Even if global warming doesn't happen as projected, we will still run out of fossil fuels, or at least reach the stage when their extraction becomes too expensive.

Is nuclear the only answer? Most think that renewables can't meet our needs unless we dramatically change our way of life and also aim for a sustainable world population.

I think the safety image of Nuclear has been distorted by a few events that were very much the exception, so I'm not really that concerned that it can be safe enough. What does it really cost overall, and how much energy to you get out compared with what you put in?

[Stephen Wilde]

Nuclear fission is the best solution we have at the monment. Past fears have been largely shown to have been excessive but the long term storage of waste products remains a matter of concern. It is far less polluting to the environment than large scale renewable energy methods are with current technology.

Nuclear fusion is an appealing prospect but the problem is that it takes more energy to control a fusion process than one can get out of it so it is largely an irrelevance at present but more research should be encouraged.

However you cut it total global population is the real issue. No point in unlimited cheap energy from any source if it just leads to ever increasing populations.

Damage to other species and the environment is a consequence of too many people not total consumption or even per capita consumption.

The only long term solution is to match global population to the level of lifestyle required. It will take a couple of centuries of strife and pain to get there but it is inevitable that it will happen unless we blow up the planet in the meantime. However history shows that a balance of fear usually resuts in stabilisation rather than destruction.

If nations like Iran do get the nuclear bomb they will know that first use will result in the destruction of their capital city within the hour. It's more a matter of 'willy waving'.

Given that we cannot use force to restrain world family sizes we will just have to ride the wave until it happens naturally as each nation acquires enough wealth to not need children to support individual citizens in old age. Once that happens and children become a cost not an asset then the problem goes away because breeding levels fall below replacement requirements.

We need to help the third world to get wealthier as fast as possible rather than stopping their growth by reducing first world consumption. Counterintuitive as it is it is the best way forward.

[MikeTV]

I agree with some of your points, but not the last part. Allowing western consumption to continue to excess would be disastrous for the planet, and particularly the third world. And if the third world does manage to industrialise, this will lead to snowballing amounts of damaging consumption.

The only answer is to pursue means of sustainable consumption (if that's not an oxymoron), and hopefully everyone will be able partake without negative consequences.

I also think the idea that people stop procreating in times of prosperity, is flawed. I accept that it seems to be true in the West - but levels of mortality are much lower. I haven't checked the statistics/rates, but population growth exists in the west too.

[njp]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I haven't checked the statistics/rates, but population growth exists in the west too.

Some numbers here. They seem to be reputably sourced...

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I agree with some of your points, but not the last part. Allowing western consumption to continue to excess

Who decides what is 'excess'? Is it you?

Originally Posted by MikeTV

would be disastrous for the planet,

The planet will be ok. It's folk you should worry about.

Originally Posted by MikeTV

and particularly the third world.

The ONLY way for the third world to improve its lot is through free trade. Lefties prefer comic relief, Live 8 and other such nonsense though.

Originally Posted by MikeTV

And if the third world does manage to industrialise, this will lead to snowballing amounts of damaging consumption.

Consumption allows decent folk to live decent lives. Ask the average sub-saharan african if he would like to 'consume' or not.

Originally Posted by MikeTV

The only answer is to pursue means of sustainable consumption (if that's not an oxymoron), and hopefully everyone will be able partake without negative consequences.

Trade is what makes the world go around. It is what puts the dinner on the tables of those involved. If your really bothered about poor people, you will want our markets, particularly agricultural, open to the third world. Scrapping the Common Agricultural Policy would be a good start, and if the French won’t have it (and we both know they won’t), exiting the EU and trading with the third world directly will.

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I also think the idea that people stop procreating in times of prosperity, is flawed. I accept that it seems to be true in the West - but levels of mortality are much lower. I haven't checked the statistics/rates, but population growth exists in the west too.

If you look at GDP per capita, and mortality rates, I bet you will find a correlation there somehow.

