Energy demand will likely force more nuclear power....

Today's post: Wednesday, 1-27-2010

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Further, it’s extremely clear that the most supported and economically beneficial solution to add energy that does not use oil nor burn fossil fuels to release more CO2 into air that already has too much is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy production, particularly those that generate electricity & to dramatically increase energy efficiency and reduce the amount of energy that is now wasted.

And, of those the more important long range solution is to build massive amounts of new renewable energy generation.

Today’s post:

Let’s hope the controls on banks & credit that will gradually get put into place or back into place will eventually lead to a more stable economy that is growing. It certainly seems likely to me that this will happen & has begun to happen.

And, with this happening in the United States plus the arrival of new useful new technology everywhere, primarily new energy technologies, we will gradually restart global economic growth. Also, barring some kind of disaster, population growth will continue. THAT combination in the short term, 5 to 20 years out, will gradually begin to cause energy demand to rise faster than new supply is brought online.

As I consistently have said, that is possibly an even more important reason to bring massive new amounts of every kind of renewable energy online within 20 to 30 years than fighting global warming. Certainly if we don’t want a permanent world-wide depression due to horrible fossil fuel price run ups and shortages it is.

Worse, with increasing use of fossil fuels that this might cause, global warming will get worse; & we risk economic collapse if we still are dependent on oil and it becomes too expensive to use.

So, as this begins to happen, it will bring enormous economic and political pressure to bear on adding new energy and rolling out every kind of energy efficient products possible.

Last week NPR’s Christian Hill interviewed Bob Irish, Managing Editor of Investor's Daily Edge.

Bob Irish stated that the International Energy Agency predicted that energy demand will be up 40% by 2030! (See my comments above.)

He then goes on to say that in his opinion this will be very forceful in increasing the use of electricity generated by nuclear power.

He also said that a major driver for this is that “a kilogram of uranium produces 50,000 kilowatt-hours of power.” This is 10,000 to 50,000 times what a kilogram of fossil fuel can produce.

Christian Hill then notes that people are afraid of nuclear power.

Bob Irish replied to that by saying: “There's an emotional component, certainly. But the smart money isn't invested emotionally.”

He also notes that China is now building 10 nuclear power plants every year& their goal is to have 25% of their power generated by nuclear power. (In the next 20 years, that would be 200 new nuclear reactors.)

He also believes that in a way similar to the space race with the Russians, Americans will begin to compete so we don’t fall behind in the world and will soon add more nuclear also.

He also points out that no matter where the reactors are located, they all need uranium.

(He doesn’t say so; but this sharp increase in nuclear will put a massive premium on using, as France has been doing, breeder reactors where far less, I’ve heard 50 times less, uranium is needed to operate the reactors.)

Since that also means that the uranium wastes are NOT transported elsewhere and less uranium need be brought in, that makes reactors that recycle the uranium onsite where it never leaves much more defensible against terrorist attack and partially solves the question of where to store the waste.

In my own view, that will cause very heavy use and building of that kind of reactor -- even in the United States where we have been building the other kind that takes more uranium and creates radioactive waste to be moved elsewhere and stored there.

Bob Irish then notes that their customers who have bought stocks in the better uranium mining companies have already done well with those stocks.

(Stocks in companies that make breeder nuclear reactors or their components should also increasingly do well, I think. Another investment advisory service thinks that companies that supply lithium or build lithium ion batteries or make superior technology to use in them also look like good bets. Nuclear, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, geothermal, and wind all will be used to generate electricity for the huge number of all electric and plug-in hybrid cars and trucks that will soon replace most gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. And, at this time, it looks as if they will all have lithium ion batteries.)

The good news is that all nuclear reactors do NOT use up fossil fuels or release CO2 -- or other kinds of air pollution such as oxides of Nitrogen or create acid rain.

And, by using breeder reactors, we will literally have hundreds of years to build more renewable energy to replace nuclear power before we run out of uranium.

So, since using breeder reactors are both far more efficient and safe to build and operate, I think such reactors will increasingly be built and used.

People who have strong reservations or concerns about building any more nuclear power, as to some degree I do myself, should realize that these economic and other environmental concerns mean more nuclear will be built, regardless. As Bob Irish noted, even if the people in the United States drag their feet, more new nuclear reactors will be built all over the rest of world. He gave the large program already happening in China as an example. India and even some countries in the Middle East have already said they plan to do so as well.

So, I think for such people, the most productive strategy is to ask that the countries and companies involved to both use extremely reliable and safe operating methods and very competent and sane people to run them AND to make comparably fail resistant military security to ensure no terrorists can get in or do any kind of damage.

This WILL make nuclear power more expensive and slower to build when it already takes huge upfront capital costs; but I personally think it is reasonable to ask and extremely important to do.

Plus it will make building the reactors we look very likely to need desperately more doable and salable politically.

(By the way, one renewable energy executive pointed out to me that the plutonium that the breeder reactors make can be made into atomic bombs, etc. He said he disliked nuclear using breeder reactors for that reason.

But, one of my more technically savvy friends pointed out, that all the plutonium is INSIDE the reactor. It’s not transported to be easily gotten at by terrorists since it never leaves the reactor. This means the security for the plutonium can be focused at the known location of the reactor itself which makes it much more doable and reliable. In addition, in order to take the plutonium to transport elsewhere the terrorists would have to know and bring the technology with them to get at it without dying before they could and to transport it afterwards.

It might be possible to do. But, if the security that should be there is present and competent it should virtually never happen.

So, let’s ask for breeder reactors instead of the kind that generate dangerous waste and for every one of them to have such security and be thankful we’ll use less fossil fuels and be less harmed by excessive price run ups while we still rely on petroleum for transport and petrochemicals.