Nuclear power debate is irrelevant

Two environmental authorities are in a debate.  Stewart Brand the genius of the Whole Earth Catalog and most of the environmental world (and a friend of mine) argues that nuclear power is vital to constraining global warming. It doesn't emit CO2 and is safe.  Amory Lovins a leading technical expert on automobiles, power and energy argues that nuclear power is inherently too expensive compared to other environmentally friendly modes including energy conservation.

I'm happy to say I disagree with them both.  Their arguments are irrelevant. We have now entered the era of abundant long term really cheap energy, natural gas.  There is no need to consider any other form of energy.

Not much more to say. Our life is changed in many ways by the natural gas findings.  I have friends who say the exploitation and integration of natural gas into our world is a long way off...5 to 10 years. One reason is that the oil companies own much of the natural gas world.

I say it is much more likely that natural gas will inundate us much like a tsunami.  The reason is simple: the driving goal of commerce, the sine qua non, is the reduction of costs.  Natural gas reduces costs radically so it will be incorporated everywhere regardless of the power of oil companies, Luddite environmentalists or the neanderthal political classes.

Comments

[Knut Holt]

Either everyone must reduce the energy consume dramatically, that means living like poor people in many ways, or one must use all alternative energy sources, inclusing nuclear energy.

And unfortunately all the alternative sources are expensive and not as environmentalfriendly as believed.

And the gas is CO2-creating too, even though itis cheap.

[David Boxenhorn]

Michael, thank you! Somehow I had missed this.

America's Natural Gas Revolution
Why the coming natural gas boom isn't all it's 'fracced' up to be

What this means is a ceiling for gas prices. The only question is how low. (Lower by the first link, higher by the second.) I expect it to get lower as time goes on and technology improves.

Unfortunately, Israel has no shale. Fortunately, energy is a world-wide market.

[Michael Phillips]

David,

Starting with the success of fraccing (fracturing shale rock) last year in Appalachia, the amount of natural gas available in the world rose by 10 times. Entire new fields are being opened up in the U.S. and Canada.  Enough to last several centuries at the current rate.  Israel probably has plenty of natural gas.

Michael

[Ayrdale]

I'm intrigued too. But re the argument re nuclear energy I'd have to go with Mr Brand. His opponent is on a par with Paul Ehrlich... both have major credibility problems.

[bob swanson]

Natural gas in the U.S. and Canada may be all right. There is a lot available in Alaska, but there is major pressure from environmentalists to stop the pipeline into the lower 48.

Natural gas from overseas is stopped by the protests against having LNG offloading facilities in the U.S. I've seen plenty of anti-LNG signs near Pacific Northwest port towns, demanding a stop to terminal construction and permitting. In the Northeast, there have been some major disagreements between Canada and the Northeastern states of the U.S. over these facilities as well.

[David Boxenhorn]

What natural gas findings are you talking about?