Creator of the Gaia Hypothesis Urges Nuclear Power 1185
SteamyMobile writes "Professor James Lovelock, creator the Gaia Hypothesis and long-time intellectual leader of the Green movement, says that global warming is a dire threat, more urgent than was previously realized. He compares the threat of global warming with the threat of the Nazis in 1938, and says that in both cases, the Left was not able to grasp the urgency of the situation and see the necessary solution. What is the necessary solution to stop the global warming problem? He says it's nuclear power. Needless to say, the Greens don't agree with him, and he chides them as having irrational phobias of a safer, cleaner energy sources. Even if the "Left" isn't fully aware of the urgency of the world's energy problems, it seems like Slashdot is."
Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
If a guy like him advocates nuclear power as a way to avoid global warming, the risks must be enormous indeed.
Even if global warming is not as bad as predicted, the about face is certainly interesting.
Damn Straight (Score:4, Insightful)
What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This just for saving humans... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we really think that we, with a few fossil fuels and other environmental crap we throw into the air and water over the past 150 year, can really change the Earth?
The Earth will shuck us off like a bad case of fleas. 1 million years from now...which is but an eyeblink to the Earth...we'll be long gone. A footnote as it were. The Earth will heal itself.
So please, stop with the "Save the planet" high-horse. The planet isn't going anywhere...WE ARE! So say what you really mean...save the humans.
(paraphrased quite a bit from George Carlin btw)
Re:The 'Day After Tommorrow' (Score:4, Insightful)
Its not like all the missile and space-radar scientists weren't getting all white-paper'y about meteorite attacks when that WhatsItsName Bruce Willis movie was in the theatres
Hollywood. Its propaganda, done right.
Some ranting. (Score:5, Insightful)
I tend to agree that nuclear fission is a pretty good interrim solution, particularly when coupled with aggressive conservation measures.
The problem is, it's got a lot of problems that we are simply deferring. Two big ones: risk of disaster, and what to do with the dead fuel rods. The first is controllable, the second is a pain in the ass. Both are suffer from the 'not in my backyard' mentality.
But nuclear power is NOT a long-term solution. There probably isn't even a long-term magic bullet. Some of the things that can save us: high-temperature superconductors (for zero-loss transmission lines), nuclear fusion, alternative energy sources, and reduction of power use.
The latter needs to be taken seriously with the others. If it's too hot to live where you are in the summer, the right answer might be 'don't live there' rather than 'turn up the A/C'. This is easy to manage: simply let the price of power rise to match how much it actually costs to make.. INCLUDING the environmental cleanup costs of the technology you use.
---N
But is it a real problem ? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you accept both points of view ? It is misleading to suggest that humans are the cause of global warming. I fully agree that we as a race should seek some non-polluting energy source over one that has shown to be bad for us, let alone the planet, but to use misleading information to achieve social indignation is wrong.
Global warming is a catch-phrase, being used to describe potential doom. Even if we all stopped using electricity and cars etc, then the planet would still go through immense environmental changes, as it has done since the beginning. News flash, the sahara used to be green and pleasant, and before that it was under water. Are we as humans responsible for that too ?
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
The question isn't how much energy goes in, it's HOW MUCH COMES OUT. The three technologies you name can't produce the kinds of power we need. Wind, maybe, waves, no, plant-oils, only in combination with other hydrocarbons with current technology.
Nuclear energy is the right avenue to take.. but the question is can we do it safely, and will we not just create more nuclear waste? Seems like we could create nuclear devices that never needed to be repowered, since radioactive material stays radioactive for a long long time. But I'm not in the mood to work that out..
Maybe we should look into the big nuclear orb in the sky that has powered life on earth since long before our existance: the sun?
Re:What about solar towers? (Score:2, Insightful)
B) Special Interests.
Until Solar Towers are proven effective - i.e. have been online, operational, and generating power for at least 2 years, maybe 5, nobody is going to invest in them.
Its far too easy for power brokers to keep their capital tied up in fluid, moving markets, such as those offered by petroleum industries, than to invest heavily in something which currently has no market, and no 'capital strengths' other than "it will make everyone happier"
Special Interests are cold, vicious animals of our own creating. The corporate view isn't always the holiest one
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Einstein (Score:2, Insightful)
> the threat of the Nazis in 1938
He makes the same mistake Einstein made: choosing the lesser evil in the face of a greater one (Einstein wrote a letter to the US President urging the development of the atomic bomb to stop the Nazis...a step he later regretted as the greatest error of his life).
