MovieChat Forums > A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash Discussion > Manipulative on the subject of Nuclear

Manipulative on the subject of Nuclear

posted 16 years ago by Octothorn
22 replies | jump to latest

I am a physicist, and have great interest in economic energy production.

I have watched this film, and I am in accord with much that it says.

However, as has been mentioned, it does blur the distinction between fossil fuels and oil. The film is supposedly about oil, but I have seen at least one person in the film quoting the entire fossil fuels number and talking about replacing it with some other source of fuel to supply the same energy needs. This is intellectual dishonesty, and after seeing it happen at least once, I am going to rewatch the film with an eye for that sort of thing.

For those interested in my professional viewpoint on this, read on...

David L. Goodstein - Vice-Provost, Professor of Physics, California Institute of Technology, who may be responding to specific and severely loaded questions from the interviewer, says at least one EXTREMELY misleading thing about the option of moving to nuclear power.

Late in the film (about 1 hour and 15 minutes in), he responds to an unvoiced question thus (red areas will be discussed):

If you wanted to build enough to replace all the fossil fuel (1) that we burn worldwide today, which is 10 terawatts, you would have to build ten thousand, ten thousand of the biggest possible nuclear plants. And if you did that and burned U235 (2) in them, the worldwide reserves of uranium (3) will be exhausted in somewhere between one and two decades - so it would be a bridge at best.

(1) This is about oil, not all the fossil fuels. Sure, all fossil fuels will eventually reach peak, but why do they mention all fossil fuels at this point? Incidentally, according to 2003 data around 60% of fossil fuel energy comes from oil. This matches just over 5 terawatts (he was rounding up to get his 10 terawatts).

This is still a high number, but it does turn Dr. Goodstein's overemphasized "ten thousand" into fewer than six thousand power plants to replace all the oil we currently consume.

(2) Ah the old Uranium 235 thing. He already decided that we were going to build the largest power plants we could, so why is he choosing to use the fuel with poor efficiency?

Using only U235 in that way is the equivalent of building the largest 500 cylinder petrol engine in the world, then taking the piston heads out of all but one cyclinder, and running it like that (assuming the thing would turn over) - with 499 injectors spraying fuel everywhere - then complaining that we don't have enough fuel to run the engine for long.

I am already aware that the fissile material present on the earth, if used efficiently, could supply current energy demands for tens of thousands of years, so why is his figure of a couple of decades so low?

One reason is that he is neglecting breeder reactors. Breeder reactors cause re-fissionable materials to be generated from U238 so that the spent fuel from the reactor can be recycled and reprocessed to go back into a reactor again. One hitch though - this guy is talking about using only U235, and the breeder reactor causes other commercially fissile material to be created, such as Thorium and Plutonium. Ergo, he is deliberately ignoring the most efficient forms of reactors that use recycled nuclear fuel.

The other reason is...

(3) He says that there would be only a couple of decades worth of "reserves" of U235. This is what got my attention.

I am aware that Uranium is as common in the earths crust as tin, so there is no way he could be talking about mineable reserves. It would take hundreds of years of high intensity mining to get to all the mineable reserves of Uranium out of the ground. He must be only talking about known proven reserves of Uranium. This sounds fair until you realize that we have no economic need to spend money finding more reserves of Uranium, since at current demand, we actually have almost one hundred years of supply. We know that there is at least 5 times as much uranium out there, but until we need it we aren't going to bother finding where it is.

Essentially what he is telling us is that if we replaced all fossil fuels (not just oil) with the most uranium consuming and least efficient (non-recycling fuel) nuclear reactors, and we did not try to find any more of it, ever, at any price and no matter what the demand for the fuel is, we would have a supply of U235 for a couple of decades. I say wow, not bad, that's a lot of supply.

In truth if we replaced oil with efficient reactors that create and recycle fuel, allowing us to make use not only of U235, but also the much more abundant U238, the uranium available on the earth would supply us for tens of thousands of years - but that just isn't a good story if the point of the film is to frighten people, and would render pointless much of the remainder of the film - including the part about going back to the horse-drawn carriage.

