I remember when I first started reading about fusion power, around 25 years ago. Up until that point, commercial fusion power had always been estimated about 20 years in the future. So no change there.

Look it, we will have plenty of time to produce fusion in the Stone Age. Haven't any of you seen Star Trek?

If you read Mr. Hubbert’s paper, you will see that he gives a nice presentation of the utilization of uranium and thorium for power production. Fifty years later the US nuclear program has stagnated. However, the Japanese are moving ahead slowly, yet ambitiously, with a program to fully utilize plutonium using next generation ‘fast’ reactor concepts with innovative ‘backend’ technologies (e.g., accelerator driven systems to consume long lived ‘waste‘ isotopes) , and India has started to utilize a thorium based fuel cycle to produce power using their large domestic thorium reserves. These technologies take a long time to develop responsibly. The US has to change its policy with respect to nuclear and move ahead smartly to fully and responsibly develop a nuclear fuel cycle in order to meet the coming fossil fuel crisis. If not, in 10 years time, even Iran will have more developed nuclear fuel cycle technologies in place than the US, and they will hold a good share of the worlds remaining fossil fuel reserves!

"He's no James Kunstler, predicting cannibalism in the suburbs the day after tomorrow."

This is a completely unfair characterization of my book, "The Long Emergency," in which I state nothing of the kind. Andrew Leonard should apologize.

--James Howard Kunstler

Saratoga Springs NY

I grow weary of progressive journals like Salon and The Nation that choose to belittle Peak Oil and ignore the mounting evidence that increasingly confirms it. If, as I suspect, Peak Oil represents an epoch shattering event in human history, then it will rather pre-empt the "collective microphone," in ways that make Andrew Leonard and others uncomfortable. I have been a lifelong progressive activist and if it weren't for the overwhelming body of evidence, I would still be engaged in the more familiar activist agendas. But like it or not, Andrew, Peak Oil is coming and its impact will be huge. Perhaps instead of playing parlor games with Kenneth Deffeyes, you might start an honest discussion of the work of Richard Heinberg. His two books, "The Party's Over" and "Powerdown" are worth your serious consideration and that of your readers. And while I have your attention, I read Kunstler's book and while a bit more dramatic and attention grabbing, I don't recall him discussing canabilism in the suburbs.

Peak Oil may be survivable, but it will only be so if it commands our serious attention. Salon does our species a disservice by continuing to publish the puerile drivel that Mr. Leonard seems determined to write. Peak Oil is a serious subject that deserves mature consideration. Send Andrew Leonard back to his sand box and allow some grownups to lead this vital conversation.

You know, if you are going to accuse someone of predicting "cannibalism in the suburbs the day after tomorrow," the article you link to for support should, you know, actually say that, or something remotely like it. (Maybe Leonard meant the part where Kunstler says, "I think that we will return to many social relations and social enactments that we lost and that were of great value to us, such as working closely with other people on things that really matter to us"?) Unless, of course, you practice Ann Coulter standards of journalism.

Just a thought.

William E. Parkins, who worked on the Manhatten project and recently passed away, seems less optomistic. In , which was published today in Science magazine, he says that the economic costs of developing fusion reactors is simply too great and machines such as ITER should be sold soley on the interesting physics you can find from these machines. The last paragraph of the piece says:

New physics knowledge will emerge from this work. But its appeal to the U.S. Congress and the public has been based largely on its potential as a carbon-sparing technology. Even if a practical means of generating a sustained, net power-producing fusion reaction were found, prospects of excessive plant cost per unit of electric output, requirement for reactor vessel replacement, and need for remote maintenance for ensuring vessel vacuum integrity lie ahead. What executive would invest in a fusion power plant if faced with any one of these obstacles? It's time to sell fusion for physics, not power.

that is all

Oops, I meant Hedgerowteacher for President.

You know you are important when James Howard Kunstler

cares about your completely unfair characterization of his

book.

"He's no James Kunstler, predicting cannibalism in the suburbs the day after tomorrow"

Kunstler's "The Long Emergency" was my introduction to Peak Oil; I bought it after reading an interview with him in Salon last April. It is a great read and a frank exploration of some of the problems we may very well face in an energy scarce future. Like others, I don't seem to recall his prediction of cannibalism in the suburbs, perhaps I missed it? Mr. Leonard, could you provide me a page number for that so I can consult my copy? Your comments seem like those of a child who did not read the book but still tries to B-S his way through the book report.

Like hedgerowteacher I am sick of other so-called "progressives" who blindly dismiss or ignore Peak Oil and still cling to the collective hallucination that we can continue infinite growth in our drive-in society as oil supplies will inevitably peak and dwindle.

Leonard writes like he's not too worried about running out of oil-- instead he's counting on folks like me, a mechanical engineering prof, to figure a way out of the current conundrum.

While I am mildly flattered by the faith, the main thing that Leonard and others consistently miss is the Damoclean sword of Peak Oil and Global Warming. Say we're not at Peak Oil-- then we keep burning the black stuff until we bake the planet. If we are, then we have an immediate societal transition that must occur, in order to prevent the chaos that will occur when you have a society forced to live on an energy budget approximately 40% lower than current levels-- and subbing in almost 100% of current transportation.

It's time to get worried, either way you view the Peak Oil debate. Because worried is not going to be enough in 2025.