George Carty said:

A question for those critical of “renewables” here:

What energy policy would you advocate if nuclear fission WASN’T a practical energy source? (Imagine a world where there is no naturally occuring uranium-235, because it’s half-life is less than 1 million years…)

I’d be interested in the reactions to this gedankenexperiment of mine…

Since renewables aren’t sustainable unless embedded in a larger energy economy with a mainstay of power sources which can pay their way, I would expect the ultimate situation (once the planet’s scarce supply of fossil fuel was exhausted) to resemble a pre-industrial peasant society with one important difference: Knowledge of the possibilities of high technology applied to industrial and military affairs would still exist, so the peasants would be burdened with energy production duties for the local state as well as food production duties. There would not be sufficient power for use by peasants, but there might be a small supply of sysnthesised fuel for military vehicles, enough juice to keep a modest communication system going, and possibly enough to support a small aristocracy in something like a frugal industrial level of luxury.

        BMS said:

Easy … natural gas, all the way. Not that I’m convinced that it is a practical solution … I’m in it for the fireworks.

A hundred years of this? Hell yeah!! Bring it on!

Seriously, however, if we are considering hypothetical situations, then I’m putting my vote for fairy dust, for if we can envision a world where nuclear fission does not work, then we can easily envision a world where fairy dust does.

If natural gas is as plentiful as they make it out to be, why is it that most countries import the stuff and that the price of gas was about five times higher a few years ago and that the current market price, although comparatively low, is still higher than it was last year when it was at the low point?

That kind of volatility is no better than the oil market.

        George Carty said:

A question for those critical of “renewables” here:

What energy policy would you advocate if nuclear fission WASN’T a practical energy source? (Imagine a world where there is no naturally occuring uranium-235, because it’s half-life is less than 1 million years…)

I’d be interested in the reactions to this gedankenexperiment of mine…

Easy … natural gas, all the way. Not that I’m convinced that it is a practical solution … I’m in it for the fireworks.

A hundred years of this? Hell yeah!! Bring it on!

Seriously, however, if we are considering hypothetical situations, then I’m putting my vote for fairy dust, for if we can envision a world where nuclear fission does not work, then we can easily envision a world where fairy dust does.

        George Carty said:

A question for those critical of “renewables” here:

What energy policy would you advocate if nuclear fission WASN’T a practical energy source? (Imagine a world where there is no naturally occuring uranium-235, because it’s half-life is less than 1 million years…)

I’d be interested in the reactions to this gedankenexperiment of mine…

breed uranium-233 from thorium or plutonium from U-238. You’d have to start off with a non-fission neutron source to irradiate a sample for a while, but eventually you’d get enough to sustain a critical reaction which could produce neutrons to breed even more.

But I assume what you’re saying is nuclear fission is basically off the table…

Whew… I suppose I’d be more enthusiastic about funding fusion research. I’d definitely be all for a lot more hydroelectric. In North America, there’s quite a bit of untapped hydro capacity in Alaska and northern Canada. It’d be expensive to build and there would have to be some very long and very high voltage feeds to bring it down.

Other than that, methane is the least offensive of the hydrocarbon fuels, but there’s a limited supply of natural gas, so I suppose I’d advocate gasification of biomass and coal, although that would be messy, it might be necessary.

Possibly also more geothermal. Very deep geothermal in stable areas of the earth’s crust is possible, but it’s extremely expensive and difficult to get down that far.

I think mostly I’d be for doing a lot more with hydro even if it meant some big sacrifices. For example, we could almost double the output of the plants at Niagara Falls if we accepted diverting 100% of the water and thus eliminating the falls. Victoria Falls could power much of Africa, but it has a highly variable flow-rate that becomes very low in the dry season. This could be remedied by a combination of digging out and putting an embankment where the falls are to create a large reservoir. It would completely flood some very unique areas of Africa and possibly wipe out species that only exist in a small area. A lot of power could be derived from the Mississippi at the expense of turning much of the flood plain into another great lake.

Pretty much all the water falls of the world would be diverted. All the major rivers would have very large dams on them. Places like Yellowstone National park would have to be dug up and drilled out to divert the geyser steam to turbines.

That would pretty much be what we’d have to do. I mean, I would never want to see those things happen, but it could be a no-choice situation.

        George Carty said:

Anyway that wasn’t really the question – I was wondering “how would you deal with the limitations of fossil fuels and renewable energy sources, if nuclear fission wasn’t available as an alternative?”

This is one of those life-boat questions, which are framed as to restrict the answers to one or more bad choice.

I consider these invalid even as gedankenexperiment, because they set up such an artificial set of circumstances, that there is nothing of value to be derived from the discussion.

If it wasn’t you George, I would treat this question as an attempt at springing a dialectical trap, to force ‘those critical of “renewables”’ to admit that these would have to be the only other option.

Well I am answering this question by rejecting the premise major, as impossible – and the premise minor as unlikely, thus rendering any conclusion logically invalid.

        DV82XL said:

Given this would almost necessarily mean a planet without a molten core, thus no magnetic field and consequently no atmosphere, I would suspect any form of life on this world would not have evolved at all. If it had, it would be so strange that the question you ask would not be germane to its energy needs.

Why would no U-235 mean no molten core? Is the effect of other radioisotopes not significant in comparison?

Anyway that wasn’t really the question – I was wondering “how would you deal with the limitations of fossil fuels and renewable energy sources, if nuclear fission wasn’t available as an alternative?”

        George Carty said:

(Imagine a world where there is no naturally occuring uranium-235, because it’s half-life is less than 1 million years…)

Given this would almost necessarily mean a planet without a molten core, thus no magnetic field and consequently no atmosphere, I would suspect any form of life on this world would not have evolved at all. If it had, it would be so strange that the question you ask would not be germane to its energy needs.

What energy policy would you advocate if nuclear fission WASN’T a practical energy source? (Imagine a world where there is no naturally occuring uranium-235, because it’s half-life is less than 1 million years…)

I’d be interested in the reactions to this gedankenexperiment of mine…

        Neurovore said:

Ironically, many of these fossil fuel companies might actually be funding various “green” activist and protest groups.

One example of this from here in Britain — the Greenpeace “Stop Esso” campaign (Esso is the British trading name of ExxonMobil) received funding from rival oil company BP.