Environmentalists Coming Around to Nuclear Power? 1092
Heywood J. Blaume writes "In a Washington Post editorial Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, now says he was wrong about opposing nuclear power 30 years ago. In the article he addresses common myths about nuclear power, and puts forth the position that nuclear power is the only feasible, affordable power source that can solve today's growing environmental and energy policy issues. From the article: 'Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.'"
It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
David
It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Insightful)
It is absolutely not refutable that change is occuring. What is refuta ble is whether or not it is because of a natural cycle, or because of man-made change.
But the thing is, it does not matter what the cause is. If the cycle continues it will certainly, without a doubt, lead to the death of us as a civilization, whether we were the cause or not.
Hence the concern. It doesn't matter if we are the root cause or not, we're the only species on the planet with the capability to reduce and possibly reverse the cycle.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot hinges on the question of whether the changes are our doing. If they're not, we should adapt ourselves, not the planet. If they are, we need to start controlling ourselves. Your view of the solution sounds a bit external to humans ("reverse the cycle") for my t
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3, Insightful)
The question of whether we should is irrelevant. If we can do something to maintain the status quo, we will. It's the nature of natural selection that life forms do everything in their power to survive. It's beside the point that no species in Earth history has had the capability (assuming we do) to consiously affect a change in the global climate befo
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3)
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Insightful)
I was with you up until that point.
We don't know whether another three degrees of warming over the next century (which is what the most pessimistic of Global Warming predictors are saying will happen regardless of what changes we make) will, on balance, be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.
Historically, periods of warm climates have been more prosperous for mankind than cool eras, because most of the land in the world lies outside the tropics.
All the Ice melting off Greenland might suck if you live in Venice, New Orleans, or some other port town that is mostly below sea level, but it's the best news ever if you've invested in any arctic real estate.
I'm a big fan of going to nuclear as an incrimental step towards Solar, fusion, or some other, better power source... not because I buy in to "greenhouse" climate models, but rather because I like the idea of cleaner air in our cities. It just plain makes sense, no matter which side of the Global Warming debate you are on.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted, we are generating a lot of pollution, and it would be great if we could stop without majorly fucking something else up in the process.
But that last part there has been VERY DIFFICULT for us humans to do.
The chinese curse is alive and well. Whenever I hear the latest global warming scaremongering, I can't help but think of it. "May you live in interesting times." Indeed!
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3)
But it actually is debatable whether or not change is really happening. The global averages temperatures probably really have risen 2/3 of a degree in the past 120 years. There is some uncertainty to that, largely (to the best of my knowledge) due to questions of whether systematic e
Oh blah (Score:3, Funny)
And if you bought that one, I have some seafront land in Kansas going cheap...
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3, Informative)
Even so, your link does not refute the GP poster's point at all. In fact, it reinforces it.
From the concluding paragraph:
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Interesting)
"Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now."
The article previously described those concerns: that, *excluding* anthropogenic alterations, which they *specifically stated that they could not model well at the time* (quite the contrast to the present, where the papers state that we *can* model quite accurately**), there would be another ice age in *tens of thousands of years*.
How did you read the article and miss all of that?
** - If you want to get into a debate over present day climate modelling, go ahead and light the match. After watching a long presentation by the director of NCAR (Tim Killeen) and speaking with him at length afterwards, I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you. We can start with the fact that present day computing per dollar buys you about one million times as much computing power, progress into the fact that the amount of funding available for that computing has skyrocketted (their advancing computing needs easily beat Moore's law), and continue into the details of the climate models (datapoints every county or two, collecting data down to how dust lifted off the Sahara affects algal blooms) and the verification of the models.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't quote that because it was pure opinion not supported by the sources cited. Curiously, taken at face value that quote also undermines your and the author's contention that the current press coverage of climate change is more resp
MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's dissect this piece by piece.
Isn't realclimate.org by the guy who fudged his analysis to generate the discredited "hockey-stick" graph of temperature predictions?
Ad hominem attack. And wrong, because realclimate is a group blog, and the author in question has nothing to do with the hockey stick. And the hockey stick isn't discredited, except in the eyes of a certain small group of people who are often accused of fudging their own maths.
Finally, its clear that there were concerns,[about a potential new ice age] perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available.
