I plan to create posts in the future with citations and arguments for every claim, and more.

Feedback is very welcome, positive and negative.

To ensure no miscommunication, my position is:

  • Global warming and ocean acidification are real.
  • Global warming and ocean acidificaiton are primarily human-caused.
  • The risk of extreme consequences from global warming and ocean acidification in the near future are big enough that we ought to be prudent and take extreme measures to mitigate these risks.
  • In order to mitigate global warming and ocean acidification, we must drastically reduce global CO2 emissions. Even then, this may not be enough, and we may need to pursue alternative strategies in addition (out of the scope of this article).
  • Conventional and next-gen nuclear fission power plants are very probably required in large numbers to form the foundation of any plan that will reduce CO2 emissions enough to reach our goals.

This is what you need to know. In the future, I plan to create future blog posts that give citations and arguments for each of these claims.

  • The person described by the renewable energy movement as the foremost expert in the practical details of reducing CO2 emissions with global deployment of renewable technology is Mark Jacobson. In this area, Mark Jacobson has published several peer reviewed papers and several articles that contain clear lies and deception against nuclear power and in favor of the fantasy of solving global warming with renewables and without nuclear power. For this and other reasons, I believe that the entire renewable and green movement is comparable to a religious cult; the average member is well-intentioned, but they are gullible and have been conned by the leaders who ought to know better. The leaders are a mix of delusional true-believers, and liars who profit (i.e. money profit) off their lies.
  • Biomass has low power production in terms of the land usage. Offhand, the maximum global electricity production from biomass is roughly 1% of our total electricity production target in order to meet our CO2 emissions target.
  • Hydroelectric dams require certain rare geography to function. Many of the spots already have a hydroelectric dam. It’s unlikely that we could even double hydroelectricity generation worldwide. Offhand, the maximum global electricity production from hydroelectric dams is roughly 1% of our total electricity production target in order to meet our CO2 emissions target.
  • Solar and wind might conceivably scale to the global electricity production target. However, the electricity that they produce is intermittent, unreliable. Society cannot run on intermittent power. Society and industry requires baseload generation and on-demand, reliable generation (“load-following” generation) that can be turned on and off to match the daily swings in demand. The technology does not exist to store electricity in order to change intermittent electricity into reliable baseload and load-following electricity, and it’s unlikely that we will create this sort of technology any time soon. The fundamental problem with storage is described by the concept Energy Returned On Energy Invested, or EROEI for short, and often shortened to EROI.
  • Concerns about low-level radiation is wrong. There is practically no danger from constant exposure to background radiation that is many times background rates.
  • Nuclear power can be cost competitive with coal. Conventional nuclear fission power plants are very expensive in most western countries because of needless government safety regulatory environments. In other countries where reasonable safety regulations are used, i.e. South Korea, we actually see capital costs decreasing over time, in a learning curve that is comparable to similar learning curves for solar and wind power.
    • euanmearns.com/nuclear-capital-costs-three-mile-island-and-chernobyl/
  • Concerns about uranium fuel supply are exaggerated, or simply wrong.
    • With current fission reactors, the cost of raw uranium ore is a very small portion of the cost of nuclear electricity. We could easily afford a 10x increase in the cost of uranium ore without suffering a noticeable increase in the cost of nuclear electricity. At that ore cost, the available resources are quite large. Even if uranium supplies lasted only a century, that’s a century of time where we forestall global warming and ocean acidification and have time to figure out a better solution.
    • With next-gen breeder reactors like the IFR and LFTR, nuclear fuel supplies are inexhaustible. Uranium extraction from the oceans may work. However, the best argument for the inexhaustibility of nuclear fuel supplies is the ability to extract uranium and thorium from normal granite rock.
Advertisements