Nuclear power is not clean by any means or even resource-smart. It's not even the possibility of an accident that's the main issue: the amount of radioactive waste *before* and *after* the power generation is simply staggering. We don't have the luxury anymore of "solutions" that aren't. There is no magic wand in any case, nuclear power included. Any resolution will have to be a combined framework of multiple approaches, aforemost all of them is energy conservation which alone could slash current energy demand by a third if not half if thoroughly addressed on all levels.
Re:Great (Score:1, Insightful)
How is this energy obtained? If it's in the form of petrol used by mining machinery, I see your point, but if it can just be pulled from the power grid then it doesn't stop nuclear power from being greenhouse-gas-neutral. Assuming that the power grid is being supplied by nuclear plants.
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a good question, but unfortunately it appears that the answer to this question is that people just will not do it (take their fat asses out of their SUV's) unless there is some catastrophic reason to do so...
The SUV syndrome is mob mentality at its utter finest. "If no-body else is going to stop driving SUV's, why should I stop" is really one of the biggest problems with this issue, a typical Consumerican viewpoint, derived directly from the callous mob mentality currently perpetuated by "consumerist" ideals
Bogeyman (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong -- the Nazis were bad, bad men. But raising the "Nazi bogeyman" at every turn is really the sign of intellectual laziness.
Reactor safety (Score:5, Insightful)
Since technology has improved, I would have thought that today's reactors would be safer and more efficient than designs from 20 years ago. I'm from Australia where we don't have nuclear rectors (except for Lucas Heights, near Sydney, but that is used for research, producing isotopes for radio-medicine, and producing more pure silicon (neutron bombardment doping, i think) by using neutrons to turn 1 in a billon silicon atoms into phosphorus, producing N-Type silicon. Lucas Heights has 15% of the world market, and I would like to see how well a processor made of this would overclock).
Nuclear power will be the way of the future, but Australia will take time to adopt it, with a supply of coal to last hundreds of years.
Global Warming - Dead Reefs (Score:5, Insightful)
The Seychelles reefs [disasterrelief.org] are just about gone. What was once arguably the best reef to dive in the world outside the Great Barrier is now a graveyard.
And this knowledge isn't from reading an alarmist's evaluation of the situation, it is from seeing it with my own eyes on dives I did last year on Mahe, Praslin and La Digue. A conservative estimate would be that 90% of the reefs are dead. Probably closer to 95%, but as I didn't dive every square inch, I can't say there aren't some pristine patches somewhere. There very well may be, I just didn't see them.
As for the Florida and Great Barrier reefs, I can also attest to their ailing health. I live just above the Keys and dive them regularly, and I dove the GB Reef about 10 weeks ago. The destruction is real.
Don't take anyone's word for it. Go strap on a set of tanks and see it for yourself. It's a wake-up call.
Tal
There is some hope (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop caricaturizing people please (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been very impressed with the diverse range of opinions many people have.
The only place where I haven't seen this is in people who buy their ideas wholesale in a package deal from talk radio dj/cranks like the author of this thread has.
Who is "the left"?
If you eat tofu are you "the left", and are you against atomic energy?
Now that this person supports atomic energy does that mean he is a republican?
Oy!
Steve
Re:This just for saving humans... (Score:2, Insightful)
These green people are ultimatly interested in saving the human race...not the planet.
And this is a bad thing... why?
Re:Global Warming - Dead Reefs (Score:5, Insightful)
Get a Clue (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, what is not frequently mentioned is the difference between baseload and peaking power plants. Nuclear, coal, hydro are baseload power stations that provide constant energy throughout the day. Natural gas and renewables are peaking plants that cover periods of peak demand - though renewables are less reliable even here. Therefore, renewables are not an attractive option for a large fraction of our energy use since they cannot compete for the baseload market.
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:5, Insightful)
current situation:
we use oil for energy. Problem, oil is a finite resource, it WILL [peakoil.net] run out. Alternatives are needed. Okay, we agree so far.
What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energy..The Sun?