Cheers mate,

Damo

[Stephen Wilde]

It's a matter of definitions and we may not be in disagreement since I do support restraint in the West via technology supported by common sense energy and product management but the limiting factor is the possibility of damage to international economics by overenthusiastic Western actions.

It is likely that consumption restraint without population restraint will just lead to the crisis occurring at a higher level of population and damage to the planet with greater total human suffering than if we allow the crisis to occur earlier at a lower total global population. On that basis what seems now to be the 'right' thing to do could in the medium to long term be entirely counterproductive. A problem deferred is often a problem increased.

Population growth in the West is entirely due to immigration and the economic insecurity of ethnic minorities. Once they become able to finance old age without depending on children they also reduce breeding to less than replacement level. Middle class ethnic minority families have as few children as middle class majority families. It's a class and wealth issue not a cultural or racial issue.

Ideally sustainable consumption by all immediately would be ideal but it is already too late by virtue of world population growth over the past 50 years. The numbers in the third world are so large that the action per capita needed from the West to achieve a significant effect would be devastating economically and socially and all it would achieve is to accommodate greater population growth in the third world which would itself defer the inevitable and cause greater total damage and suffering for the planet and it's people.

We have to either ride the wave and cope intelligently as best we can or we impose draconian social control worldwide with consequent violence strife and loss of all the freedom that has been fought for and hard earned over the past 500 years.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

It's a matter of definitions and we may not be in disagreement since I do support restraint in the West via technology supported by common sense energy and product management but the limiting factor is the possibility of damage to international economics by overenthusiastic Western actions.

It is likely that consumption restraint without population restraint will just lead to the crisis occurring at a higher level of population and damage to the planet with greater total human suffering than if we allow the crisis to occur earlier at a lower total global population. On that basis what seems now to be the 'right' thing to do could in the medium to long term be entirely counterproductive. A problem deferred is often a problem increased.

Population growth in the West is entirely due to immigration and the economic insecurity of ethnic minorities. Once they become able to finance old age without depending on children they also reduce breeding to less than replacement level. Middle class ethnic minority families have as few children as middle class majority families. It's a class and wealth issue not a cultural or racial issue.

Ideally sustainable consumption by all immediately would be ideal but it is already too late by virtue of world population growth over the past 50 years. The numbers in the third world are so large that the action per capita needed from the West to achieve a significant effect would be devastating economically and socially and all it would achieve is to accommodate greater population growth in the third world which would itself defer the inevitable and cause greater total damage and suffering for the planet and it's people.

We have to either ride the wave and cope intelligently as best we can or we impose draconian social control worldwide with consequent violence strife and loss of all the freedom that has been fought for and hard earned over the past 500 years.

Bloomin heck Tom, are you a Time Lord?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

[Edit, 23:10] Actually, having re-read your post S.W. I think I was rather flippant. Sorry about that.

What I wouldn't like to see is state intervention reducing the opportunity of those able to fund children to have them. By the same token, I don’t like the current state where people who are unable to fund children are subsidised into having them.

That is no doubt contentious, but that is my opinion.

Cheers mate, and sorry about my flippancy.

Damo

[Stephen Wilde]

Hi Damo,

I was answering Mike TV. Didn't find your comments flippant at all.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by njp

Some numbers here. They seem to be reputably sourced...

Damn it! I should have checked the statistics

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Hi Damo,

I was answering Mike TV. Didn't find your comments flippant at all.

Mate, I was being sarcastic, but the intention was humourous. But you've got to be careful around here these days, at least with views like mine (yours too ).

Cheers,

Damo

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

It's a matter of definitions and we may not be in disagreement since I do support restraint in the West via technology supported by common sense energy and product management but the limiting factor is the possibility of damage to international economics by overenthusiastic Western actions.