And then the page goes on to mention that the knowledge then available was in the absence of GW. i.e. scientists were considering that the Earth would be naturally cooling, if there wasn't a GW effect.
[and present climate knowledge still does not allow reliable predictions]
This line, or sentiment, isn't present in the article at all. It's a direct fallacy of inserting words into someone else's mouth.
So are you attempting to say that: because the concern was not unanimous (it never is) and scientists believed further study was warranted (they always say that) that the concern about global cooling was not common among climate researchers?
No. The point being made by the article was that such concerns were not exhibited in peer reviewed journals. Climate change is. Popular press does not equal peer reviewed journals. Hence, a direct argument that the present situation is identical to that of 'global cooling' is false.
And before some idiot mods this post as troll (like they did earlier to another of mine), can someone please justify precisely what information the parent offers that makes it so 'informative'?
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's just that the fanboy phenomenon isn't limited to Mac vs. PC. It's maddening, but you can't really blame them for not having access to a trustworthy news source. The S/BS ratio in our country sucks ass right now.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Insightful)
Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichtons State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.
the problem is human pscyhology (Score:3, Insightful)
we all have the responsibility to put our hand on the global thermostat and start twiddling. whether its natural or unnatural that the earth is warming is besides the point. its warming. so lets fix that. it might be natural that the earth is warming up, but we like our ecosystems the way they are, so we're going to fight it. which means that mankin
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181 [realclimate.org]
The argument, IIRC, is centred on the intensity of hurricanes. Activity based on numbers of hurricanes do not capture such an effect, while intensity graphs show a pretty good correlation. Though things are still sketchy at the moment, you can't make a handwave motion and suggest that all hurricane researchers are of the same opinion.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Insightful)
Global warming caused last year's record number of hurricanes. So this year, when the number of hurricanes is fewer, we'll know it's because global warming has peaked and is no longer a problem. Do we have a deal?
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3, Insightful)
Due to this semi-random nature of weather, it is wrong to blame any one event such as Katrina specifically on global warming - and of course it is just as indefensible to blame Katrina on a long-term natural cycle in the climate.
Sorry, where I come from we have what's called the null hypothesis. In any research asking "was this caused by humans?" the null hypothesis is "no." This sort of language is
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3, Informative)
Average passenger-miles per gallon:
Automobiles 34.9
Personal trucks 30.8
Motorcycles 55.0
Transit Buses 30.3
Airlines 33.8
Intercity trains 25.9
Commuter trains 46.1
So Airlines are better than AVERAGE cars - but an SUV is much worse than an average car.
Motorcycles and commuter trains win.
But a FUEL EFFICIENT car is the best option. You can fit an adult, 3 kids and a bunch of kid stuff into a 35mpg MINI Cooper - I do it all the time. Then you'
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Insightful)
two months ago my sister bought a pacifica. she has 1 kid and no need to haul much more than some groceries most of the time. i have 2 kids and am comfy in my sable, though id kinda like a wagon again, but only sometimes.
anyway, we were helping her move last month and i got very upset with her. were at a mini storage place, and have things strewn about dciding where to put what in a u-haul, and she says shes gonna get the guys some sodas. groovy.
then she asks us to move everything out of her way, because she *Cant* back the pacifica up. you get inside, and windows are tiny, in addition to her being short. she literally couldnt fucking see to drive in reverse. she admitted it, she even knew it when she bought it, that she could barely see out of it to drive well.
i tore into her, moved her stupid fucking car, and told her to go buy a civic that she could actually take somewhere. she doesnt have a good reason for an SUV, or whatever you call that pathetic atrocity, she bought it because she thought it looked nice; despite that she was moving from north carolina to alabama, and intended to make the drive at least once every 6 weeks or so (even with gas on the rise) back home to visit, and had nothing she *has* to haul besides a baby, a diaper bag, and what not, all of which could easily fit into a mid-size sedan that she could actually *drive properly*.
some people are just selfishly fucking stupid. i know some guys like to tout the freedom of choice, and yes, its great. we all fuck up with that freedom from time to time, but to make a practically permanent stupid fucking decision just because you could? nice, sis. you cant drive it, dont need it, intend to put thousands of miles on it and the mileage is shitty.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:3, Interesting)
Face it. Most people in the US are bored. They on average spend 4 hours a day in front of the tv, 8 hours working, 8 hours sleeping, and 4 hours unexplained.
