On 2/5/2024 1:21 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/4/2024 3:19 AM, D wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>> =20
>>>>> In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Lynn McGuire=A0 <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.=A0 All of his books =
>> are
>>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.=A0 So is John =
>> Scalzi, so
>>>>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
>>>>>
>>>>> What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>>>>
>>>>> My touchstone remains the same:=A0 Anyone who is opposed to
>>>>> nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>>>>> They have another agenda entirely.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
>>>>> for going on 50 years.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> =20
>>>> I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where=20
>>>> environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily =
>> agree.=20
>>>> The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the=20
>>>> technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the=20
>>>> hysterics get less CO2.
>>>> =20
>>>> Everyone wins!
>>>
>>> Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=20
>>> hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or=20
>>> just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing=20
>>> something. "Change is EVIL!"
>>
>> And here is a word for them:
>>
>> plastic
>
> chemical feedstocks in general.
>
> But 90% of the deniers profit comes from the stuff that's burned.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

pt

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 00:05:24 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:

>In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
>>excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
>>Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
>>is John Varley, another excellent author.
>
>What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>
>My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
>nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>They have another agenda entirely.
>
>(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
>for going on 50 years.)

Jerry Pournelle was also constantly rantng about nuclear power in his
BYTE magazine columns 20 years ago.

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:43:42 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
>it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
>programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
>deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
>I look at it sceptically.
>
>I was raised on science fiction in which future
>men had to protect their posterity by wearing
>lead-lined underwear to block radiation
>when they visited Earth from space, and that
>is saying something. I suppose it also would
>apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

I dunno - my brother's brother in law was a Canadian nuclear engineer
who in his prime (70s/80s) was regularly installing CANDUs in all
sorts of foreign climes.

Canada (mostly due to its proximity to the US) has managed without
nukes though is clearly one of at least 3-4 countries (e.g. plus
Germany and Japan, maybe S Korea) in 6-12 months if the order went out
from their president / prime minister

Obviously I mean without Uncle Sam or other nuclear power gifting it
to them.

In article <8hv3si1jbfiotk80h12m4mc2qpm0u8ibte@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>Canada (mostly due to its proximity to the US) has managed without
>nukes though is clearly one of at least 3-4 countries (e.g. plus
>Germany and Japan, maybe S Korea) in 6-12 months if the order went out
>from their president / prime minister

Yes and no. We didn't have an indigenous nuclear weapon capacity
but from 1963 to 1984, we had nuclear weapons on loan from the US.

Hilariously, while the US very reasonably requested security measures
at least as stringent as American bomb security, this was waived
early on so that the Quebec facility could open at the same time as
the Ontario one. While the Quebec facility was an easy commute from
Montreal, it was felt the risk of a political backlash due to a delay
was unacceptable.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

In article <eev3si9pet0n8tecluu7jf4tg6ftv5rome@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 00:05:24 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
><usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
>>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
>>>excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
>>>Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
>>>is John Varley, another excellent author.
>>
>>What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>
>>My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
>>nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>>They have another agenda entirely.
>>
>>(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
>>for going on 50 years.)
>
>Jerry Pournelle was also constantly rantng about nuclear power in his
>BYTE magazine columns 20 years ago.

I regret to inform you Byte ceased publication a quarter century ago.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:12:14 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/5/2024 1:21 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/4/2024 3:19 AM, D wrote:
>>>>> =20
>>>>> =20
>>>>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>>> =20
>>>>>> In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire=A0 <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.=A0 All of his books >>> are
>>>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
>>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.=A0 So is John >>> Scalzi, so
>>>>>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My touchstone remains the same:=A0 Anyone who is opposed to
>>>>>> nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>>>>>> They have another agenda entirely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
>>>>>> for going on 50 years.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> =20
>>>>> I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where=20
>>>>> environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily >>> agree.=20
>>>>> The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the=20
>>>>> technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the=20
>>>>> hysterics get less CO2.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> Everyone wins!
>>>>
>>>> Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=20
>>>> hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or=20
>>>> just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing=20
>>>> something. "Change is EVIL!"
>>>
>>> And here is a word for them:
>>>
>>> plastic
>>
>> chemical feedstocks in general.
>>
>> But 90% of the deniers profit comes from the stuff that's burned.
>
>“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
>salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

It may take awhile, but if we keep burning fossil fuels, the price
paid for them to make plastic (OK, chemical feedstocks in general)
will rise to the point that they /do/ make more that way, and not
burning them will suddenly make sense to them.

