🚀 go-pugleaf

Don Libby wrote:
> 
> "D.A.Kopf" wrote:
> >
> > I'd relate sustainable and long-term to the longer known biological lifetimes,
> > say a few thousand years.
> 
> Letting Joshua Trees set the standard, eh?  It's tough to do anything
> but speculate way out there in the future uncertain, but a few thousand
> years is a problem that must be grappled with where permanent isolation
> of long-lived isotopes is concerned, so I can go with that.  Yes, with
> breeding and sea-water extraction, nuclear power is sustainable for a
> few thousand years.

It just seems sporting to give other life a chance to adapt to the changes we
cause. It may even be that the human species would derive unforseen benefits
from slower environmental exploitation.

<snip>
> 
> Basically, my view comes down to (1) nuclear power can help reduce GHG
> emissions to the large extent necessary to avoid climate catastrophe,
> (2) with very low fertility rates, human population could gradually
> decline from a peak of 8 Billion in 2050 to 2 Billion around the year
> 2200 time frame, therefore (3) right now we probably don't need to worry
> much about whether nuclear power is sutsainable for more than a few
> hundred years, though we should be mindful of the long-term (several
> thousand year) legacy of nuclear waste, so (4) the quantity of
> long-lived isotopes should be reduced if doing so does not increase the
> risk of biological harm.

All these points would be more reliably addressed by reducing energy
consumption now. The obvious problem being that any nation's unilateral
enforcement of reductions could cause it to lose ground in the global economic
competition. But I don't see why this stumbling block should go away 50 or
1000 years from now. While such population reductions might occur naturally if
everyone attains the lifestyle of US yuppies, this is turn is most unlikely
without cheap energy, and the hope that a rapid use of exhaustible resources
will quickly lead to this outcome is a recipe for disaster.

<snip>
> 
> Yes indeed.  A huge proportion (near 70%) of electricity generated is
> lost through transmission and distribution.  I suspect that fuel
> requirements for electric power would be greatly reduced with improved
> transmission and distribution techniques and organization.

Weren't you citing 3% T&D losses a while back? What changed your mind?

> 
> Sticking to the main storyline, the IPCC LESS scenario assumes that the
> amount of energgy consumed per unit of world GDP will be reduced about
> 95% through conservation and efficiency gains, and through
> "dematerialization" of economic value creation (i.e. the new
> "information economy").  GDP is expected to be 25 times higher than 1990
> levels in the year 2100 with no increase in primary energy consumption
> in the (currently) developed world.

<yawn, snip>

> >
> > I am not so optimistic about extraction of fission fuel from granite or sea
> > water, but would welcome some small pilot plants to demonstrate actual net
> > energy production from such processes.
> 
> Yeah, me too.  Grahm Cowan posted the URL of a Japanese demonstration
> project recently.  It's been done.  I'm sure if the process can be
> scaled up to commercial production economically, the Japanese will find
> a way to do it.

Didn't see that URL, but following an old post of his, a search on "uranium
and seawater" turned up lots of speculation and cross-citing of same. Found
some abstracts relating to U retention in various sorts of absorption
columns, but nothing related to experimental or theoretical net energy yields.
Did find many tiresome statements that the uranium produced might only cost X
times the current price. Two links seemed to me sensibly objective about the prospects:
http://www.uilondon.org/sym/1999/adamov.htm
http://www.essential.org/monitor/hyper/issues/1992/04/mm0492_08.html
 
<snip>
> >
> > I agree assisted cooling of the earth is not a farfetched idea. According to
> > some atmospheric models a relatively simple injection of solar-absorbing,
> > hence self-lofting, fine soot particles into the upper atmosphere would do the
> > job. Of course you might have to deal with fanatical nature lovers screaming
> > about the loss of stars in the night sky. If any remain at that time.
> 
> You mean stars or fanatical nature lovers? 

Both, but also people in general. This is the nuclear winter scenario.