From what I hear, New Orleans is a blessing since the hurricane. Crime is almost non-exis
Those 4 unexplained hours? (Score:5, Funny)
If you run Linux, you spend it masterbating and looking for more fuel for masterbation on the Internet until the the re-compile is done.
If you run MacOS, you spend it bragging about running MacOS until Starbucks closes.
If you run Solaris, you spend it looking for a job where you can still run Solaris.
If you run none of the above, you spend it having a life, playing with your children, or humping your wife.
I run Windows, but I'm getting a divorce, so I will soon be switching to Linux.
Re:It is real, look out the window (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
The environmental movement today has become a front for anti-corporate activists.
what to do with 48T/yr of nuclear waste per plant (Score:3, Insightful)
You can sell nuclear energy to me when you can answer the question "What do we do with 48 tons of nuclear waste generated per year per plant [sfgate.com]"? Arrogant people think nuclear power is perfectly safe. Paranoid people think nuclear power will destroy the planet. Intelligent people see plant designs that are intri
Re:what to do with 48T/yr of nuclear waste per pla (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is time. Radioactive material is radioactive--it decays into stable elements over tim
Doesn't have to be 48 tons/year. (Score:5, Informative)
Until it was banned, we had a whole system under construction for reprocessing spent fuel that would have reduced the scope of the problem we're now faced with. However, in 1977 the research was cut off, and further development and implementation was banned; although President Reagan quietly reversed the ban, nobody has been willing to put money into it. Except of course the military, their ability to manufacture plutonium for weapons purposes was never affected, something which strikes me as endlessly ironic, given that Carter's justification for banning reprocessing was ostensibly to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
By processing the spent fuel assemblies promptly (before they sit around and create a lot of secondary contamination) you reduce the volume of waste that has to be stored for long periods, and you also get a non-trivial amount of new fuel back (even out of reactors that aren't specifically designed to breed new fuel). Either one of those goals would make the procedure worthwhile in my opinion, pick your favorite and count the other one as a bonus. Right now we're burying tons of waste which isn't itself that radioactive or long-lived or even toxic, but because it's physically joined to stuff that is. The actual volume of long-lived high-level waste produced by a plant isn't that much, if you do the right reprocessing first.
The plan in the United States was a process called PUREX; you can Google it for more information. The French do their reprocessing at COGMA LaHague, and the Brits do it at a commercial facility called THORP.
More information here as well:
http://chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-13.htm [chemcases.com]
Re:what to do with 48T/yr of nuclear waste per pla (Score:5, Informative)
If we'd just get them going, Department of Energy [anl.gov] laboratories could pretty much eliminate the problem, but anytime someone proposes doing that, who do you think blocks it? But then, if you let them create a way to eliminate the waste, you couldn't block nuclear plants by complaining there's nothing to do with the waste.
Breeder Reactors? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, there's always the reprocessing route. If you use a breeder reactor and waste reprocessing fuel cycle, you can eliminate all of the high level, won't go away for thousands of years waste. Of course, you still have the "low level" waste, but that will go away after a few hundred years (maybe 500 or so to be safe). The great part is that they've figured out how to convert conventional PWR's and BWR's into breeders through advanced computer modeling, so there's no need for any new R&D. The only problem is that it's a lot more expensive than the once through fuel cycle. I guess you can have it clean, or you can have it cheap. Its cheaper and cleaner than coal anyway.
Storing the high level waste isn't really as much as a problem as you think, either. 48 tons of nuclear waste may sound like a lot, but it's really only a few cubic meters. There are salt domes in new mexico that will probably be geologically stable for millions of years (look up the waste isolation pilot plant, WIPP). The only reason yucca mountain is at yucca mountain is politics, it's really a pretty bad location. At any rate, 48 tons of waste per year compares favorably to the hundreds of tones of waste generated daily by a coal plant, in my opinion.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
"Some greens" have always seen Nuclear power as a good idea (check my domain name). There's been a low-level dispute about whether or not the upsides of nuclear power exceed it's downsides.
As the disasterous implications of global warming have loomed ever larger, the downsides of nuclear power have started to loose their bite.
The 'badness' of Nuclear power has always been one of preference (or
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
* American farm subsidies that keep millions unemployed.
* A laundry list of other subsidies and tariffs that lock out foreign goods.