It is likely that consumption restraint without population restraint will just lead to the crisis occurring at a higher level of population and damage to the planet with greater total human suffering than if we allow the crisis to occur earlier at a lower total global population. On that basis what seems now to be the 'right' thing to do could in the medium to long term be entirely counterproductive. A problem deferred is often a problem increased.

Population growth in the West is entirely due to immigration and the economic insecurity of ethnic minorities. Once they become able to finance old age without depending on children they also reduce breeding to less than replacement level. Middle class ethnic minority families have as few children as middle class majority families. It's a class and wealth issue not a cultural or racial issue.

Ideally sustainable consumption by all immediately would be ideal but it is already too late by virtue of world population growth over the past 50 years. The numbers in the third world are so large that the action per capita needed from the West to achieve a significant effect would be devastating economically and socially and all it would achieve is to accommodate greater population growth in the third world which would itself defer the inevitable and cause greater total damage and suffering for the planet and it's people.

We have to either ride the wave and cope intelligently as best we can or we impose draconian social control worldwide with consequent violence strife and loss of all the freedom that has been fought for and hard earned over the past 500 years.

If I can be frank, what it sounds like you are saying is - the West should continue to do nothing (or very little), and we should just hope that developing nations, well...develop. It seems like a bit of stretch to me that it will solve itself that way. More likely is that developing nations will begin to want to consume at western levels, greatly increasing the problem, considering the size of those populations. Even if population level increases do decline in those developing countries, western consumption levels are orders of magnitude above those of the developing world (per capita), and so consumption increases would more than offset any population declines. Which is why I see the pursuit of sustainable consumption as the only solution - beginning in the West.

[damo_in_sale]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

More likely is that developing nations will begin to want to consume at western levels

When local famine means that you and your family die, what would you expect these good, decent and yet wretchedly poor people to want? Not develop?

People who live in developed nations have the uncanny ability of drinking water free from ones neighbours’ excrement, the disgraceful ability to keep raw meat fresh and relatively disease free in the refrigerator and the ability to distance oneself from their own poo. People who live in undeveloped nations seem to lack this.

I for one think it immoral to deny BILLIONS the possibility of improving their wretched lot by protecting our markets and pulling up the ladder. No matter how you butter it, that is what you propose.

Sorry to be so argumentative mate

Cheers,

Damo

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

When local famine means that you and your family die, what would expect these good and decent people to want? Not develop?

Don't be silly Damo.

Err, I asked for opinions about nuclear (fission) power. Is it the way to go to maintain our way of life? Just about everything we use depends on electricity, including (especially) our AV stuff. Renewables can't produce enough, ever (or can they?).

We can discuss how we help the developing world, but I'd like to know if nuclear actually produces net energy. Building, running, and securing the plants, plus dealing with waste over millennia are hugely expensive undertakings. Are there any figures out there? We know the French went nuclear in a big way, but are they just deferring costs to the future?

[njp]

Originally Posted by nikyzf

I'd like to know if nuclear actually produces net energy. Building, running, and securing the plants, plus dealing with waste over millennia are hugely expensive undertakings. Are there any figures out there? We know the French went nuclear in a big way, but are they just deferring costs to the future?

There's an analysis here. Nuclear comes out rather well, with only hydro-electric power having a comparable input/output energy ratio over the entire lifecycle, if centrifuge Uranium enrichment is used.

[Stephen Wilde]

MikeTV,

We need to move cautiosly towards reducing Western per capita consumption. Draconian reductions would be counterproductive for the reasons I have given.

We are already in unavoidable trouble due to global population growth over the past 50 years and there is no easy or simple option. There will be a crisis at some point whatever we do now.

The choice is between being aggressively proactive now and possibly making the situation worse in the long term or being cautiously proactive now and doing our best to mitigate and adapt to the worst possibilities. Neither route is ideal and neither will avoid severe damage.

Unfortunately I see greater danger from the Greens and opportunistic politicians than from the underlying problem. That underlying problem is unavoidable whereas the danger of counterproductive political action is still avoidable.