As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means and
the motivation.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 2/6/2024 1:42 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:43:42 +0000, Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
>> it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
>> programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
>> deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
>> I look at it sceptically.
>>
>> I was raised on science fiction in which future
>> men had to protect their posterity by wearing
>> lead-lined underwear to block radiation
>> when they visited Earth from space, and that
>> is saying something. I suppose it also would
>> apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
>
> I dunno - my brother's brother in law was a Canadian nuclear engineer
> who in his prime (70s/80s) was regularly installing CANDUs in all
> sorts of foreign climes.
>
> Canada (mostly due to its proximity to the US) has managed without
> nukes though is clearly one of at least 3-4 countries (e.g. plus
> Germany and Japan, maybe S Korea) in 6-12 months if the order went out
> from their president / prime minister
>
> Obviously I mean without Uncle Sam or other nuclear power gifting it
> to them.

Part of why Canada can do without nukes is that a Canadian is in command
of NORAD 50% of the time.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2/6/2024 6:53 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <eev3si9pet0n8tecluu7jf4tg6ftv5rome@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 00:05:24 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
>> <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
>>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
>>>
>>> What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>>
>>> My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
>>> nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>>> They have another agenda entirely.
>>>
>>> (I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
>>> for going on 50 years.)
>>
>> Jerry Pournelle was also constantly rantng about nuclear power in his
>> BYTE magazine columns 20 years ago.
>
> I regret to inform you Byte ceased publication a quarter century ago.

Just proves how determined and dedicated Pournelle was.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:41:35 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>>> In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
>>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=
>> so
>>>>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>>>> =20
>>>>> My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
>>>>> nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>>>>> They have another agenda entirely.
>>>>> =20
>>>>> (I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
>>>>> for going on 50 years.)
>>>>
>>>> Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
>>>> it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
>>>> programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
>>>> deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
>>>> I look at it sceptically.
>>>>
>>>> I was raised on science fiction in which future
>>>> men had to protect their posterity by wearing
>>>> lead-lined underwear to block radiation
>>>> when they visited Earth from space, and that
>>>> is saying something. I suppose it also would
>>>> apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
>>>
>>> I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=
>> =20
>>> of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =
>> it=20
>>> and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =
>> years=20
>>> or so.
>>
>> And how long have they been only 5 years away?
>>
>> Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.
>
> Not very likely:
>
> https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/
>

What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300

and

https://www.knxt.se/studsvik

Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility
studies for another couple of years or so.

This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.

Best regards,
Daniel

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:12:14 -0500, Cryptoengineer
><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/5/2024 1:21 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=3D20
>>>>> hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" =
>or=3D20
>>>>> just because they can't handle being told about better ways of =
>doing=3D20
>>>>> something. "Change is EVIL!"
>>>>
>>>> And here is a word for them:
>>>>
>>>> plastic
>>>=20
>>> chemical feedstocks in general.
>>>=20
>>> But 90% of the deniers profit comes from the stuff that's burned.
>>
>>=93It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
>>salary depends on his not understanding it.=94 - Upton Sinclair
>
>It may take awhile, but if we keep burning fossil fuels, the price
>paid for them to make plastic (OK, chemical feedstocks in general)
>will rise to the point that they /do/ make more that way, and not
>burning them will suddenly make sense to them.

By that time, the damage will be irreversable, if it isn't already.