* Organizations like the IMF that tie development loans to absurd and punitive measures, forcing developing countries to abandon effective poverty prevention programs in the name of "smaller government", while making stupid loans that may as well be sent straight to the Caymans.
* Only supporting abstinence-only AIDS prevention.
* Invading countries that don't pose any threat to us.
Frankly, I don't see how Greenpeace--with a global budget of about $150M a year--can do nearly as much damage as any one of dozens of multinational corporations, much less the federal government.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Insightful)
Parent Post is Ad Hominem Attack & Blatantly f (Score:3, Informative)
The parent posts asserts that Driissen promotes junk science. Again, NOWHERE in the Motherjones article does it say that. NOWHERE.
All the article says is that Driessen is a global warming skeptic, is critical of the environmentalist movement, and participants in events put on by conservative think tanks. It's hard to find anything nefarious or evil in that.
Motherjones
What do you mean "We"? (Score:4, Insightful)
By "We", I assume you mean the United States, since France and others have been using fast breeder reactors and fuel recycling that never results in weapons grade Plutonium at any point in the cycle, and reduces the actual long term waste to nearly nothing.
The US has held itself back over its continuing collective guilt over ending WWII by using nuclear weapons on Japan. Japan, on the other hand, has 34% of it's electical power coming form 53 reactors, of which the majority are breeder reactors (generate their own plutonium for use as fuel in themselves and other reactors), so it seems they're a heck of a lot less fearful of it than the US is (the US only gets 10% of our electrical power from reactors). http://www.cscap.nuctrans.org/Nuc_Trans/locations
-- Terry
Its pronounced nukular. (Score:4, Insightful)
With the technology of 30 years ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is time to bring nuclear power back into the discourse about our energy needs, but I'm not sure it's time to start building plants as fast as we can either...
Re:With the technology of 30 years ago... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, if you RTFA'd you'd notice that he scolds himself for being against nuclear power 30 years ago and cites how the safety aspects of the US nuclear power facil
Nope. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, we don't. The technology is pretty much the same. There haven't been any new nuclear plants in the past 20 years and they really haven't updated much of the safety systems. There still isn't a long term way of dealing with the tons of radioactive waste being produced. Don't get me wrong, I think Nuclear is the way to go, but I would really like the storage system to be fixed soon.
Re:Nope. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes we do! It hasn't seen much commercial development (none inside the US) but the Integral Fast Reactor [wikipedia.org] produces waste that only takes about 300 years to return to the original level of radioactivity as the fuel that went into the reactor.
Storing radioactive waste for only 300 years is is many orders of mangitude more feasible than the storage of current waste for tens of thousands of years.
Re:Nope. (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you missed the point - after 300 years there is no net increase in radioactivity.
Put the waste back where the original fuel came from and there is no change in radiation levels. If you want to argue about externals having an impact and that you can't just put it back without additional effects on the environment, then sit on the stuff for 900 years and you are down way BELOW the original level of radioa
Actually safety technology HAS improved (Score:4, Informative)
Qouting Wikipedia: The primary advantage of a pebble bed reactor is that it can be designed to be inherently safe. As the reactor gets hotter, the rate of neutron capture by 238U increases, reducing the number of neutrons available to cause nuclear fission.
Environmentalists /= anti-nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, I'm puzzled at the attitude the submitter apparently has, in that he seems to be describing environmentalists, and pro-nuke-power people, as two separate groups. To me, nuke is an obvious choice. If you need no other explaination, see how the anti-nuke people resort to blatant lies and unrealistic comparisons in order to get people to _feel_ that it's bad. The pro-nuke side goes with science so people _think_ about, and _understand_ the issues.
My point, I guess, is that this isn't surprising or new, some guy who left Greenpeace when it diverted from his POV is just saying what so many other environmentalists have known for decades. I'm not sure this is news, other than that whoever this guy is, is saying it.
Re:Environmentalists /= anti-nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
The real news, if you RTFA, is that his former green bretheren still treat him like a pariah for... being rational.
Re:Environmentalists /= anti-nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because you're a rational environmentalist who wants to actually protect the environment, as opposed to the utopians who want to Change the World.