We need to somehow preserve the benefits of current western civilisation and spread it more widely without destroying our civilisation, the planet or ourselves. The central command economy of the Soviet Union was disastrous for both people and the environment. Greens and politicians are seeking a command and control solution which will give us the worst of all possible worlds unless they are restrained.

Originally Posted by njp

There's an analysis here. Nuclear comes out rather well, with only hydro-electric power having a comparable input/output energy ratio over the entire lifecycle, if centrifuge Uranium enrichment is used.

Thanks. That's just the sort of thing I'm after. Now for some reading...

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

MikeTV,

We need to move cautiosly towards reducing Western per capita consumption. Draconian reductions would be counterproductive for the reasons I have given.

We are already in unavoidable trouble due to global population growth over the past 50 years and there is no easy or simple option. There will be a crisis at some point whatever we do now.

The choice is between being aggressively proactive now and possibly making the situation worse in the long term or being cautiously proactive now and doing our best to mitigate and adapt to the worst possibilities. Neither route is ideal and neither will avoid severe damage.

Unfortunately I see greater danger from the Greens and opportunistic politicians than from the underlying problem. That underlying problem is unavoidable whereas the danger of counterproductive political action is still avoidable.

We need to somehow preserve the benefits of current western civilisation and spread it more widely without destroying our civilisation, the planet or ourselves. The central command economy of the Soviet Union was disastrous for both people and the environment. Greens and politicians are seeking a command and control solution which will give us the worst of all possible worlds unless they are restrained.

Third world might be dealing with over population but it is not them per person which is destroying our atmosphere from industrialization. We are doing to china and INdia as you said to get those other countries to our technilogical level by following our example. In this case the Industrial nations is the Bad example to follow!

Instead of them becoming more like us we need to focus making them less like us by giving them the right technology from the start that does not contribute to the mess we made by burning fossil fuels and such. In the procces they may exceed us for they won't have to undo the infrastructure that the industrialized nation is having to deal with. (It is easier to teach a dog a new habit than it is to unteach an old habit and replace it with a new one.)

[Corey USA]

How about the Nuclear reactor class 4 One type can use a more abundant uranium in a pebble reactor, I think, then when it is used another type can use the waste to help minimize the leftover waste to disposal.

key is to maximize the waste to energy ratio and reuse.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

How about the Nuclear reactor class 4 One type can use a more abundant uranium in a pebble reactor, I think, then when it is used another type can use the waste to help minimize the leftover waste to disposal.

I suspect you are thinking of breeder reactors. These can create more fissile material than they consume.

[Stephen Wilde]

Corey,

We do not need them to be like us. We just need them to be wealthy enough to voluntarily reduce the breeding rates. Wealth takes many forms.
Both them and us need to use technology and restraint to reduce per capita consumption but it will harm the third world most if we just pull up the drawbridge and destroy worldwide economic development.
We should indeed give them the 'right' technology - and use it ourselves- but what is it ? And no point relying on technology if populations just keep going up.

I'd better stop there because we are well off topic now.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

MikeTV,

We need to move cautiosly towards reducing Western per capita consumption. Draconian reductions would be counterproductive for the reasons I have given.

I'm not advocating draconian reductions in consumption - only extremists would. You can't put the cat in the bag, I appreciate that. But you can pursue sustainable consumption, and make consumers pay for the damage they cause. That doesn't necessarily mean economic suicide, if it's done through international agreements.

We are already in unavoidable trouble due to global population growth over the past 50 years and there is no easy or simple option. There will be a crisis at some point whatever we do now.

The choice is between being aggressively proactive now and possibly making the situation worse in the long term or being cautiously proactive now and doing our best to mitigate and adapt to the worst possibilities. Neither route is ideal and neither will avoid severe damage.