No viable alternatives exist [hubbertpeak.com] yet. To quote verbatim:
Direct conversion of sunlight to electricity by solar cells is a promising technology, and already locally useful, but the amount of electricity which can be generated by that method is not great compared with demand. Because it is a low grade energy, with a low conversion efficiency (about 15%) capturing solar energy in quantity requires huge installations--many square miles. About 8 percent of the cells must be replaced each year. But the big problem is how to store significant amounts of electricity when the Sun is not available to produce it (Trainer, 1995), for example, at night. The problem remains unsolved. Because of this, solar energy cannot be used as a dependable base load. And, the immediate end product is electricity, a very limited replacement for oil. Also, adding in all the energy costs of the production and maintenance of PV (photovoltaic) installations, the net energy recovery is low (Trainer, 1995).
If you can think of a way to store this energy, fantastic, please share. Otherwise, back to the drawing board.
Re:It's About Time (Score:1, Insightful)
That and the fact that our nuclear industry is a bankrupt money pit despite the high subsidies it receieves, never having made a profit or even having faced its running costs, let alone the cost of spent fuel disposal.
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You don't have to give up SUV's (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not aware of any "normal" 2WD vehicle on sale in the UK which would get 22mpg, even given the 1US gallon = 0.8 UK gallons conversion.
Ewan
There's one. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is one prominent natural resource that we still have plenty of....
Unfortunately that resource is coal. And burning coal is some of the nastiest shit we've ever done.
That is a whole 'nother worry about the oil situation: at some point, oil prices will start to go up, and won't ever stop. Maybe that's happening now. We'll have a choice - do we supplant our flagging energy sources with clean, risky, expensive nuclear... or clean, inadequate, expensive wind/solar... or dirty, plentiful, cheap coal?
We as a species have made decisions like this before and it doesn't look promising. Frankly, the problem of dealing with spent rods is a lot more palatable than a resurgence in coal burning....
(Aside: let's not forget, nuclear critics... 'threat of terrorism' is not a good reason to stop doing anything worthwhile)
Re:Great (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:You don't have to give up SUV's (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You don't have to give up SUV's (Score:2, Insightful)
As I see it, if you tell people they have to give up something, the implication is that they're worse off than before they gave it up. In fact, "giving up" driving has so many more benefits than driving, it's interesting that we do it at all. Improved health from walking/riding a bike, less congestion on the roads when driving is really necessary, and improved air quality are what we GAIN by not driving. What are we giving up again?
finding fault in "the left" (Score:2, Insightful)
first of all terms such as "left" "right" "liberal" and "conservative" have little meaning anymore, any even less when comparing the 1930's incarnations of these poorly defined groups to their contemporary counterparts.
it was the "right" in classic terms that viewed itself as against empowering federal the government and against military interventionism, trying to blame hypothetically preventable actions during the second world war on one political party or ideology is a cheap shot and pandering for emotions. I agree a lot of time was wasted and many lives could have been saved had countries gotten involved sooner but as with everything in government, politics played a large role in the decision making process of both major parties.
On the issue of nuclear power, there are some obvious advantages to other energy sources but one disadvantage that is often overlooked is that the total lifetime cost of nuclear power is practically impossible to measure. The relatively low cost of power generation while the plant is operational is offset by the large initial cost of construction, and the absolutely enormous costs of decommission and cleanup. When a nuclear power plant goes out of service it leaves a massive complex and surrounding area that is all contaminated to various degrees, no one wants to live near it and no one wants to pay for the cleanup.
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:5, Insightful)
SUV owners are subject to supply and demand just like anyone else. As gas prices go up demand for SUV's will drop. I think I read somewhere that it is already happening. Do we need nuclear energy? Well... define "need". In my opinion "The Great Transition" [away from oil as a primary energy source] might be painful but the predictions of disaster are greatly overblown. Between belt tightening and alternative sources I think we can make it. As for global warming, again, the "new" environment will be different, it will suck in some ways and be better in others. Lastly, in all of this, the simplest and most powerful solution for making a transition is almost never mentioned. Tax oil (BEFORE refining). Try this thought experiment. Tax oil. Consumption goes down (supply/demand etc.). Competing suppliers respond with lower prices barrel prices in an attempt to keep market share. We (as a nation) effectively pay *less* for our oil AND our consumption rate decreases AND new markets are created for energy effiency AND alternative sources of energy become more attractive AND greenhouse gas emmisions decrease.
