5 ms·

Which is not to say that it is good: "The real argument against over-reliance on fracking as a solution to the climate problem is that its value as a bridge fu

Which is not to say that it is good: "The real argument against over-reliance on fracking as a solution to the climate problem is that its value as a bridge fuel has been oversold." It's like recommending to a smoker that they switch to chewing tobacco because it lowers their risk of dying from cancer.

iwwr 13y ago
The question is, bridge to what?
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  We have enough uranium to satisfy our power needs for a few hundred thousand years. It's just that nuclear plants are expensive to build (and run) and electric cars aren't common yet.
  - acqq 13y ago
    Citation needed re enough Uranium. AFAIK: 1) whoever says anything about energy with thousands of years assumes that our energy needs aren't going to grow. The modern states, economies and populations however expect the growth as it was exactly what happened during the last 200 years. 2) There's a lot of U only if the one once used is reprocessed, howerver there are significant problems with reprocessing now.
    - rimantas 13y ago
      > The modern states, economies and populations however > expect the growth as it was exactly what happened during > the last 200 years. I heard the same about real estate prices some five years ago.
      - ceph_ 13y ago
        Human population isn't a speculative market. (Yet)
    - NickM 13y ago
      Citation needed re growth of energy usage. According to http://is.gd/K6QdKz http://is.gd/K6QdKz energy usage per capita in the US has dropped to its lowest level since the 1960s. Total energy usage in the country peaked in 2007 and has fallen since then, despite a steadily increasing population.
  - peterpathname 13y ago
    most of the planet's uranium is in very low concentrations in the sea. We certainly don't have enough commercially viable uranium (ie, that can be extracted and enriched with less energy inputs than they might produce) to maintain current rates of consumption for more than around 100 years using existing technologies.
    - adrianN 13y ago
      Long enough to get fusion plants online.
  - rorrr2 13y ago
    > We have enough uranium to satisfy our power needs for a few hundred thousand years That's assuming there's no exponential growth in energy demand. Which there is. Human population is growing exponentially. Technology is growing at least exponentially, probably faster.
    - kiba 13y ago
      Human population is growing exponentially. And this is true in what circumstance? The world fertility rate is going down and in some countries, like Japan, the population is shrinking. That's assuming there's no exponential growth in energy demand. Which there is. Citation?
    - protomyth 13y ago
      That's not exactly true. It looks like the closer to first world a place gets, the less children. It looks like we will have a top off in population (barring a sudden loss caused by a big war).
- akjj 13y ago
  Bridge to solar, wind, and maybe other renewables.
- lumberjack 13y ago
  A Dyson Sphere. On a more serious note. I see the immediate future as a focus not only on cleaner energy production but also a more efficient and far reaching energy grid as in many places neither nuclear nor renewable energy production are feasible. Gas being cheaper and cleaner (ref. air pollution) is a sensible investment for those areas who are still relying on dirtier fossil-fuel powered energy production.
- btilly 13y ago
  Natural gas is often cited as a bridge to more renewable energy. The thing about renewable energy like wind and solar is that it has sudden variability. To satisfy your needs with it, you need some other form of energy that can be ramped up and down just as quickly as a counterbalance. The obvious candidate would be batteries, but we do not have battery systems large enough to supply the grid for minutes at a time. (People are working on this. But we do not currently have it.) This is where natural gas comes in. It produces lots of energy. And you can ramp energy production up and down very efficiently, almost instantaneously. By contrast compare something like nuclear power. A nuclear power plant is basically a huge steam engine with the water heated by radioactivity. To start generating power you bring the water to a boil. To stop you let it cool down. But big tanks of water do not heat up or slow down fast - you need hours. Thus you can supply a grid from nuclear, but you can't counterbalance nuclear and renewables. Therefore the common vision is that we move from a largely coal base to a mixed natural gas/renewable base, and then to a renewable/battery base. So natural gas is seen as a bridge to an all renewable future.

iwwr 13y ago

The question is, bridge to what?

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
We have enough uranium to satisfy our power needs for a few hundred thousand years. It's just that nuclear plants are expensive to build (and run) and electric cars aren't common yet.
- acqq 13y ago
  Citation needed re enough Uranium. AFAIK: 1) whoever says anything about energy with thousands of years assumes that our energy needs aren't going to grow. The modern states, economies and populations however expect the growth as it was exactly what happened during the last 200 years. 2) There's a lot of U only if the one once used is reprocessed, howerver there are significant problems with reprocessing now.
  - rimantas 13y ago
    > The modern states, economies and populations however > expect the growth as it was exactly what happened during > the last 200 years. I heard the same about real estate prices some five years ago.
    - ceph_ 13y ago
      Human population isn't a speculative market. (Yet)
  - NickM 13y ago
    Citation needed re growth of energy usage. According to http://is.gd/K6QdKz http://is.gd/K6QdKz energy usage per capita in the US has dropped to its lowest level since the 1960s. Total energy usage in the country peaked in 2007 and has fallen since then, despite a steadily increasing population.
- peterpathname 13y ago
  most of the planet's uranium is in very low concentrations in the sea. We certainly don't have enough commercially viable uranium (ie, that can be extracted and enriched with less energy inputs than they might produce) to maintain current rates of consumption for more than around 100 years using existing technologies.
  - adrianN 13y ago
    Long enough to get fusion plants online.
- rorrr2 13y ago
  > We have enough uranium to satisfy our power needs for a few hundred thousand years That's assuming there's no exponential growth in energy demand. Which there is. Human population is growing exponentially. Technology is growing at least exponentially, probably faster.
  - kiba 13y ago
    Human population is growing exponentially. And this is true in what circumstance? The world fertility rate is going down and in some countries, like Japan, the population is shrinking. That's assuming there's no exponential growth in energy demand. Which there is. Citation?
  - protomyth 13y ago
    That's not exactly true. It looks like the closer to first world a place gets, the less children. It looks like we will have a top off in population (barring a sudden loss caused by a big war).
akjj 13y ago
Bridge to solar, wind, and maybe other renewables.
lumberjack 13y ago
A Dyson Sphere. On a more serious note. I see the immediate future as a focus not only on cleaner energy production but also a more efficient and far reaching energy grid as in many places neither nuclear nor renewable energy production are feasible. Gas being cheaper and cleaner (ref. air pollution) is a sensible investment for those areas who are still relying on dirtier fossil-fuel powered energy production.
btilly 13y ago
Natural gas is often cited as a bridge to more renewable energy. The thing about renewable energy like wind and solar is that it has sudden variability. To satisfy your needs with it, you need some other form of energy that can be ramped up and down just as quickly as a counterbalance. The obvious candidate would be batteries, but we do not have battery systems large enough to supply the grid for minutes at a time. (People are working on this. But we do not currently have it.) This is where natural gas comes in. It produces lots of energy. And you can ramp energy production up and down very efficiently, almost instantaneously. By contrast compare something like nuclear power. A nuclear power plant is basically a huge steam engine with the water heated by radioactivity. To start generating power you bring the water to a boil. To stop you let it cool down. But big tanks of water do not heat up or slow down fast - you need hours. Thus you can supply a grid from nuclear, but you can't counterbalance nuclear and renewables. Therefore the common vision is that we move from a largely coal base to a mixed natural gas/renewable base, and then to a renewable/battery base. So natural gas is seen as a bridge to an all renewable future.