Unfortunately I see greater danger from the Greens and opportunistic politicians than from the underlying problem. That underlying problem is unavoidable whereas the danger of counterproductive political action is still avoidable.

That's too general a statement, I think. That's just throwing in the towel, and assuming that anything we do will ultimately make matters worse. I can't agree with that. There are numerous envionmental policies that have had a positive impact in the long term, and have not wreaked economic disaster - such as the clean air act.

We need to somehow preserve the benefits of current western civilisation and spread it more widely without destroying our civilisation, the planet or ourselves. The central command economy of the Soviet Union was disastrous for both people and the environment. Greens and politicians are seeking a command and control solution which will give us the worst of all possible worlds unless they are restrained.

I agree - I don't want to live in a communist controlled state, either. That's not what anyone is seriously suggesting, except perhaps a few extremists on the fringes of the debate.

[paul_w]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I agree - I don't want to live in a communist controlled state, either. That's not what anyone is seriously suggesting, except perhaps a few extremists on the fringes of the debate.

I think that is the big issue here people like me who remain unconvinced of agw but dont totally in any way rule it out, Can only see these extremists shouting from the rooftops what we must or must not do to save the planet.

Can anyone seriously see them "the greens" letting us just build new nuclear power stations without one hell of a fight cos i can't.

And that looks to me to be the only way we can have a real effect on reducing our co2 emmisions in a substantial way.

I would rather see a nuclear plant in my backyard than something like the drax power station which burns 36000 yes thirty six thousand tons of coal every day

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by paul_w

Can anyone seriously see them "the greens" letting us just build new nuclear power stations without one hell of a fight cos i can't.

I wouldn't be so sure. It's an interesting fact that historically the campaigns against nuclear reactors have had a significantly detrimental effect on the environment. Nowadays, many environmentalists are advocating nuclear power as a way forward. They are not all nutters in trees!

I would rather see a nuclear plant in my backyard than something like the drax power station which burns 36000 yes thirty six thousand tons of coal every day

Me too, although I'd rather have neither.

[Corey USA]

Miketv "ferrari Is not sustainable consumption and never will be. So what do you propose we do with it? Most if not all of the tech from Ferrari never make it to the average citizens and is proprietary and uses exotic materials."

For this reason Why allow it to continue and don't give me that crap about economy and that the rich spend the most. The poor are the ones that spend the most due to the accumulative effect of sheer numbers. The poor spend the most for All of there money and wealth goes into necessity.

Stephen Wilde:

Then what is wealth???? Right now its the all mighty dollar or currency of a particular region.

Wealth is not always materialistic but it takes education to drive that point home. Right now we are working up a very steep mountain due to the lack of education and the Excessive advertising and political manipulation to steer us towards excessive consumption. Only way to stop this kind of action in time is to have the governments ban it so as to not mislead or confuse people about what action is needed.

By the way banning abusive actions is not draconian in any way its protecting people from abuses that is the purpose of government to make rules by which we live by so as not to do harm to others.


NJP
breeder reactor is one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor , pebble reactor is another, then there is another that can use the waste from other reactors as fuel can't remember the names but there are at least 4 or 5 different types being pursued.

reason pebble reactor stuck in my mind is that it uses baseball size uranium called pebbles. It is a loose mix of uranium in the center with ceramic and polymer layers. Because it is not concentrated uranium it is impossible to make into a dirty bomb due to its bulk and weight.

Another reason pebble reactors is good is that its scalable to the community needs.

Its supposedly safer for its a closed loop system thus can never have a melt down. this claim is made by the designers not me.

does not use water to cool so it is not reliant on whether there is enough water for cooling or not.

list goes on with this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

I pulled this from the US energy website
http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/neGenIV4.html

U.S. Generation IV Priorities
Five of the six technology concepts identified in the Technology Roadmap are being pursued at varying levels of effort based on their technology status and potential to meet program and national goals. Two are thermal neutron spectrum systems (Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR) and Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor (SCWR)) with coolants and temperatures that enable hydrogen or electricity production with high efficiency, and three are fast neutron spectrum systems (Gas-Cooled (GFR), Lead-Cooled (LFR), and Sodium-Cooled (SFR) fast reactors) that will enable more effective management of actinides through recycling of most components in the discharged fuel. The U.S. is not currently researching the molten salt reactor (MSR).