D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>
>
>On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:41:35 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>>>> In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
>>>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
>>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=
>>> so
>>>>>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
>>>>>> nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>>>>>> They have another agenda entirely.
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> (I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
>>>>>> for going on 50 years.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
>>>>> it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
>>>>> programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
>>>>> deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
>>>>> I look at it sceptically.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was raised on science fiction in which future
>>>>> men had to protect their posterity by wearing
>>>>> lead-lined underwear to block radiation
>>>>> when they visited Earth from space, and that
>>>>> is saying something. I suppose it also would
>>>>> apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
>>>>
>>>> I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=
>>> =20
>>>> of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =
>>> it=20
>>>> and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =
>>> years=20
>>>> or so.
>>>
>>> And how long have they been only 5 years away?
>>>
>>> Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.
>>
>> Not very likely:
>>
>> https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/
>>
>
>What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
>though:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
>
>and
>
>https://www.knxt.se/studsvik
>
>Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
>actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility
>studies for another couple of years or so.
>
>This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.

As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.

Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
over budget!).

So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and there
from the 1960s).

Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?

Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
70 years. Exponential growth is bad.

On 2/6/2024 2:34 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:41:35 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
>>>>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
>>>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=
>>>> so
>>>>>>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
>>>>>>> nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>>>>>>> They have another agenda entirely.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> (I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
>>>>>>> for going on 50 years.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
>>>>>> it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
>>>>>> programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
>>>>>> deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
>>>>>> I look at it sceptically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was raised on science fiction in which future
>>>>>> men had to protect their posterity by wearing
>>>>>> lead-lined underwear to block radiation
>>>>>> when they visited Earth from space, and that
>>>>>> is saying something. I suppose it also would
>>>>>> apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=
>>>> =20
>>>>> of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =
>>>> it=20
>>>>> and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =
>>>> years=20
>>>>> or so.
>>>>
>>>> And how long have they been only 5 years away?
>>>>
>>>> Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.
>>>
>>> Not very likely:
>>>
>>> https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/
>>>
>>
>> What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
>> though:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
>>
>> and
>>
>> https://www.knxt.se/studsvik
>>
>> Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
>> actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility
>> studies for another couple of years or so.
>>
>> This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.
>
> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.

You're aware that France already generates nearly 3/4 of its
electricity with nukes? To me, that's quite a bit of 'displacement'.

pt

Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On 2/6/2024 2:34 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:41:35 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
>>>>>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
>>>>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=
>>>>> so
>>>>>>>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
>>>>>>>> nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>>>>>>>> They have another agenda entirely.
>>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>>> (I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
>>>>>>>> for going on 50 years.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
>>>>>>> it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
>>>>>>> programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
>>>>>>> deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
>>>>>>> I look at it sceptically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was raised on science fiction in which future
>>>>>>> men had to protect their posterity by wearing
>>>>>>> lead-lined underwear to block radiation
>>>>>>> when they visited Earth from space, and that
>>>>>>> is saying something. I suppose it also would
>>>>>>> apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=
>>>>> =20
>>>>>> of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =
>>>>> it=20
>>>>>> and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =
>>>>> years=20
>>>>>> or so.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how long have they been only 5 years away?
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.
>>>>
>>>> Not very likely:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/
>>>>
>>>
>>> What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
>>> though:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> https://www.knxt.se/studsvik
>>>
>>> Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
>>> actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility
>>> studies for another couple of years or so.
>>>
>>> This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.
>>
>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>
>You're aware that France already generates nearly 3/4 of its
>electricity with nukes? To me, that's quite a bit of 'displacement'.
>
>pt
>

Yes. I'm also aware that they have a population of 67 million,
which on a planet with almost eight billion humans is almost in the noise.

Consider that the planet has a global usage rate of 18TW (per Murphy, see below)

France has 56 reactors producing 61 GW.

That is less than 1% (.3%) of the global total if my math is right.

On a global scale that is definitely in the noise.

Scaling it up to displace the full 18TW (we can adjust
downward somewhat if we remove hydro and renewables and
just consider coal and CH4). So, let's say we need
10 TW (assuming 8TW of renewables/hydro) supplied
by fission reactors.

That's 10,000 1GW reactors. Leaving aside the cost
(Vogle 3 was $15 billion _over_), there's not enough
known reserves of U to run that size fleet for more
than a few weeks (assuming standard low-enriched U235).

Using breeders reactors will extend that time period,
but it's not clear how long.

Completely ignoring waste disposal here, but that must also
factor into the solution.