Re:Renewables are better in the long term (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe you should realize that the sun is not always shining everywhere on earth.
Maybe you want to imagine how many people do not life near rivers, lakes or oceans.
Renewables are not going anywhere
On Demand Power (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the largest wastes on energy going at the moment with coal & gas stations is that they have to stay on 24/7 to be able to provide energy when it's actually wanted.
to take an example two power stations in my country. One is coal, the other is hydro-electric.
The coal one takes ~12 hours to start producing energy. The hydro-electric takes 12 seconds!
That is what we need in this day and age - If we need 1300 watts per house at the end of an episode of Corrie, with the coal systems we actually have to have the 1300 watts x 5 million houses being produced all the time, which is being wasted.
Spare capacity being produced is not what's needed. Spare capacity that can be created when it's needed, and switched off when it's not is the requirement.
Unless nuclear can provide this, it's still going to be contributing to the energy-drain of electricity produced that doesn't get used.
Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)
> raping it's resources.
This really ticks me off regulary! Why the hell do you think it is a resource in the first place? Because WE use it und thus WE gave value to it! The earth, the solar system, the universe doesn't give a shit wether liquified dinos get burned or not *because* 'they' can't. They are just objects, like almost everything else. Meaning does not exist seperated from our mind, and resources aren't unless they get used!
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry to tell you, but sometimes numbers _do_ matter. It's true, we can get energy from sun, wind, biomass or tides, but it's the order of magnitude that kills you.
I didn't do the math, but try to think: what can you get from sun energy? 5% growing crops? 60% fotocells? Even at 100% it's just not enough. Covering square miles with cheap reliable high-efficiency solar panels would (maybe) get us close, but we don't even have that. From 1 square meter you can maybe boil a glass of water, but you can't heat your house in winter, nor make cars or computers.
There's more energy in the wind and in the tides, but 1. it's still not enough and 2. how much energy goes into melting 1 ton of steel? not to mention processing of ore etc. It takes years for such technology to break even (wind turbines have a lot of steel in them).
The real answer (not counting truly non-conventional approaches) is fusion, but nobody pretends it's closer then 50 years.
What we have left is classic nuclear power, or fission. It has its problems, mainly radioactive waste, but has a big hidden advantage: currently all nuclear power plants use old technologies, sometimes even ancient. Why? because the political climate is against innovation in this field, and sometimes greed: it's expensive to update a power plant that still works.
New plants can be cheaper, more efficient and a lot cleaner then what we have now, _if_ we give them a chance.
And another aspect: we, as a species, will never reduce our energy consumption in the forseeable future. SUVs or not, a lot more power goes into industry then cars and air conditioning. _And_ there's two thirds of the planet that still has to reach the level of cars and air conditioning, and they're not going to care about ecology until they do (nor should they, truth be told).
Re:You don't have to give up SUV's (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll be sure to wave to you from my nice warm car as I drive past
> What are we giving up again?
The freedom to go where we want, when we want, with comfort, convenience and speed. Next question
Re:Some ranting. (Score:2, Insightful)
nuclear power... (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider Bikini Atoll. It was the site for many, many bomb tests, including the first hydrogen bomb. You probably think of it as a blasted desert, but in actual fact, it's a tropical paradise. It is in BETTER shape now, ecologically, then it was when humans lived there! It's even safe to visit, but you wouldn't want to eat the bananas.
In other words, nuclear power is WONDERFUL for the environment; the more radioactivity, the better (within reason at least), because it chases nasty humans out of the area and lets normal plants and animals live in (relative) peace.
The primary beneficiaries of nuclear power are also the ones who are hurt most by it, which seems eminently fair. We need to be very careful with nuclear waste for OUR OWN sake, but as far as Nature is concerned, it just doesn't matter all that much. This is exactly backwards to our existing power generation, in which we get all the benefit but pay virtually none of the cost.
Additionally, although many people simply will refuse to hear this, we have made many improvements in nuclear power since we last built plants. We had a tendency to grandiose engineering in the 70s, and we paid for that. There are much cleaner and simpler designs now. Materials science has improved enormously as well. Couple that with our much improved ability to monitor remotely, and we should be able to build plants that are nearly failproof. And if they DO fail, well, it's only humanity that will suffer.