[–] screamingguns 16 years ago

Though I agree with most of what you say the fact is even if you did keep the power stations using other fossil fuels, then sooner of latter even they will need replacing for the same reason that oil dependent power stations.

[–] Sick_Spazmoid 16 years ago

Even if you are right, the nuclear energy is not a good alternative. If the scenario with the thousands plants is implemented this will create tremendous problem with the nuclear waste. Also the danger of reactor meltdown (by incident or terrorist act) will become enormous. And these are not the only negatives.
____________________
I see undead people...

[–] Octothorn 16 years ago

Oil is generally not used in power stations, it is too expensive compared to coal and nuclear.

A crude awakening is about Oil. They switched it to "all fossil fuels" for this guy just to scare people into believing that nuclear is simply not an option in any sense.

Even if we are also reaching peak coal, nuclear is in fact an option we could switch to and use for many thousands of years. Waste disposal is an issue, but not as much of an issue as having no practical source of energy.

Waste disposal has practical solutions. Not having the energy source to sustain the lives of two thirds of the planet does not.

The bottom line for me is that in the movie they distorted facts to make it seem as if nuclear is not an option. That is dishonest. Watch this movie with caution.

[–] tkip19 12 years ago

I doubt this "thousands" of years, nuclear powered plants scenerio. Sounds grossly over exaggetated. I've been on energy sites with lots of engineers, geologists and academic types
debating and no one says nuclear is a viable option long term.

[–] Octothorn 9 years ago

Doubt is good if doubting makes you check facts.

Doubt is bad if it makes you hide your head in the sand when you are presented with reality.

Bernard Cohen has detailed how there is sufficient material on the planet to support our energy needs for millions of years.

http://sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf

While I doubt that it will be economically viable for millions of years - since costs of retrieval would certainly be higher as sources deplete, it certainly would cover us for tens of thousands of years at reasonable prices.

Remember, nuclear fuel is far more abundant in the earths crust than tin. Breeder reactors produce more fuel than they consume. One KG of fissile material produces 2-3 million times as much energy as fossil fuels.

The fissile material from coal ash would produce more energy than the coal that was burned to produce it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kirksorensen/2011/07/31/fissile-material-midas-touch/

[–] king_freddie 16 years ago

Well i agree with what you are saying but that doesnt take away the point of the movie, that the oil is running out and we need to do something NOW, not later. You cant wait until the last minute to start building all the reactors needed, the building time for a nuclear powerplant is quite long as I understand it. And the development of electric cars/trucks/tractors that can use the power from nuclear energy as a mean of propulsion. It isnt just about electricity, its also the huge global transportation machine to keep the global economy going.

And btw, scaring ppl is the american way. You/They (don t know if u are american or not, i guess u are) have already been scared into invading 2 countrys in 2 years.

*beep*

[–] Octothorn 16 years ago

Hate to be a know-it-all, but I also have some experience with being a witness in court and legal process.

You will understand that if a witness is seen to be intentionally distorting the truth to push their own agenda, then ALL of what they say must come into question.
I have revealed that this movie is just such a witness.

Another thing in response to what you mentioned. This is off topic, but I am not American, and I think the US military conflicts of the last 40 years have been largely very bad ideas.

Also, another off-topic issue - for those folks who wrote back about the hazards of nuclear energy... sure, there are risks, I never said there weren't, but that is not my point. My point is that the movie is manipulating us, and you should question everything said by a source of information that is shown to be manipulative.

[–] clouseau-4 16 years ago

There are no commercial Thorium reactors or breeder reactors. There are also no commercial fusion reactors. Until that changes, these are not solutions to our energy problems.

[–] Octothorn 16 years ago

There are commercial breeder reactors in use, and there are more being built as we speak -but again the point has been missed.

The point is that the film is being manipulative. Don't trust it, they are pushing their own agenda.

I have watched the film two more times and I have not seen another distortion of the truth as with this nuclear issue, but if anyone else sees something then I guess it may be worth mentioning here.

