on just nuclear?

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

By 2050 I expect nuclear and fossils will be used as backup for most of the world's 6 billion plus population and that generation of people will wonder what all the fuss was about and be happily relying on renewable energy.

So the fact that renewables provide a different type of supply never bothers you.

Today's new nuclear plants will still be operational (they last about 60 years), and still using high grade uranium, and today's wind turbines and solar plants will have been replaced at least once, with little scope of coming down in price, so again your assertion does not stack up.

As indicated before diminishing returns of nuclear energy improvement at affordable cost will eventually kick in. What nonsense. Have you learned nothing about the delusions of those that think oil wont become more expensive in the longer term ? The credit crisis will fade within a year or two and the oil and other mined energy resource prices will eventually march upward, continuing along their merry way in the decades ahead. There is far more scope for upside development potential for deployment of renewable energy around the world, than there is for nuclear energy. Increasing global dependence of nuclear and other mined energy resources, is only setting the world up for a big crash some time down the track. Reducing energy dependency on mined resources like uranium, will set the 6 billion plus population of this world on a better more secure long term sustainable path.

I've shown you evidence to the contruary, and you've just stated the opposite with nothing to back it up even with any solid theory.

Oh, even if what you say is true regarding urnanium (which it isn't), we also have thorium, which is even more abundant.

You keep mentioning the needs of 6 billion people, but it misses the point. We need to exploit every affordable resource in the most environmentally friendly way. Nuclear, despite what many say is the best way to acheive this. No one is saying its the only way, but for the type of supply it provides there is no better source for us.

[EarthPro]

If nuclear power is not so renewable, why is it so many countries decide to build nuclear power plants? What use is nuclear energy in countries like North Korea or Iran if such energy is going to be depleted in such a short period of time?

[August]

Originally Posted by earthpro

if nuclear power is not so renewable, why is it so many countries decide to build nuclear power plants? What use is nuclear energy in countries like north korea or iran if such energy is going to be depleted in such a short period of time?

Shortsightedness, ho ho.