Re: [asa] Re: Renewable energy

From: Murray Hogg <>
Date: Tue Mar 31 2009 - 16:07:47 EDT

Hi Burgy,

I checked out the article you cited below (note that there is a typo in the address - should be .../what.htm rather than .../what/htm) and I would say that given the time-frames and definitions in that particular article, then nuclear probably could be called a "renewable" resource.

Personally, however, I would opt for calling nuclear "long-term" rather than "renewable" - it certainly is the former, it certainly isn't the later. It might take a couple of thousand years, but sooner or later the Uranium supply will peter out.

Putting aside the definitional quibble, the treatment of nuclear in your piece is, I think, about right as it stands - you correctly point out that something significant will need to happen in order for nuclear to become a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Absent such developments, however, and discussions about a nuclear future are entirely academic. Your also clear on the time-scales involved so I don't think a careful reader should be in anyway misled.

I'm not sure whether I need to add a rider to the above in order to satisfy Janice - her response to my last post makes clear that she missed the point of my remarks. The ONLY issue I was addressing was whether nuclear is a renewable energy supply and everything I wrote should be taken in that context - including my remark about the left not "playing games". Hence, NEITHER the citation from Adam Smith nor the 32% figure who oppose nuclear on environmental grounds are of any relevance whatever - unless, of course, Janice wants to suggest that I've been taken in by the vast green-conspiracy and that the truth is that one really can keep digging Uranium out of the ground forever.


John Burgeson (ASA member) wrote:
> On 3/30/09, Murray Hogg <> wrote:
>> Hi Burgy,/
>> If one is strictly speaking of RENEWABLE energy then nuclear is excluded
>> because it's not a renewable resource.
> What I have seen in several places, Murray, is that the above may not
> be true. It seems to be true of plants built on past technology -- but
> there are other nuclear technologies (breeder? ) (fast neutron?)
> (thorium?) etc. that use fuel at a rate that could last 1000s of
> years. Joe Schuster, in his book BEYOND FOSSIL FOOLS, makes this
> argument -- he has a web site which goes into detail. Strictly
> speaking, the energy sources proposed for these are at least as
> renewable as fusion technology.
> I don't claim to have sorted all this stuff out. Yet. My recent
> article in the Bugle ( assumed nucular
> was not a renewable. I may have to write a retraction.
> Burgy
> Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 31 16:09:36 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 31 2009 - 16:09:36 EDT