Incidentally clouseau, I could suggest that you are also pushing your own agenda. Breeder reactors do not have to be thorium reactors, so you are being manipulative to unnecessarily narrow the definition of breeder reactors. Uranium fast breeders exist.

Many countries built test fast breeders during the 1980's. These have been running without significant incident for about 20 years, and commercial reactors are now being built. You wouldn't want them to build commercial reactors with anything less then 20 years of testing and refinement now would you? I am sure many would say that even 20 years of testing was not enough.

Furthermore, you are lumping fusion in with fission reactors. On one hand, a fission reactor is what we know as a nuclear reactor. A fusion reactor, however, does not exist - and as far as I am concerned proper contained earthbound fusion reactors are a pipe dream.

Don't distract from the issue. The film, and now also you, are manipulating the public. I can't stand it when commentators take advantage of the fact that many people don't know much about nuclear energy, and then use that to push their own corrupted agenda upon them.

[–] mcslain 16 years ago

I think the film is pretty clear about discussing oil and then the closely related topic of all fossil fuels. I wasn't confused or manipulated the slightest bit. It seems to me as if your going to great lengths to try and go after the movie the way someone always goes after 'non compliant' documentaries in America. Seriously, give it a break... the documentary was well made. We are running out of oil and all other fossil fuels. Period.

[–] Octothorn 16 years ago

Wow. Ok. Um dude... this is not about me, it is about them.

I did say at the outset that I was pretty happy with the film. However, if they have to be manipulative to make their point then they undermine their own goals.

It would have been a simple thing for them to keep their presentation straight, stay on topic, and not exclude the simple facts I laid out above, but they chose to go the way they did. I don't make it that way.

Yeah, it is a film. Anything that intentionally manipulates the viewer, as far as I am concerned, is unscientific, and is no documentary.

They made the film, not me. They attempted to exclude facts and manipulate us, not me. All I have done here is bring it to your attention.

You want to point the finger at the whisleblower? Well, gee, thanks I guess that tells us something about you, but it changes nothing - the film still tries to take advantage of you.

I will close with this. You have forgotten that the name of the film is "A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash". At no point did they announce a transition to speaking about all fossil fuels, they snuck it in to manipulate people.

They have not outright lied, but they have intentionally presented facts in a manipulative way, which I think is more dangerous.

[–] reigncamp 16 years ago

I agree that this movie was made to manipulate. Why no mention of electrical power? Tesla must be turning over in his grave.

[–] Octothorn 16 years ago

Electrical power derived from what? We use electricity as a means of moving energy from one place to another, it is not a source of power. Power must enter the electrical path before it can exit it. If electrical power comes out of a system, then someone has put it in by some identifiable means from an energy source.

If you are referring to the tesla coil, that is nothing but a resonant transformer - not a power generation device as I have heard some people trying to tell me.

From the number of times this bit of pop science has come at me from various quarters, it seems that the tesla coil is the new "free power" fad coming out of new-age "science" publications such as Nexus and Golden Thread. Remove it from your head please, it is nonsense. A tesla coil is merely a resonant transformer, not an energy source.

[–] reigncamp 16 years ago

Peak Oil won't cause a total collapse of civilization. The world is going to shift to electricity for transportation: electric cars, electric trains, electric motorcycles, and the Segway. We can generate the electricity with nuclear, wind, and eventually solar power.

[–] SlinFolo 16 years ago

reigncamp,

If peak oil will cause a collapse or not can be discussed but you can't just replace all the oil needing parts of modern life and replace them with electric counterparts. That kind of change would take decades. And even if you could we would need to make HUGE investments in nuclear,wind and solar to cover the increasing demand for electricity. Those investment most take place in a world with ever increasing energy shortage and with a global economic that's going backwards. I just don't see that happening if you let the market take care of it. We're ultimaty going to be forced to reduce our energy use and thus shrinking the economy.

[–] Sick_Spazmoid 16 years ago

I can't agree that the film is not worthy only because some manipulative information (intentional or not), which you found. It is a good introduction to the problem we have or may have in near future.

