KAEP's bald repetition that green power is dependent on petroleum for its viability is false.

Nuclear energy requires not only energy and material inputs for capital equipment but also an ongoing fuel supply of fissionable materials, which must be mined, refined and enriched at great energy cost. There is no particular reason why the required energy input, for either nuclear or renewables, has to be from petroleum. Chemical inputs such as plastics and solvents also do not require mineral oil feedstocks.

At present oil prices, or even much lower ones, numerous viable techniques exist for manufacturing non-petroleum liquid fuels suitable for petroleum-burning equipment; cheaper options are also available to convert or replace equipment to use electricity or gaseous fuel.

Biofuels already provide a small but rapidly growing portion of the world liquid and gas fuel market (around 1.5%, up from 0.5% in 2003). Synthetic oil (from biomass or coal) is a viable competitor to petroleum even with prices as low as $US50/barrel. Synthetic and vegetable oils will soften the blow of soaring petroleum prices, while removing altogether any technical barrier that petroleum depletion might pose.

The argument that there are 'technical and political problems' with the harnessing of hot-rock geothermal energy that require, somehow, a 'nuclear bridge' before they can be solved is a non-sequiteur. The only political problem I'm aware of with hot-rock geothermal projects is the vacillating now-you-see-it-now-you-don't of regulatory incentives for renewable electric generation. Any technical problems are minor -- there is no doubt that it's a viable technology today, all it needs is investment.

It would be equally valid to argue that geothermal power is required in order to 'bridge' the 'technical and political problems' with nuclear power. One of these generation options requires huge energy inputs to produce and enrich its fuel; the other also requires some energy input (for equipment and drilling) but significantly less of it, for it is fuel-free.

There is no doubt that renewable energy, for electricity and fuel alike, is viable. The idea that 'peak oil' somehow limits green power while presenting no such barrier to nuclear power is nonsense.

There is no doubt that renewable energy, for electricity and fuel alike, is NOT viable. The costings in this link http://www.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/ElecGenProsCons.html
are quite clear. Solar is expensive relative to most other options. This is also why there is such a small uptake of the technology. The idea that 'peak oil' somehow will not limit green power as its peakoil transition cost relative to nuclear INCREASES, is nonsense.

PEAKOIL will not hamper NUCLEAR power the same as solar because it is the one EXPORT commodity during PEAKOIL that will be worth using precious oil supples to procure by o/s nations. Solar panels will require expensive imports that will degrade our purchasing power in aan emerging peakoil world.

The political problems with GEOTHERMAL are due to oil companies reluctance to allow use of its drilling infrastructure and technologies. Oil cmpaniers run this planet and it is uncertain at what point they will allow progress in geothermal, a major competitor to their profit margins. We can't wait and guess when that will be or when technical problems might be solved. So NUCLEAR is an interim BRIDGE is essential for national security and sustainability. And please remember that nuclear is far safer and environmentally more sustainable than coal or oil for that matter.

I can’t agree with KAEP’s “The Thermodynamics of green energy options approaching PEAKOIL indicates extreme chaos” nor can I agree with XODDAM’s “Chemical inputs such as plastics and solvents also do not require mineral oil feedstocks” . Perhaps I spent too long at Altona where a string of liquids and gasses got turned into whatever including high density plastics. These days we should be able to substitute a range of feeds into fresh resources.

If oil does run out here there is natural gas, coal and wood in abundance for the crafty to convert into something worth while. Web processing, coating and forming after cellulose using steam was where I started fifty years ago. Particle boards to near transparent tissue can replace a lot of plastic packaging that is so structural in our throwaway society today. The demand for paper is another issue. I for one wont miss junk mail at election time.

Transport started with leg power, wind power came much later. Cobb & Co solved a few inland routes. Pity we had to have horse flu. Pity nuclear waste won’t have the same natural checks and balances.

The idea of nuclear powered transport for the masses after peak oil really worries me. Lets guess neither KAEP or XODDAM have the background to estimate the hazards either way.

Taz,

I think I said exactly what you said: chemical processes that traditionally use petroleum products as feedstocks do not *require* petroleum products.

Please don't lump my opinion and analysis in with the nuclear snake-oil KAEP is selling.