Re:Environmentalists /= anti-nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly people point out that U235 is not up to our predicted unmodified energy use (estimates of less than 70 years are commonly touted), to which nuclear advocates then suggest fast breeders - which produce easily purified plutonium, easily
Uranium supplies no constriction on bomb (Score:3, Informative)
As for passive solar, I'm all in favour, but there are several issues:
Re:Environmentalists /= anti-nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Environmentalists /= anti-nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
The question should not be: "Who cares about a redwood forest", the question should be: when is enough, enough?
When there ARE no forests?
When all of the water in undrinkable due to pollution?
When there IS no water? (Just ask the SoCal farmers fucked by Mulholland when he diverted the watershed to LA; or the sprawling McMansion suburbs in NorCal that are running out of water).
Where do you personally draw then line? When there are no trees left, every inch of land is covered with beige houses, and every human being has exactly 1 square yard of space left? Obviously not: but you must ask yourself: when is enough enough?
Then you will see that the Endangered Species Act is far more powerful than it appears on the surface. Each little insignificant critter on there is nothing more than a proxy, or a negotiable "line" that represents the "enough" I am referring to above.
Re:Environmentalists /= anti-nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, if there isn't a direct payoff to me, then fuck it.
That sort of attiude is why we have corporations who cut R&D to increase the short term balance, why consumer debt is at an all-time high, and why the Feds keep spending us deeper and deeper into debt.
It's not just irresponsible to have a "me and now" attidue, it's also downright stupid. If everyone wants to help themselves by screwing everyone else over, then we end up with a society which simply doesn't work.
Just like you can't argue the Savior's sacrifice with an atheist, you can't use extinction to argue with us; we just don't care.
Funny, because we find it interesting that you still choose to believe without hard evidence - and that's not something that I'm ashamed to admit.
That and a 20% consumer tax
There are good arguments for a VAT, but the simple fact is that sales tax generally disproportinately affects the poor. Wealthy individuals spend a much smaller percentage of their income, which means that, percentage wise, they actually pay less tax under a purely VAT system than those who have less income.
Of course, if you're arguing for a VAT in addition to the current tax system, that's an entirely different matter. Adding money to the federal budget won't really stop our financial problems - it is runaway spending - particularly on the military (17.2%), Medicare/Medicaid (23.6%), and interest on the debt (8.10%) - that is driving our government further into debt.
Being smart about environmentalism means that you can still eat your tuna (without killing dolphins), you can still have your deck (from a well-managed forest), you can still eat steak (without antibiotic abuse), and drive your car/SUV (hybrid, EV, hydrogen, or biofuel powered).
Technology has the ability to solve many of our environmental problems without changing our quality of life - we just have to care enough to use it. Unfortunately, it appears that you don't.
Obvious Simpsons quote (Score:3, Funny)
He came around a long time ago (Score:5, Informative)
Shill! (Score:5, Informative)
Hell, I'd settle for the Washington Post admitting that they're trying to pull one over its readership. [dailykos.com]
Re:Shill! (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be fine, but then you can't go and write an opinion piece in the paper without full disclosure. Billing him as 'co-founder of greenpeace' is totally misleading.
The idea that people don't know what is wrong with this is very depressing.
Re:Shill! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that a "Founder of Greenpeace" is saying it is what is news-worthy. Who he (supposedly) is is the story. So it's perfectly reasonable to point out that "Founder" is a stretch, and "longtime paid lobbyist for any well-heeled industry with eco-image problems that will cut him a check" is a much more relevant description of who he is.
What he is actually saying about nuclear power is not terribly worth discussing; it's the nuke-industry party line he's paid to spout. It's as irrationally pro-nuclear as the actual founders of Greenpeace are anti-nuclear. Neither makes a good starting point for discussion.
The amount of uranium (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, there's always the "we'll run out of oil by 1995" theories running around, but the arguments seemed quite compelling. I can't find them again now, but what's the real deal with this? If the whole world went nuclear, would we all be desperate for sources of uranium in fifty years' time?
Re:The amount of uranium (Score:5, Informative)
Went ahead and hunted for the link:
Wikipedia: Nuclear Power [wikipedia.org]
I am not a nuclear physicist, so it could be full of crap, but wiki's science info is generally pretty sound.