I just don't understand why the Greens aren't all over this.... if they don't embrace this idea, it seems likely to me that their true motivation is less about "loving Nature" and more about "hating humans".
Re:Nuclear is also a limited resource. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's true, we do not have an unlimited supply of nuclear materials, but we DO have a longer term supply, which would enable mankind to maintain power generation from Nuclear sources, while alternatives are sought.
The other option is to ignore nuclear power because we all know "all things nuclear are bad", then turn out the lights for a few hundred years when the oil runs out and we're left searching for alternatives.
a
--
Re:You don't have to give up SUV's (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You don't have to give up SUV's (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming - Dead Reefs (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax oil. Keep taxing it for several months, maybe years. Lose elections. Stop taxing oil.
Re:You don't have to give up SUV's (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also great to fill up at the diesel pump which is about 30 cents less per gallon than regular unleaded these days.
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:3, Insightful)
Energy Problems (Score:1, Insightful)
But also another part of the solution is conservation. The excessive waste (of energy) that is present in society today also needs to change.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:2, Insightful)
The idea behind supply/demand is that if you increase the price, its the same as a decrease in supply (kinda like restricting)
Now petrol (oh sorry, GAS) and 4WD's (oh sorry, SUV's) are supplimentry goods. That is, they go together. Make one expensive and people will use less of the other.
I cant explain it all (and I havent done economics for a while, so I may be a little bit off), but when we refer to "supply" of oil, we arent talking about how much of it is in the ground.
Re:Reactor safety (Score:4, Insightful)
It would have been even better if the reactors had been designed so as to make prompt criticality unatainable. Prevention is better than the cure.
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should we have to give up our luxuries? Just put enough nuclear plants on-line to generate electricity so cheaply that it gradually displaces oil fired facilities and powers practically everything that doesn't move. That would reduce America's dependence on oil so much that the price of oil would drop enough to provide cheap gasoline for SUV's! ;-)
Note: I don't drive an SUV, and in fact I have a 4 Kw photovoltaic "net-metered" array on the roof that generates about half of the electricity I consume (it uses the power grid as a giant storage battery!); however, I think it's fair to say that the attitude of a typical "greenie" is for everyone to sacrifice and use less. All else being equal, I would much rather increase production and produce more, so that everyone could have as much of everything they want very inexpensively. Sacrifice that is pointless and unnecessary is without virtue.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
It's fascinating to see people talking about how we could get along without those little luxuries. Especially when they had to use one of them (a computer) to do the post.
A quibble: microwaves are generally more energy efficient than ovens for heating things up.
In general, I agree that people are in love with their "stuff". And would be healthier without the "stuff". And have a standard of living that is considerably worse than they do now (think about the effect on the economy - your own job, if noone else's) if we all bought only what we "needed". Not saying that only buying what is needed is bad, but consider the transitional pain of a society living at a 1930 standard of living, with modern prodcution techniques. It is likely that 80% of everyone would be perpetually unemployed. Which, now I think of it, would mean more time for me to play videogames....
Re:Who Cares What The Left Thinks? (Score:1, Insightful)
Wow, you are so right! (Score:3, Insightful)
You, sir, are correct. I don't need a car at all. It might be handy to have one, but I don't need it. And they do lots of nasty thing like polluting, making noises, cost money, and so on.
So guess what? I don't have a car. Now I do have a bike, but I don't use it. That's because I can take the time to walk the 30 minutes to work every day.
The real reason ofcourse is that I'm just too lazy to fix my bike, but then again that is kinda fit of me or what? :)
Damn us green liberals or what? *grin*
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You don't have to give up SUV's (Score:5, Insightful)
I drive a sports car with a 350ci engine and get 26 m/g on the highway. In the city, I get anywhere from 18-22, depending on how I drive. Fact is, I live fairly far out, so most of my miles are highway miles. Toss in the fact that most SUV drivers are alone most of the time and generally are NOT getting 22-27 mpg (more like 12-22, and that's on the highway), and I think that's down right shameful. I can at least claim that I often have two or three people in the car with me and I have aerodynamics, by far, in my favor. Anytime you have a brick which you want to push through the air, you're going to require a bigger engine. Bigger engines mean worse mileage. Add in the fact that most Americans typically drive 5-25 over the posted speed limits, especially on the highways, and mileage typically drops through the floor.