Thorium? Who knows. There aren't any working power producing
reactors yet (although India is developing one), and I wouldn't
expect any substantial power production from such for a couple
of decades.

Use it, sure. Don't expect it to supplant fossil fuels.

Full discussion here, see chapter 15.

-Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet-
Professor Tom Murphy, UCSD

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#etoc@tocid.16

On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:12:14 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/2024 1:21 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/4/2024 3:19 AM, D wrote:
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire=A0 <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.=A0 All of his books =
>>>> are
>>>>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
>>>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.=A0 So is John =
>>>> Scalzi, so
>>>>>>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My touchstone remains the same:=A0 Anyone who is opposed to
>>>>>>> nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>>>>>>> They have another agenda entirely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
>>>>>>> for going on 50 years.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where=20
>>>>>> environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily =
>>>> agree.=20
>>>>>> The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the=20
>>>>>> technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the=20
>>>>>> hysterics get less CO2.
>>>>>> =20
>>>>>> Everyone wins!
>>>>>
>>>>> Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=20
>>>>> hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or=20
>>>>> just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing=20
>>>>> something. "Change is EVIL!"
>>>>
>>>> And here is a word for them:
>>>>
>>>> plastic
>>>
>>> chemical feedstocks in general.
>>>
>>> But 90% of the deniers profit comes from the stuff that's burned.
>>
>> “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
>> salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair
>
> It may take awhile, but if we keep burning fossil fuels, the price
> paid for them to make plastic (OK, chemical feedstocks in general)
> will rise to the point that they /do/ make more that way, and not
> burning them will suddenly make sense to them.
>
> As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means and
> the motivation.

Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water. We have an unlimited
amount of each in the USA.

Lynn

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:51:01 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>Part of why Canada can do without nukes is that a Canadian is in command
>of NORAD 50% of the time.

Is it really 50% of the time? I know a Canadian was in command on 9/11
and was greatly praised by Dubya for his fast action in closing US
skies after the first collision with one of the Twin Towers

On 07/02/2024 04:18, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> It may take awhile, but if we keep burning fossil fuels, the price
>> paid for them to make plastic (OK, chemical feedstocks in general)
>> will rise to the point that they /do/ make more that way, and not
>> burning them will suddenly make sense to them.
>>
>> As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
>> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means and
>> the motivation.
>
> Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water.  We have an unlimited
> amount of each in the USA.

I perceive that your "natural gas"
is fossil reserves of methane.
Which is worse to let into the
atmosphere than carbon dioxide is,
on a human lifespan scale. But there
are many varied plastics.

There also are new alternative "plastics"
made from sustainable material, notably
plants, and strictly speaking biodegradable.
Look for this in your tea bags, because
if the dinosaurs had had tea bags like our
standard ones, then we'd be finding the
little plastic tea bag skeletons that
they have.

On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>
> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
> over budget!).

Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
some time before the present day? That for
the time being, there's more uranium to find?
As I said, I'm not in love with how we use
the stuff, but I want to have the facts straight.

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:41:35 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
>>>>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
>>>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=
>>>> so
>>>>>>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
>>>>>>> nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>>>>>>> They have another agenda entirely.
>>>>>>> =20
>>>>>>> (I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
>>>>>>> for going on 50 years.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
>>>>>> it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
>>>>>> programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
>>>>>> deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
>>>>>> I look at it sceptically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was raised on science fiction in which future
>>>>>> men had to protect their posterity by wearing
>>>>>> lead-lined underwear to block radiation
>>>>>> when they visited Earth from space, and that
>>>>>> is saying something. I suppose it also would
>>>>>> apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=
>>>> =20
>>>>> of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =
>>>> it=20
>>>>> and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =
>>>> years=20
>>>>> or so.
>>>>
>>>> And how long have they been only 5 years away?
>>>>
>>>> Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.
>>>
>>> Not very likely:
>>>
>>> https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/
>>>
>>
>> What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
>> though:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
>>
>> and
>>
>> https://www.knxt.se/studsvik
>>
>> Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
>> actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility
>> studies for another couple of years or so.
>>
>> This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.
>
> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>
> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
> over budget!).
>
> So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
> any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and there
> from the 1960s).
>
> Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
> sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
>
> Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
> but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
> 70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
>

Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry
picked by me from here
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:

"The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources and 270
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources. With breeders, this
is extended to 8,500 years.[187]"

Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go
for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.