Depends on what fuel cycle you use. (Score:3, Informative)
Probably the biggest is whether you just take today's energy consumption figures and use them for the future, or whether you project the rate of increase of energy into the future, in order to get your numbers. Obviously a source of energy that could power us for 100 years i
Re:The amount of uranium (Score:5, Informative)
It has been stated that the world will run out of uranium in 50 years, or variations thereof. The problem with this statement is you have to ignore a lot of facts to come up with it. This statement assumes that the uranium deposits currently being mined are all that there is. The fact is, we're currently sitting on at least 50 years worth, and there is no real reason to start mining new deposits at this time. As these deposits get depleted, and as (if) the market price of uranium rises, more exploration will be done, and more deposits will be mined. If the price rises high enough, it becomes feasable to "mine" the uranium dissolved in the oceans. If it rises even higher, it becomes feasable to produce it in breeder reactors. In short, the world is _not_ running out of uranium. Second, the "50 year" statement assumes that we will not improve our reactor technology. In north america, we're still running 30+ year old reactors that only remove 5% of the available energy in the uranium. The "waste" that comes out of these reactors can be processed and put through again, or can be used in newer designs to extract more energy from the same uranium. So, ignoring the idea of finding new reserves to mine, if we improve our efficiency to even 50%, we'll now have 500 years worth. (of course, now _I'm_ ignoring the inevitable fact that we will consume more than our current rate over the next 500 years.)
What a breath of fresh air (um, literally). (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad part? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good news (Score:3, Informative)
Germany has been exporting electricity since 2003 (i.e. more exports than imports) according to this official report [www.bmu.de]. In fact, in 2003, France had to import power from Germany because of the hot summer. Europe already has a larger production capacity than its projected needs and France will have to look
2 Questions to the pro nuclear folks: (Score:3, Insightful)
b) Is there a place in any western democracy (russia and china probably have less problems in that area) for finally depositing the resulting nuclear waste? A proper finaly resting place for the stuff?
the big difference: pebble bed reactors (Score:5, Informative)
because they are super safe. they don't melt down. no china syndrome, no 3 mile island, no chernobyl, no silkwood. the fuel is packed in glass pebbles. meltdown is not possible by accidental means
explain this to people and their old understanding of nuclear's dangers, based on 1970s era thinking fade away. which is also about the time that nuclear itself faded away, because of the dangers. but in a world of oil-funded islamic extremism and oil-fueled global warming, super-safe pebble bed nuclear energy looks mighty attractive. now all we need to do is wait for popular wisdom and political will to catch up
and with breeder reactors, we can reprocess the nuclear waste from the bygone era of old-style reactors and do away with all of that left-over pollution. imagine that: run new reactors off of a previous generation's waste. old-style reactors only use 10% of available fuel, the rest sits unused and radiocative for tens of thousands of years. with reprocessing, 95% of the fuel can be used, and left over are isotopes with radioactive half lives measured in a century or two, not tens of thousands of years
and don't let anyone tell you there would be a fuel shortage with the nuclear option like with oil. there is no peak uranium like there is peak oil. mainly because we can run nuclear power off of thorium as well as uranium. go look up the numbers on thorium reserves. we'd be fine for centuries. and the reserves are in more geopolitically friendly places
the problem is still psychological for people though. nuclear IS scary. it's the same thing as flying: it's safer than driving, but people prefer to drive than fly, and feel safer driving than flying. even though the reverse is true. why? the illusion of familiarity and control. people stick with what they are comfortable with, even if what they are comfortable with sucks in comparison
for the longest time i've tried to convince my gf to have laser eye treatment for her myopia. it's the best thing i ever did. but she is scared of the procedure. i tell her that she has more chance of getting an infection that will make her blind via contacts than via a laser screw up. but she wouldn't have any of it
and just this month, they found a connection between bausch and lomb's renu [google.com], which she uses, and a sudden surge in cases of an eye fungus that blinds people. sure enough, on her very own, she made inquiries as to laser eye treatment last week
so even though nuclear is safer in this world than oil due to hurricane katrina-making global warming and oil-funded 9/11 terrorism, people are more scared of nuclear than oil. they are familiar with oil, and there is an inertia about their reluctance to embrace nuclear
so we're stuck in the inertia now, and we suffer for the inertia of the general public and the politicians. all of the nimby's who wouldn't let these things be built would apparently prefer to ship their children to falluja to protect oil than build a completely safe pebble bed reactor. meanwhile, china is investing heavily in this technology. so while the usa wears itself down fighting islamonazi wackjobs sitting on top of their precious oil, places like china will enjoy air pollution free totally safe pebble bed reactor power
some morons don't understand the science, but know how to yell loudly and chain themselves to train tracks to prevent uranium shipments
and we all suffer for that
I think we've been asking the wrong question (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, we can have the most efficient power plants in the world and generate only 10% CO2, but if we keep using incandescent lightbulbs, CRT televisions and XTRA-HOT CPU's, i doubt it'll help.