People who drive SUV's, IMO, greatly suffer from the heard mentality anyways. So, any logical argument is more than likely going to be completely lost. IMO, owning a SUV is about status and keeping up with the neighbors. None of this will change until car markers stop pushing, "you are what you drive." Sadly, most people see a SUV as a "cool and trendy owner, ready to go anywhere, anytime." The sad thing is, SUV really translates into "PIG".
My favorite excuse that SUV owners give is, "I have to transport the kids". Which translates into, two kids and two adults. Seems like most cars can do that fine. Worse, both parents are driving SUVs. How many times do they need to haul two SUV full of kids around. Typically, not many or simply never. People that give that excuse are either stupid or think that the people they are telling it to are even more stupid than them. I guess that may be the case if people are really buying into that load of crap.
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:5, Insightful)
People can't afford to junk working vehicles just because fuel prices are spiking. They won't do it. Not for long, anyway. They hold onto older cars *longer* because the money they'd spend on new ones is being swallowed by the gas pump. Once they find a way to bring fuel prices down, the people who were *forced* to accept something smaller than they wanted will go back to bigger models and the manufacturers will be happy to supply their demand for premium merchandise. The only ones left driving small efficient cars will be those of us who prefer small efficient cars.
That's the way things work outside of repressive dictatorships -- people are free to make their own choices according to their own values. You won't make lasting changes in behavior without making lasting changes in values.
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:3, Insightful)
I AM (or will be), however, willing to buy a hybrid engine SUV, or a fuel cell SUV.
I wonder if all these "safety" arguments will go out the window once these machines arrive, and they WILL arrive. There are some interesting things you could do with respect to design of hybrid SUVs and car companies will make them.
The answer to this is not to try and make SUVs illegal, it is to bring them along in the move to alternative fuels.
Re:What about solar towers? (Score:1, Insightful)
What keeps us from damming all the rivers on the East Coast of the USA, rivers that once provided most of the power for the US industrial revolution?
What keeps us from running windfarms up and down the coast, like outside the Kennedy's houses in Massachusettes?
What keeps us from building Nuclear Power plants?
Environmentalists, that's who. I believe in solar power and renewable energy. I do not want a nuclear waste facility in my back yard. I hate cars and SUV's but it seems that every time someone comes up with some alternative method of generating power some environmentalist objects to it. It would seem they will not be happy until we are all living in the woods, naked, eating raw plants for food.
I am sure that that is just the impression that I get and it is more a case that some environmentalists like wind power and a different group object to its killing migrating birds and its "visual pollution".
There are probably some who think hydroelectric is the way to go but others who think that it threatens fish populations and interferes with the "natural" course of the rivers.
I wouldn't mind but some of the same people I see protesting any and every form of power generation also live in suburbs miles from the local grocery store and drive their SUV's to rallies against nuclear power. They want to make sure no one destroys the environment but they like enjoying all the benefits of doing do.
Re:Global Warming - Dead Reefs (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuclear power is NOW, fusion is tomorrow (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem with Nuclear power is that the plants take years to build. There is no hope that after investing hundreds of millions of dollars to build a plant that politics will shut it down once it starts up. In effect, no investor will approach it.
The United States needs to start a campaign to educate its citizenry about the benefits and real drawbacks to the nuclear power industry. We need to teach in our schools the facts of nuclear power from where we obtain the raw materials, how they are processed, how much waste is produced, and how efficient it is. If we laid out the facts, including how long the isotopes will last and where we will store them, then maybe we can get some serious private investment and some serious growth in the industry. Perhaps we can totally replace our coal and natural gas burning plants with nuclear ones. Maybe we can retrofit our commercial ships with the safe reactors that our submarines and battleships have.
The bottom line is that there is so much misunderstanding about radiation, nuclear isotopes, and the like. The restrictions placed on background radiation on the Yucca Mountain was more severe than the restrictions placed on granite statues in the capitol building. A smart researcher brought his geiger counter with him and demonstrated that some of the statues we adore are actually more radioactive than the Yucca Mountain would be allowed to be!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,21015,00.ht
I for one am still hoping our 1950's utopian dream about nuclear power will be realized.
