Comments on: Nuclear Energy Needs a Major Re-Branding

By: Congress Considers Offshore Drilling, Broader Energy Policy | Max Gladwell

Congress Considers Offshore Drilling, Broader Energy Policy | Max Gladwell — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 05:10:05 +0000

[...] if only to balance out the centuries of taxpayer subsidies paid to oil companies. We believe that nuclear power is the only reliable form of low-carbon, baseload energy. And as we’ve said repeatedly, [...]

By: off grid power hydro

off grid power hydro — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:02:15 +0000

[...] over whether nuclear power can provide a safe, viable, and clean source of energy is currently firihttp://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/06/nuclear-energy-needs-a-major-re-branding/Radiant Solar Technology – PV/WIND/Micro Hydro OFF-GRID PowerRadiant Solar Technology – Solar [...]

By: Energy Complex | Max Gladwell

Energy Complex | Max Gladwell — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:35:24 +0000

[...] we argued in Nuclear Re-Branding, environmentalists need to get realistic and look at the numbers. If we’re going to solve [...]

By: Max Gladwell

Max Gladwell — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:04:41 +0000

AvangionQ: There was a fear from investors that oil would go back down to $30 or $40/barrel, which would swamp any coal-to-liquid venture. This was back when oil was in the $60 – $70 range. Here’s the NYT blog about it: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/100-oil-liquid-coal/

By: AvangionQ

AvangionQ — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:55:37 +0000

Thanks for bringing our conversation to where it could have some impact … its always good to have additional options for the future available, but as far as I see it, here’s the rub — the United States and Kazakhstan are the only nations to have not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocols … that means that for the moment, carbon policies don’t matter for coal producers — correction, doesn’t matter from an economic standpoint, does matter for an environmental standpoint … and yes, the low-carbon alternatives (solar, wind, water, tidal) would still be preferable — if only enough people would create the political pressure to ensure that the investment into creating their infrastructure would be made … regardless, that means that there has to be another reason that the option for converting coal into a liquid fuel replacement for gasoline hasn’t been implemented …
-
[Apologies -- will read your linked articles in a day or two and get back to you, following some research]

By: Max Gladwell

Max Gladwell — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:49:24 +0000

AvangionQ: The military is already getting ready to convert coal to liquid on a massive scale: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_154.html. The Montana governor is lobbying hard for investment. The reason it’s not been done yet is that it’s only been economically viable until recently. I could be off by a bit, but I’ve heard it can be done at a rate of about $60/barrel. The Nazis did it during WWII, so it’s not technical. It’s called Fisher Tropsch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch. The Montana governor claims diesel can be produced for $1/gallon: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003199.html. So with oil at $130/barrel, it’s not about cost. As the Saudi Arabia of coal, it’s not about supply. The only thing standing in the way will be carbon policy that makes it uneconomic…and that, in turn, makes low-carbon alternatives like wind, solar, and nuclear more economic.

By: Max Gladwell

Max Gladwell — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:48:09 +0000

From AvangionQ on StumbleUpon: Converting coal to liquid fuel oil would likely greatly raise fuel costs, perhaps to double or more — otherwise, such a solution would have already been implemented … a much cheaper alternative would be to start harvesting the oceans for methane hydrates, but that isn’t much of a solution as it would only exacerbate global warming …

By: Kim

Kim — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:31:54 +0000

Wow, great round-up of stories. My basic feeling is that, since humans are (ridiculously) fallible, messing around with nuclear technology–and nuclear waste–is not the best idea. But I’m going to do my best to read these pieces with an open mind …

By: Max Gladwell

Max Gladwell — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:58:30 +0000

Meryn: If you get a chance to look at Lewis’ whole PPT, they quantify all of the possible, physical capacity of wind, solar, etc. Money is not a factor in their analysis. It’s the physical resource limits. Diverting $$ away from nuclear will not overcome those limits. We need to double an already stretched capacity to produce energy in 50 years. And Lewis has factored every likely negawatt into this equation. That is monumental.

Private parties aren’t investing b/c the returns aren’t there, and that capital is better spent on not only renewables but coal. Something is wrong about the that. High-carbon energy should be less economic than low-carbon energy. A carbon tax and/or cap-and-trade should do the trick.

We need a rational approach to safety and regulation of nuclear power. We should respect it as opposed to fearing it. Rational vs. irrational. Liberals complain about Bush’s scare tactics with terrorism and Iraq and then turn around and use the same playbook for nuclear and global warming. We’re over it.

By: Max Gladwell

Max Gladwell — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:40:01 +0000

Tiffany: I agree that the nuclear assault was not a good thing. But “good” can also be a loaded term. The alternative of invading mainland Japan could easily have lead to a million casualties on each side. In that sense, it was probably the right thing, however tragic and regrettable it is.