SecretMaster

Go figure. The time an interesting discussion/potential debate occurs I'm a few hours before leaving on a small, four day vacation.

We are facing an energy crisis, and when I say that I don't mean high oil prices. It is aptly called an energy crisis because once fossil fuels become to costly to extract, we really are face with very limited options. It is something that needs to be addressed right now IMO, and the problem is it isn't.

My personal suspicion is that we did hit Peak Oil (Peak Oil Theory models state that global oil production would peak around 2005-2010). And if we haven't peaked in production yet, we are about to. Which means that the cost of oil will just keep rising and rising. Come 2040 or 2050 there is going to be a tremendous crisis on our hands when the entire oil market collapses.

Now nuclear is gaining a lot of momentum with many people because it is seen as a viable alternative to oil in terms of a new energy source. Ethanol has proven to be a bust, and Solar/Wind/Hydro right now need much more R&D to become a feasible option. There are a lot of nuclear advocates out there stating that we have enough nuclear fuel to last us for 200 hundred years and that it will power the world and blah blah blah blah.

I've had personal disputes with individuals on the lifespan of usable resources for nuclear fuel. From what I've read, at current consumption levels we have about 50-60 more years worth of uranium. Of course, that is with current consumption and if everyone made the jump to nuclear that number would sharply decline. You can extend (how long I don't know) the lifespan with Breeder Reactors which use other isotopes and "waste" materials but the cost to build these plants have been phenomenal, and it has been a major turnoff for most developers.

The other problem is with EROI (Energy Returned on Investment). We don't really know the EROI of nuclear, because it hasn't been widely studied and documented. However, the best studies and scenarios put the EROI of nuclear at 15:1, but the normal range I have seen is anywhere from 5:1 to 10:1. Fossil fuels have a much higher EROI (although it has been continuosly declining as we tap more and more oil). But again, the EROI of nuclear would also decline as we continue to use it.

Aside from the obvious nuclear waste which lasts thousands and thousands of year, nuclear also isn't as "green" as people make it out to be. The actual process of creating electricity via heating water through the heat given off by the reactor itself gives off little emissions. But people don't take into account that obtaining the uranium and refining it produces many many emissions of all sorts. You could make the same argument with oil & coal as well, but to say nuclear is "clean" is a little misleading IMO.

I'm not instantly dismissing nuclear as a power source. I think it will be used as a transition to a more viable energy source, potentially fusion (if it ever developes, which I hope it will) or maybe a switch to "alternative" renewable sources. But, what I listed above are just some of the major hurdles and problems that need to be addressed with nuclear.