I think that you will find enriched uranium is not plutonium. Also, depleted uranium can't be used to make nuclear weapons explode, so I don't know exactly why you bring it up. To be clear, all nuclear nations main weapons plutonium has been made in a very specific way, a way that is inconstant with power generation. It is exactly because power generation reactor are so costly that they are relatively poor weapons materials creators, the method in which uranium needs to be removed from the neutron flux requires you to shut it down often. It is better to get a small, non-power generation reactor and crank out the plutonium. This is what India did with a small test heavy water reactor (CIRUS reactor). You need a reactor you can quickly turn on and off (and uranium extracted), then chemically reprocess the uranium, let it cool down, then put it back into the reactor. This laborious method is why power generation reactors are poor candidates for weapons material generation and why the current generation of weapons have not been made this way.

IAEA safeguards are important to make sure enrichment centers aren't diverting enriched uranium, sure. Plutonium should also have some safeguards as well, so don't take my words for a lack of concern or action on a world stage, I just believe for most, their concerns are blown way out of proportion to the actual risk.

But to reiterate, the relatively complex process to make weapons ready plutonium is why powered reactors aren't used in for weapons material for any of the worlds nuclear weapons nations, nor have any of the non-nuclear nations which have nuclear power and participate in NPT and IAEA systems been implicated in such actions. If Amory Lovins is the one forming your opinion on this, I would suggest a different source. It is like asking the CATO institute their opinion on climate change. I would consult the IAEA or some respectable international organization known for objective science rather than an anti-nuclear advocate. I, actually, fell for the same supposed expert (Amory Lovins) and was fairly anti-nuclear myself as a result. While there surely is some overlap between weapons technology and reactors, they are separate enough that safeguards can be highly effective. The existence of many nuclear powered states without nuclear weapons gives credence to their abilities. Only those countries who decide not to participate in NPT and IAEA systems have been the players known to developing weapons, most notably North Korea.

IAEA Safeguards: Stemming the Spread of Nuclear Weapons

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/S1_Safeguards.pdf

I think he is pessimistic is because energy use is also in growth, usually from coal. When you similarly look at CO2 emissions over the past decade, they aren't going down...every year is a new record. Even in IEA's 450 Scenario, "oil, coal and natural gas — remain the dominant energy sources in 2035"...this is a problem.

I can't find a notable environmental group that endorsees nuclear at all. Like the public, most environmental NGOs don't really make a distinction in reactor types. Nuclear is nuclear is nuclear. From friends of the earth to greenpeace, they are all pretty proudly anti-nuclear, with only local chapters of FoE even remotely interested in revisiting their views.

At any rate, I hope you aren't finding me to be combative or argumentative, I am not the best communicator of controversial issues. But I think climate issues are forcing us into a pretty thick walled box which will be hard to breakout of even in the most optimistic technological factors, which is why even if every single concern people have about nuclear is completely justified, waste, weapons, ect, we would most likely still need to build lots and lots of nuclear to even hope to address climate issues...they are that challenging.

Reactors don't produce weapons grade plutonium? Then where is weapons grade plutonium made? I think you'll find that it's made in exactly the same reactors as there is no real distinction between a reactor used for power generation and weapons generation other than in name.

"Uranium ore contains only about 0.7% of the fissile isotope U235. In order to be suitable for use as a nuclear fuel for generating electricity it must be processed (by separation) to contain about 3% of U235 (this form is called Low Enriched Uranium - LEU). Weapons grade uranium has to be enriched to 90% of U235 (Highly Enriched Uranium or HEU), which can be done using the same enrichment equipment. There are about 38 working enrichment facilities in 16 countries"
http://www.cnduk.org/get-involved/parliamentary/item/579-the-links-between-nuclear-power-and-nuclear-weapons

The point is that continuation of current tech makes it a lot more economical to produce weapons tech, whether that be weapons grade plutonium or depleted uranium (DU). Reactors can cost upwards of ten billion dollars to build, why would a weapons manufacturer want to pay for one of those out of their own pocket when they can have the taxpayer's pay for nuclear power plants that can produce what they need?

"Every known route to bombs involves either nuclear power or materials and technology which are available, which exist in commerce, as a direct and essential consequence of nuclear power"
- Dr. Amory Lovins (from NEIS)

In terms of renewables:, the 'new' renewables only account for about 3% of total energy use, so if that's what he meant then he's not far off. Stats from IEA, however, state that wind has had an average growth rate of 25% over the past five years, while solar has averaged an annual growth rate of over 50% in the same period. So their impact is increasing fairly rapidly. So I'm not sure why he's so pessimistic about them when the IEA is not.

Have environmental groups specifically spoken out against the type of nuclear reactors he is talking about? Which ones?

>> ^lertad:
Hmm...maybe someone with better expertise can help me, but will alternative fuel ever be really sufficient?>

As aaronfr said, it just part of the puzzle. According to Amory Lovins we can stop using oil, today if we simply use all the reduction/substitution technologies we already have, see:
www.videosift.com/video/TED-Talks-Amory-Lovins

Great sift. I got some websites added to my favorites and found a group in my area.

He talks about just the US imports. I think an important issue also is that you have many countries (China pops to mind immediately) that are very aggressively competing for the existing oil supply.

I disagree with the speaker's point about Peak Oil being the driver of inflation for the dollar. I think that the government printing more money when they need/want it is the primary source of the devaluation of the dollar. But if you want to talk about inflation, you should look at the Middle East. Since their oil standard is the dollar, they are the ones that have been experiencing the inflation instead of the US. I read in the Economist that they had been experiencing inflation in the mid-20% per year. In fact the UAE switched its oil standard to a "Currency Bucket" that includes other currencies in an effort to decrease the out-of-control inflation. Of course, no doubt due to pressure, 70% of that bucket is still the dollar.

Here are some websites that may be of interest (focused around building local community):
Financial: http://www.solari.com
Local currency: http://www.riverhours.org/
Local currency: http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/
Example of city farming: http://pathtofreedom.com/
Biointensive farming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biointensive/
Buy local food (US): http://www.localharvest.org/
PBS NOW episode (growing local food): http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/344/index.html

From video:
Post oil groups: http://relocalize.net/
Energy news: http://www.energybulletin.net/

Oh yeah, here is the US can eliminated oil imports: http://www.videosift.com/video/TED-Talks-Amory-Lovins

thanks again, fellow TED pimp.

very positive

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Should be cleared up, check this thread:
http://www.videosift.com/talk/Discarded-videos-amnesty-thread

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
uhhh, hey dag? i think we entered a wormhole...

two of my clips just got discarded by Siftbot, but it wasn't 4 days yet. this one:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Umi-Qazrina-and-Tan-Hong-Ming

...had only been up 2 days, and my Amory Lovins TED Talk had been 3.

any idea why?

see the sift 3.1 and the amnesty sift talk threads
queue length got reduced to 2 days and things fell through that gap

In reply to this comment by my15minutes:
uhhh, hey dag? i think we entered a wormhole...

two of my clips just got discarded by Siftbot, but it wasn't 4 days yet. this one:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Umi-Qazrina-and-Tan-Hong-Ming

...had only been up 2 days, and my Amory Lovins TED Talk had been 3.

any idea why?

uhhh, hey dag? i think we entered a wormhole...

two of my clips just got discarded by Siftbot, but it wasn't 4 days yet. this one:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Umi-Qazrina-and-Tan-Hong-Ming

...had only been up 2 days, and my Amory Lovins TED Talk had been 3.

any idea why?