We also must keep in mind that endless "peak oil" predictions that always
fail.

If the market judges that new uranium shall be mined, they will.

So nuclear is the only sustainable way forward, especially coupled with
increase research efforts.

Best regards,
Daniel

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:

>> As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
>> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means and
>> the motivation.
>
>Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water. We have an unlimited
>amount of each in the USA.

"unlimited" is hyperbole.

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>
>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>> over budget!).
>
>Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>some time before the present day?

No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
inevitiable.

D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>
>
>On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:

>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>
>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>> over budget!).
>>
>> So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
>> any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and there
>> from the 1960s).
>>
>> Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
>> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
>> sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
>>
>> Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
>> but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
>> 70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
>>
>
>Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry
>picked by me from here
>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:
>
>"The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
>rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
>conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources

That 85 years assumes the current reactor fleet of 440 reactors.

Add 10,000 more and what happens to that 85 year 'estimate'?

and 270
>years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.

Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.

>Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go
>for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.

Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).

>
>We also must keep in mind that endless "peak oil" predictions that always
>fail.

Actually, we hit peak oil a few years ago.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart

And that's thanks to fracking, which just extends the end-date by a
decade or two.

And the abiogenic theories of crude formation are bullshit.
>
>If the market judges that new uranium shall be mined, they will.

Where will they find the uranium? And at what cost?

>
>So nuclear is the only sustainable way forward, especially coupled with
>increase research efforts.

No, a mix of sources (wind, solar, pumped storage, nuclear, hydro) all
working together will provide energy security. No single source will.

But there limits to all of them, solar included.

You really must read Dr Murphy's textbook, "Energy and Human ambitions
on a finite Planet". https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions

It's very accessible and the first chapter is a good, laymans introduction
to the physical and chemical concepts involved in energy production.

It discusses all potential sources of energy, their advantages and their
limitations. From a physics standpoint.

On 2/6/2024 11:25 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:51:01 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Part of why Canada can do without nukes is that a Canadian is in command
>> of NORAD 50% of the time.
>
> Is it really 50% of the time? I know a Canadian was in command on 9/11
> and was greatly praised by Dubya for his fast action in closing US
> skies after the first collision with one of the Twin Towers

It has been some years since I checked and when I did the information I
remember finding was that the NORAD CO rotates between an American and a
Canadian every year. BUT checking again just now that was apparently
wrong. The CO is always an American and the Deputy CO is always a
Canadian. My apologies for the error.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2/7/2024 8:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>
>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>
>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>> over budget!).
>>>
>>> So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
>>> any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and there
>>> from the 1960s).
>>>
>>> Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
>>> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
>>> sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
>>>
>>> Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
>>> but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
>>> 70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
>>>
>>
>> Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry
>> picked by me from here
>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:
>>
>> "The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
>> rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
>> conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
>
> That 85 years assumes the current reactor fleet of 440 reactors.
>
> Add 10,000 more and what happens to that 85 year 'estimate'?
>
>
> and 270
>> years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
>
> Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
>
>
>
>> Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go
>> for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.
>
> Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
> the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
> the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
> a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
> wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).
>
You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are
experiencing population crashes and birth rates have been declining
world-wide for many years now.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2/7/2024 9:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>>> As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
>>> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means and
>>> the motivation.
>>
>> Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water. We have an unlimited
>> amount of each in the USA.
>
> "unlimited" is hyperbole.

Not in this case. We have 200 years of proven reserves of natural gas
in the USA. We have over 1,000 years of unproven reserves of natural
gas in the USA. The only problem is adding pipelines, treating
facilities, and compressors to get the natural gas to markets. The
wonders of fracking.

As far as sea water, unlimited definitely applies in this case.

Lynn

On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>
>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>> over budget!).
>>
>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>> some time before the present day?
>
> No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
> 70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
> inevitiable.

Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are
continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the
planet. I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out
how to make more of what we need.

In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052. I
wonder what it will be next decade.
https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/

Lynn