Re:Aren't they brilliant... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is just saving energy so frightning? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is stopping the wasting of energy (ac/ SUV/ electrical heating etc. pp.) and starting to save energy as a possible solution such an incredibly frightning idea especially to US-Americans?
I just don't get it.
k2r
I get 71mpg (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask people who actually own a vehicle what sort of milage they get and how they drive. Pure petrol cars get crap milage if stuck in traffic all day, if they are out on the motorway sitting at 55 all day it will be near the optimal. With the hybrids on the other hand it's the other way around, you'll probably get the highest mpg figures if it rarely uses the petrol engine, i.e. crawling about in urban traffic all day at 15mph. If you use it on the motorway it uses the petrol engine rather than the electric motor and so will reduce the efficiency.
BTW, there are now on the market, fully battery powered vehicles which can sit at motorway speeds with a range of 250+ miles and there are 4 person prototypes which can do 373 miles all on a single charge.
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:4, Insightful)
The only dangerous part, IMO, would have only been getting the barrels to the facility - but I've also seen the tests they did on the transportation containers - getting hit by a train at full speed and not breaking. IOW, IMO, the most dangerous part is not particularly dangerous.
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:2, Insightful)
You are exactly correct in your final statement, and there are a host of tradeoffs an oil producer must make between pumping faster vs pumping longer. You can run a well at many pumping speeds but you reduce your overall yield from the well if you deviate from the ideal pumping level. A simple case is drinking a slushee if you slurp quickly you exhaust all the flavor from an area (and get less flavor than if you slurp slowly over a period of time. Unlike your slushy you can't pull your straw and resink it or stir the mixture around in an oil field (I always thought that presented an interesting mental picture).
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, no (Score:2, Insightful)
I wholeheartedly agree, global warming and global dimming (perhaps we should just say "the results of global air pollution") are larger threats -in the long run- than nuclear catastrophy. However, what we should be doing right now is:
a) getting off gas/oil for vehicles
People will argue that the cost of gas will be too high to go anywhere. I say that we will adapt and overcome. In Ireland recently I noticed that gas was
b) research alternative mass production
c) Additionally, the government should start subsidizing traditional oil/shale/peat/coal manufacturers with research funding so that those companies that would normally be fighting for their existence can instead lobby for the funding to convert themselves into green companies.
And ya know, people have said this until the 70's. If no one is going to listen then sure, build nuclear, but be prepared for the U.S., China and the EU to subsidize the oversite for the world. And be prepared for a few more uninhabitable places. Do some research into just how bad Chernobyl was. That place is -STILL- falling apart and is about to have to undergo one of the most expensive construction projects in HISTORY to re-cap it. Even then it is a wasteland for thousands of years.
I was all for the space race, but we should be making the trip to Mars mean something
Renewable power (Score:2, Insightful)
We need to user fission,
it is a step on the fusion.
Re:Solar power is ready now: Just ask us aussies. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nuclear power isn't all that bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Great idea. Too bad neither Yucca Mountain nor Alaska are significant consumers of electricity. Unless you've discovered a high-temperature superconductor from which to fashion your transmission lines, I don't see how you'd get the electricity to where it's actually needed.
Re:This just for saving humans... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we really think that we, with a few fossil fuels and other environmental crap we throw into the air and water over the past 150 year, can really change the Earth?
Yes. There is good evidence that this is so.
Re:What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energ (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF? Did you step in from Bizarro world or something? That is SO FAR from what is likely to ever happen that it's insane to even say.
Re:Fundamental Misconceptions (Score:2, Insightful)
And even if it is only a '10% chance of global catastrophe', that seems like a good reason to take steps to prevent it. If a giant asteroid had a '10% chance to hit Earth in the next 10 years', wouldn't it be wise to start looking into ways to make 10% go to 0%?
Re:nuclear power... (Score:2, Insightful)
On its face, this statement is ludicrous. Exactly what biological differences exist between homo sapiens and any other species that makes us susceptible to radioactive materials and not them?
Any animal in Creation can get sick and die from radiation poisoning, most of them just do us the favor of crawling away to some secluded spot to do their dying.
Re:Reactor safety (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't think of it as producing expensive steam, think of it as not producing tons of toxic chemicals which are randomly spewed out into the atmosphere. And the power from it does things, you know?