Instead I'd welcome more investment in solar cells, ultra-efficient lighting and low-heat CPU's.
Change of view (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting/funny to read Patrick Moore describing his former colleague in environmental groups:
Ref: Patrick Moore's Nuclear Statement to the US Congressional Committee [greenspirit.com]
BS (Score:3, Interesting)
The article states that the Chernobyl disaster killed just a few firemen who were fighting the fire. In fact many tens of thousands of people already died or will die of some form of cancer as a consequence of the disaster. For the religious among you: it is estimated that there have been 100000 and 200000 abortions because of Chernobyl.
I read the article because I thought it might offer some sensible views on the topic, but in reality it is just a bad piece of lobbying. I wonder why the editors let this slip into the paper.
Re:BS (Score:3, Informative)
Ukraine, put the total predicted number of deaths due to the accident at 4,000 (of which 2,200 deaths are expected to be in the ranks of 200 000 "liquidators") . This predicted death toll includes the 47 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation from the disaster, nine children who died from thyroid cancer and an estimated 3,940 people who could die from cancer as a result of exposure to radiation.
Perhaps he is talking about direct result here?
Re:BS (Score:5, Informative)
By contrast the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards were estimated to have cost 1,300 to 2,600 lives in the United States just during 1993 according to a National Academy of Sciences [nap.edu] study.
Re:BS (Score:3, Informative)
Economics matters! (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem: Too much sulfur dioxide is getting into the atmosphere.
Leftist environmentalist solution: Require installation of scrubbers on powerplants when they are upgraded.
What happens?: Powerplants don't upgrade their powerplants. Those that do upgrade then burn cheaper&dirtier coal leaving net pollution even worse.
Conservative environmentalist solution: Implement pollution trading credits.
What happens?: Pollution reduced in the most cost effective way.
Problem: Power production is heavilly dependent on on fossil fuels... long term issue of global warming.
Leftist environmentalist solution: Subsidize wind, solar, geothermal. Campaign against nuclear, hydropower dams, etc...
What happens?: Power prices go up because wind, solar, and geothermal is massively expensive. Also, these alternative energy sources can't produce enough electricity and today we are more reliant on coal than we have been before.
Conservative environmentalist solution: Implement a modest carbon tax and let the market sort the problem out.
What happens?: Unclear because it hasn't been tried! Theory would predict a slow shift towards nuclear, and low carbon emitting technologies.
Problem: A number of species in the United States are close to extinction.
Leftist environmentalist solution: Ban all construction/anything ANYWHERE these species are found.
What happens?: Developers/landowners have huge incentives to follow a policy of "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut-Up" If the federal government finds that a *insertspeciesnamehere* is living on your land, then your land will become worthless. Therefore, if you see a *insertspeciesnamehere* you shoot it, bury it, and don't tell anyone about it. (Don't think this doesn't happen.)
Conservative environmentalist solution:
Pay landowners some fee if *insertspeciesnamehere* is living on their land. They will then have an incentive not to kill it. Also, the government can try to buy the land from the landowner if it is critical habitat for the animal.
What happens?: Species are protected and society as a WHOLE (not just a few unlucky landowners) is paying the cost of protecting the endagered species. This is a more effective and fair solution.
So safe, the things run without a hitch! (Score:3, Informative)
Please, let's not get all excited abou this! (Score:5, Interesting)
But please don't get all excited about it. There seem to be accidents in Japanese plants on a regular basis. Pebble reactors are fine, until you count in terrorism. Uranium is also a limited resource. We produce waste. And even if we refurbish the waste (and take care of the last two points) it still produces waste and it will still run out at some point.
There are new studies coming out every month that either radiation from power plants does or does not make a difference in cancer rates. Until we have that figured out we are still in doubt about that one. So I count that as not being very excited about the prospect of nuclear energy.