DOE-NE Strategic Goals

While the Department is supporting research on several reactor concepts, priority is being given to the VHTR, a system compatible with advanced electricity and hydrogen electricity generation capabilities. The VHTR concept is being pursued in the United States as the next generation nuclear plant (NGNP) in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.The emphasis on VHTR reflects its potential for economically and safely producing electricity and hydrogen at high efficiency without emitting noxious gases. This fits within the medium-term Administration goals of enhancing the security of our energy supply and doing so in an environmentally responsible manner. Fuel cycle options for the VHTR (a thermal-spectrum reactor) are more limited than for fast-spectrum reactors. Fast-spectrum reactors are a potential component in our long-term energy solution and, as such, are researched at a lower level of activity than the other reactor concepts. Their mission strengths result from their superior ability to burn recycled nuclear fuel. losing the fuel cycle by recycling will reduce quantity and radiotoxicity of nuclear waste and increase uranium fuel utilization.





By the way there will be a drop in the population in the USA when the baby boomers pass away. hhmmm wonder if that is why they want to let so many illegals in to keep the whole flawed economy going that is killing us.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I wouldn't be so sure. It's an interesting fact that historically the campaigns against nuclear reactors have had a significantly detrimental effect on the environment. Nowadays, many environmentalists are advocating nuclear power as a way forward. They are not all nutters in trees!
Me too, although I'd rather have neither.

The green nutters you refer too Are looking at the total cost not just out of pocket cost the nuclear is the lesser of two evils in regards to pollution this is why they now advocate for it. They are also smart enough to realize the nuclear reactors of generation 4 are much better design and can reduce the Chernobyl and such disasters.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

The green nutters you refer too Are looking at the total cost not just out of pocket cost the nuclear is the lesser of two evils in regards to pollution this is why they now advocate for it. They are also smart enough to realize the nuclear reactors of generation 4 are much better design and can reduce the Chernobyl and such disasters.

I agree. It's also hard to compare costs on "nuclear" pollution vs. other kinds, when you consider the millions of years it takes to decay.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I agree. It's also hard to compare costs on "nuclear" pollution vs. other kinds, when you consider the millions of years it takes to decay.

Some of the lower uranium will not take millions of years If I remember right there is one that will only last 500 years but still to long. Uranium 235 or is it 238 last 100,000nds to millions. Think I would rather do with consintrated radiation in a salt mine than the earth burning because its too hot.

[damo_in_sale]

How secure is nuclear fuel supply chaps?

It would appear that over time we in Europe are becoming more dependent upon the Russians for our fossil fuels, and this fills me with dread. After all, they don't exactly have a friendly history with regards to their attitude to the western world (including WWII, not just the post WWII era).

So in response, if we do make a drive to nuclear, are the nations with the natural resources reliable and likely to be friendly, long term?

Cheers peeps,

Damo

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by damo_in_sale

How secure is nuclear fuel supply chaps?

It would appear that over time we in Europe are becoming more dependent upon the Russians for our fossil fuels, and this fills me with dread. After all, they don't exactly have a friendly history with regards to their attitude to the western world (including WWII, not just the post WWII era).

Err...they were our allies! And about 18 million of them died fighting fascism for us.

So in response, if we do make a drive to nuclear, are the nations with the natural resources reliable and likely to be friendly, long term?

I don't see the Russians being too unhappy to sell us fossil fuels. But yes, the drive towards nuclear power is undoubtedly motivated by our increasing dependence on fossil fuels from abroad.