And what is the fascination with nuclear plants blowing up? You do know that nuclear plants only have as much reactivity as they need (so a nuclear blast is out of the question), and they generally employ a bunch of redundant active and passive safety systems, making a meltdown unlikely except in the possible result of extreme mismanagement and poor design?
Coal power plants are more radioactive (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't seem to be aware of the fact that coal power plants are more radioactive [ornl.gov] than nuclear power plants.
It is also now possible to design nuclear power plants so that they fail safe [popularmechanics.com], unlike the poorly designed plant at Chernobyl.
Safety-driven memes [surrey.ac.uk] are difficult to counter, but once we run out of options [dieoff.org] perhaps we'll do what we must.
China and India Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nope. Gas prices will have no effect on SUV sal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You don't have to give up SUV's (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a realistic presentation. The issue of vehicle size and other issues is really not related in Europe to the USA. The USA is a vast continental region which is has a very low population density. The uses and reasons for vehicles there and in Europe where the density is very high are profoundly different.
It would be entirely in error to say that the US Tax system encourages the bigger cars etc with the possible exception of some fast write offs for business but those are not specific to any purpose.
US Climate and road conditions are vastly different to Europe. I own a vehicle that must haul around up to 7 persons quite regularly. It often has to double as a truck to haul loads. In Europe the density of population alters the multiple use needs a lot.
The Climate here get very hot and very cold. It is quite wild and (Europe does not get many tornadoes because of this difference) demands better control (More Power). I am going to be traveling this week some 1500 km in temperatures reaching about 35 C! Try finding that very often in the EU! There will be 5 persons on the trip. Try that in your EU small car. The vehicle gets about 28 mpg. That corresponds for comparison to a single person car getting about 140 mpg or a whole lot better than some think.
I would also note that the EU tends to depend for its economy on the US guys buying their goods. It seems the "Problem" described is really the solution for the EU types. But if they don't want me working, consuming etc, I suppose they can go out of business. It is after all the fervent desire I keep hearing from them.
Re:nuclear power... (Score:4, Insightful)
Humans live a very long time, and it takes many many years for us to reach reproductive age. Radiation is fairly constant over time, so a short-lived mammal will suffer less damage from a given amount of background radiation. In an area where humans would die out, mice and wolves might be perfectly fine.
Additionally, most other species have better damage-repair mechanisms than we do. I don't remember the specifics, but all you have to do is look at Bikini Atoll, which was the site of over twenty nuclear tests, including the first hydrogen bomb. It is, as I pointed out in my original post, a tropical paradise, lush and green, with amazing biodiversity. It would be dangerous for humans to spend significant time there, but the ecosystem is just fine.
So what part was ludicrous again?
Re:You don't have to give up SUV's (Score:3, Insightful)
Low cost, or hidden corporate welfare? (Score:4, Insightful)
From research and development to mining and processing uranium to disposing of waste, everything is subsidized by government programs. Since many of these are high security defense programs, we'll never know the true cost. Furthermore, government contractors like Bechtel who do this work also do other government work, obscuring the true cost of the nuclear work. A similar example would be Boeing -- its cost of producing airliners is subsidized by cushy defense contracts, but we'll never really know by how much.
I'm not arguing that government subsidies are wrong. But we must know the true costs if we're going to make fair comparisons, and the true costs of nuclear power are very well hidden.
Re:nuclear power... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is about hating humans. Widespread nuclear energy might lead to allowing rich, fat, selfish westerners to not "come to Jesus" and reform their evil ways. They wouldn't need to ride bikes and fret over solar panels mounted to their adobe hovels. Instead they may only need to buy large rolling batteries for cars and enjoy all else pretty much as is, big-macs and all.
This is an unacceptable result. So, when Lovelock proposes something that might be a viable solution to the energy problem without also condemning modern lifestyles, meat, Bush, corporations, smoking, Christianity or anything else, he gets thrown to the wolves.
Re:Nope. Gas prices will have no effect on SUV sal (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a close look at what happened in the early '90s. Emissions laws got stricter, to the point where manufactures had to trade lower emissions for milage. Valve overlap (when both exhaust and intake valves are open for a moment) is great for increasing total milage, but it costs in emissions so they don't do that anymore. Not to mention other changes.