How reasonable is the nuclear solution depends on the time we have. Nuclear plants are very expensive and only few countries have the technology, money and know-how to build them. Construction is slow. Don't forget that we must accommodate many things to use electricity, like cars. How long it will take to mass produce them? How expensive they will be? Will the poor people and countries be able to buy them?

From this point of view the nuclear solution is not really a solution.

If you really want a manipulative information on the subject just check www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net. First it scares you to death and then tries to sell you "survival packs".

I don't think that oil peak will cause some sudden collapse. It will be something like torture while switching to nuclear energy or whatever.

What will happen is that the rising prices will drag down the economies. This will cause reduced consumption of oil and price reduction. Adopting oil alternatives will cause further reduction.

The key element in this scenario is the time.

____________________
I see undead people...

[–] Octothorn 16 years ago

Nuclear is the only viable source of power in that list. Try running an electric railway system on wind or an iron smelt on solar.

[–] matt_loftiss 14 years ago

iron smelting with solar... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tt7RG3UR4c&feature=player_embedded

[–] Octothorn 9 years ago

You need to learn the difference between "melt" and "smelt".

If they can pour engine blocks and produce box girders, then it's a smelt.

If you're hanging your hopes on solar when they burn a hole in a bit of steel on time-lapse it's pathetic.

[–] Octothorn 9 years ago

The film distorts the truth, as I have outlined above.

Writing an IMDB post does not constitute "great lengths". I didn't produce a film.

Yes. we are running out of fossil fuels. We have been since day one.

However, the film deliberately distorts the options available to humanity. Nuclear fission has the potential to provide tens of thousands of years worth of energy.

But, of course, the filmmakers can't panic people if they say that. They have to present the nuclear option as if it is only a temporary reprieve from the dark ages in our future.

Tens of thousands of years of nuclear fission providing the energy source for humanity, and it is running out too - in tens of thousands of years.

[–] nightcrawler-329 13 years ago

There is footage of David Goodstein giving the number of 10,000 reactors in one of his presentations, as well as an interview transcript where he talks about other nuclear possibilities such as Thorium and breeder reactors. I don't find anything disingenuous about this. Fossil fuels are a related subject to oil; so is nuclear energy.

You're expecting David Goodstein to give an accurate representation of the subject of nuclear energy, and that is unreasonable. He would have to explain breeding reactors, waste management, the uranium mining process, the efficiency, and the security risks. That does not belong in this film. The entire film can only serve as an introduction to the concept of peak oil.

You may jump on David Goodstein for his number of 10 TW, but one could argue that your analysis is just as misleading since it assumes energy consumption remains constant. In reality the per capita energy consumption of the world is increasing and so is the world population. And I guess you like to pick and choose which of Goodstein's assumptions to find fault with. He assumes that each reactor will provide 1GW of power, when on average, reactors in the world provide around 17 percent less than that. Some other questions you conveniently omitted: What about fossil fuel's use for transportation? How would nuclear help at all with that? What of the enormous amount of capital required to make all of these new breeder reactors that don't currently exist? What about the water supply requirements?

You make it seem as if the film makers are trying to scare us into the idea that there are no viable energy sources for the future. And there is no motivation for this. We already know that the sun provides the earth with more energy than the human population will ever need. The real issue of peak oil is in the transition period where we make the switch from oil and fossil fuels (which are predicted to effectively run out this century) to alternative energies.

[–] Octothorn 9 years ago

I never stated energy consumption would remain constant. You are assuming that was what I did.

David Goodstein could have enormously simplified his statement by simply saying:

If we relied on nuclear energy, it would supply the expanding energy needs of humanity for tens of thousands of years.

See how much simpler that is than his actual comment? Not the least bit scary, sure, but straightforward and true.

No need to explain breeder reactors. No need to expand the energy base to "all fossil fuels". No need to specify U235. Simple, concise, true, not misleading.

It was all the provisos that he included in his comment that tweaked my interest, and all those provisos are the red flag that the comment is intended to be misleading.

Finally, you seem to think solar will cure all ills. If peak oil is around the corner, it cannot. We are simply not there yet. Nuclear is the only viable option for the timebeing.