But you guys are right about one thing. People need to realize that nuclear energy IS the least worse choice out there now. I come from Germany and it is not possible to build power plants here for political reasons. Nobody will! This is rediculous.
That's putting it mildly. (Score:5, Interesting)
Patrick Moore plays the xylophone though! (Score:3, Funny)
He's a lobbyist (Score:5, Interesting)
He consistently presents himself as a "founder of Green Peace"; while he may have been an early member, "founder" is, as far as I can tell, a stretch. It is rather disingenous of him to keep mentioning his now quite distant association with the enviromental movement, without ever mentioning who's paying his salary today.
Mind you, he's welcome to express whatever views he has, and I don't even necessarily disagree about nuclear power. But the news outlets that continue to identify him as "Patric Moore, founder of Greenpeace" instead of "Patrick Moore, Exxon-Mobil shill" need a lesson in journalism.
Greenpeace got too political, so he left to become a lobbyist? Right. He found out what side of the debate paid better.
Re:ROTFLMFAO: Ludicrous article! (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. But you're clearly the exact sort of person he's talking about - who can't see the fundamental difference between the Chernobyl and TMI events.
Re:ROTFLMFAO: Ludicrous article! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes TMI was a success.
TMI illustrated that a nuclear plant can be designed to fail safely. Despite human error the plant shutdown safely, that is a success but a success by the designers not the operators. Stop spreading FUD about TMI and do some actual reading about it.
Re:And in another 30 years? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about instead of grasping at straws, you actually look at the data? And I mean, all of the data, not just the one that makes you feel fuzzy and warm?
Nice ad hom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice ad hom (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack.
No, it isn't. If the GP claimed Moore has a foul body odor, is involved in a sexual relationship with his brother, or employs undocumented domestic staff, those would be ad hominem attacks (whether true or not, BTW -- I picked examples that are probably untrue, but claims need not be false to be ad hominem).
Questioning your opponent's person, habits or general history is ad hominem. Questioning his motivations and rationale for taking a given positio
TFA is an argument from authority (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason we are expected to hear what this guy has to say is because he's advertised as an environmentalist, and primarily identified as the cofounder of greenpeace - I mean, go read the summary to see what is being emphasised. Undermine that, as the GP has done, and he becomes just another average Joe, and one who has little to say that hasn't been said, and who doesn't really have enough experience in the field to make professional judgements. If he believes his
Re:Wrong disaster (Score:5, Informative)
Look at water. Many people have claimed that there would be water shortages in the California. Everyone should conserve water because we're running out. Now look in the Middle East. People have no problem paying for desalination plants. But you never hear them talk about water conservation in the Mid East, because who on Earth would waste such an expensive resource as water? California would find it has plenty of water if people have to pay what water is worth.
The reason we face energy shortages has nothing to do with the fact that we're running out. It has to do with the fact that we waste it. When the price gets high enough, provided of course that the government lets it get high, then you'll find out people get quite resourceful about conservation. You'll also find that there is plenty of energy to do the things we must.
TW
no, Saudia Arabia uses nuclear for desalination (Score:4, Informative)
Saudia Arabia actually uses nuclear for desalination.
Re:Wrong question (Score:3, Insightful)
We've got plenty of fissionables (which include U-238 and Th-232), but the supply of fissiles (e.g U-235) is much more limited. Uranium is actually quite common, typical granite has about 1 gram per tonne. Anyway, the whole issue of limited supply of fissile material versus fissionable was what was behind the development of breeder reactors - with the integral fast reacto
Re:You can't really believe that? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Water vapor is the main culprit in global warmi (Score:3, Informative)
The whole H2O thing is just a distraction being pushed by big multi-nationals to try and confuse the issue and prevent them being reined.
TWW
Re:Solar Future (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop the propaganda (Score:4, Informative)
Crossing the street is not safe. But often the benefits outweigh the risks.
Please go tell how safe it is to the thousands of people affected by the Chernobyl accident.
Chernobyl was a disaster for many reasons, most of which have no relevance to modern nuclear plants not run by Communist dictatorships. It is also instructive to look at the number of people killed in coal mining accidents.
Re:Nuclear is not a green technology (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It is a rare thing to see anyone admit (Score:3, Insightful)