Are you sure? Why is it that India has embarked on a massive nuclear power program aiming at using it’s vast thorium reserves together with breeder reactors? Among countries in the process of building more nuclear power are France, Finland, Taiwan, China, and Japan (if I recall correctly).

“Only pebble bed reactors have somehow solved this problem. Breeder reactors are equally unlikely to become commercially feasible as fusion reactors are any time soon.”

You either have a very pessimistic view of breeder reactors or a very optimistic view of fusion. It’s going to take another *decade* before ITER is completed, and the very humble goal of ITER is just to attain the break-even point energy-wise. I’d say commercial fusion providing even a tenth of the world’s primary energy is at least 30 years into the future.

Breeders aren’t nearly as undeveloped as you appear to think. There is already a liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor producing 600 MW of electricity in Russia, the BN-600:

http://eng.rosatom.ru/?razdel=160

Russia is planning to build more of those soon.

“Therefore that basically leaves us with renewables.”

You’re totally forgetting coal, the fuel that already accounts for a fifth of the world’s primary energy. Coal liquification and gasification are mature commercial technologies already in use. The South African corporation Sasol is building two coal-liquification plants in China capable of producing a total of 440 million barrels of synthetic crude oil per year, the equivalent of about 2-3 percent of global crude oil production per year.

“Their share of energy used in man made systems is far from marginal at the moment if you include them all, actually much more than nuclear.”

That’s actually true, hydroelectric power included. Unfortunately, hydroelectric power cannot be expanded very much because most of it’s potential has already been tapped.

“Yet they have an enormous unused potential which could be harnessed with fairly robust technology that already exists or is at the labs – no need to base future plans on technology development forecasts as with all forms of nuclear power.”

Please quantify this estimate.

“Talking about forecasts, solar will at least double it’s efficiency in a decade and it’s cost per kW will drop by at least an order of a magnitude. Wind also gradually improves it’s cost/kW when it’s set up off shore. That also reduces fluctuations in output. What you said about wind power needing baseload next to it actually isn’t true. Instead, it does require adjustable powersources by it’s side to level the fluctuations.”

Well, that’s what I basically meant. You need adjustable large-scale sources of power.

“In practice that often means hydro or gas.”

Or coal or nuclear.

As I wrote, wind power is limited by it’s intermittant nature barring technological breakthroughs in electricity strorage or transportation technologies.

Talking about forecasts, solar will at least double it’s efficiency in a decade and it’s cost per kW will drop by at least an order of a magnitude. Wind also gradually improves it’s cost/kW when it’s set up off shore. That also reduces fluctuations in output. What you said about wind power needing baseload next to it actually isn’t true. Instead, it does require adjustable powersources by it’s side to level the fluctuations. In practice that often means hydro or gas. Top load base power plants instead require reserve capacity to cover the scheduled or unscheduled shutdowns. The bigger the units the more significant a problem this is.

The problem with methane hydrates is that currently no technology exists to recover the methane in them. Methane ice has the tendency to release the methane it contains rapidly under normal atmostpheric conditions. Moreover, marine deposits are fragile structures that could be severely upset by the removal of large amounts of material from them, the formation of gas bubbles in them etc. Should a large methane hydrate structure lying on a continental slope collapse rapidly, an enormous amount of water would be suddenly jerked into motion, resulting in a tsunami.

And as you say, breeder reactors have great potential, but are not commercially feasible yet. At some point, they will become commercially feasible.

Coal is the king of fossil fuels and will continue to provide energy for a long time. Even if coal accounted for all our primary energy needs, it would last yet another 50 years or more. But I’m not sure it’s a good idea to dump as much carbon into the atmosphere as the entire global coal resource contains.

Renewables like solar, wind and even biomass will certainly play a part, although marginal at best, barring signifigant technological breaktroughs. (Solar energy is currently at best in producing low-grade heat, and wind is hampered by a lack of adequate electricity storage technology; wind is currently pretty much only useful combined with large-scale baseload electricity generating capacity. Biofuels on a global scale are limited by fundamental thermodynamics.)

Fusion is not something we can count on within the next 30-50 years. Even if ITER achieved break-even as planned, which is 10 years into the future, it’s a very long way from break-even to high Eout/Ein and thus capital costs in an even remotely practical realm. In other words, while fusion research must continue, fusion will play no part in solving the energy problems that we’re facing now and in the next few decades.

More information on uranium supply:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm

..if only nulear fission in a traditional way was a solution, an energy source or viable….

http://upload.mcgill.ca/economics/981.pdf

http://www.control.com.au/bi2005/266nuclear.pdf

From energy market point of view I would prefer modular pebble bed reactors to the traditional fission reactors. Yet, they are not a solution to the worlds energy needs either in the end because of the limited uraium reserves. Breeder reactors could be, but they are not economically feasible yet. Fusion would be adequate in terms of fuel availability but it has the same cost structural problems that the traditional monolithic fission reactors have and might not ever be competitive economically.

“It’s always nice to see a Finn like Markku take such a concerned interest in issues that touch the US: that’s very thoughtful. His worrying over the problem is much needed, as someone has got to do it.”

Actually I’m concerned about Peak Oil for mostly selfish reasons. Since crude oil provides 40 percent of the world’s primary energy, the peaking of oil production worldwide is obviously detrimental to the economy. Since I’m a participant in the economy, as are all of us, my own future is profoundly affected by the economy.

“Too bad that all that worrying cannot be bottled, and sold at the market.”

Actually, knowledge of Peak Oil has lead me to take it into account in my personal investment strategy. I have written about PO on the net since last January. I consider this a public service. Hundreds of people have heard of PO from me. At least one top level politician has heard my arguments from me. I have advocated viable alternatives primary energy sources to oil like nuclear power.

The Peak Oil “alarmists” do take into account market behaviour. However, they do not chant the mantras of free market fundamentalists inspired by blind faith in the market’s ability to perform miracles.

Yup, that just about wraps it up. Nuke ‘em all! Yeee-hawww!

And exactly why should the US need to care how it affects other nations, given the anti-American bigotry espoused by those nations? If you take a hostile stance against the US, don’t expect any cooperation in return.

Furthermore, what one can really dispute are the arguments of those Peak Oil alarmists who elaborate responses to the coming depletion of oil reserves. So many of these arguments simply do not take into account market behavior. It is this lack of interest in simple laws of supply and demand that, in the end, works against the credibility of Peak Oil alarmists.

Since most free market fundies are scientifically and technologically illiterate, they will resort to chanting religious liturgy whenever confronted with a scientific or technological problem: “The market will find a way…the market will find a way…the market will find a way…”

Would it ever occur to Finnblunder that issues such as global warming and the scarcity of oil might affect other nations besides the U.S.? Nah, it seems that he lacks the mental capacity to grasp such concepts.

Too bad that all that worrying cannot be bottled, and sold at the market.