Richard Heinberg simply writes off nuclear as if it weren't there, despite its operation in France for 50 years and elsewhere in the world.

He also asserts that in a renewables world electricity usage would have to be way lower than presently, yet demand will rise as more and more applications arise.

How is the degradation of the earth through man's exploitation supposed to be countered without abundant cheap energy?
His own forecasts force him down a path he blithely refuses to go.
Typical of the poor old Greens, all Alice in Wonderland.

Yes, I agree Heinberg does just dismiss nuclear for no good reason.
I think the rest of their reasoning is reasonable and likely the way
it will go. The problem I see with nuclear is can we afford it ?
If solar & wind fail and are a real debacle then we may just have to
sacrifice everything else to get a fleet of them up & running.

With Mum looking at a half cooked meal in the dark then a nuclear
program will be announced the next morning.

....further to, Heinberg's conclusion is for a lower but sustainable, standard of living through renewables. Why should we accept this when abundant, safe,cheap nuclear energy will allow a higher population to live at a high standard, sustainably?

If Heinberg is correct, renewables offer humanity no pathway to the stars, and no need for that pathway.

Greens happily embracing Heinberg's conclusion won't countenance fission or fusion. Issues such as nuclear waste and proliferation are just shutters put up to preserve their limited wish for the future of humanity.

The court jester shows that he has no basis for his laughable supposition that our resources will be gone. And makes a further pointless observation about the fact that the planned growth and jobs are not from resources, but from innovation and industry.
He has proved that being the court jester is not preclusive of being the forum dunce.
Robert lr Page has gained two places, jester and dunce.

Lucifase,
I think that there are so many brainwashed against nukes
and as early as in the schools that it will not be possible to build
them until the restrictions of solar & wind are not just obvious but
actually are causing significant discomfort.

Leo, I watched Joseph Tainters talk (1 1/2 hours) and innovation is
suffering like many other systems with declining returns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI

To both of you, what both of these documents, talks whatever tell
me is that there is a lot of uncertainty.
Heinberg & Fridley give some interesting formula for the calculation
of the energy gain & costs of solar and wind and they will strip a lot
of optimism filters from the eyes of many greens.
Tainter shows an interesting inverse relationship between innovation and energy.
I wonder what Tainter thinks about Fusion innovation, will it fail
because of its declining return ?

There is a hell of a lot more to all this than I had realised and
I think that it is highly likely that we will suffer collapse before
a new energy regime is done.
I will be interested to see if Heinberg & Fridley expand on the rising
cost of solar & wind as you attempt to get it to 100% reliability.
I suspect that this is why they say we will have to reorganise the
way we use energy, we just will not be able to afford 100%.
Especially if we are in a collapse state.

So I think many more should read the book and watch the Utube.

dear leo lane: Insults do not in any way make your gobbledegook comments make any sense.
But keep right on with your nonsense and entertain yourself. I will opt out on the principle that if you argue with an idiot you lower yourself to his level.