The Top Ten Things Environmentalists Need to Learn
January 29th, 2008
|
| Share |
This came out a lot longer than I expected. However, this is also what is becoming an increasingly large portion of this website. Maintaining the environment is a critical issue especially as evidence of accelerated global warming mounts and as energy becomes more of an issue than it has in recent past. Unfortunately, many of those who claim to be working for enviornmental improvements lack an understanding of a few basic concepts which are absolutely critical to accomplishing anything.
I often find myself in arguments over economics versus environmentalism. This becomes a very difficult situation because the immediate accusation is that I care only about money and need to realize that sacrifices must be made for the good of the planet. I am also told that wind or solar is the answer and the costs and reduction of energy output is acceptable. These ideas that it is okay or honorable to make such sacrifices are overly simplistic and lack a true understanding of the forces at work. To use a phrase I have come to like, they are “Not even wrong.”
Thus, the top ten list…
10. Go after pollution sources with the highest benefit/cost ratio, not those which are most noticeable – If you are attempting to make a difference in the world, you should start with the largest problems with the simplest solutions and the least cost in remedying.
For example, underground coal fires produce as much CO2 as all the light cars and trucks in North America and most of those in
Similarly, aviation accounts only a small portion of CO2 emissions and there are no apparent alternatives to hydrocarbon fuels for aircraft which do not result in huge tradeoffs. The funds spent on attempting to develop and deploy hydrogen fueled aircraft or some other alternative are very high and there would be tradeoffs in the capabilities and economics of operation. Therefore, it is not wise to invest much effort or funds in such a pursuit.
9. It is always best and often vital to utilize existing infrastructure and capabilities when implementing new methods or technologies. – Any concept for producing more environmentally friendly systems must deal with the realities of the currently deployed infrastructure and the existing manufacturing and maintenance capabilities in place. Those which utilize these assets to the fullest will be the most successful and any which require retooling or major upgrades MUST be capable of doing so in an incremental manner which uses established capabilities wherever possible.
This is important in the context of things like transportation. It is entirely unreasonable to expect that there will be widely deployed hydrogen filling stations or other support facilities in the foreseeable future. Even if the ultimate goal is to establish such facilities, it is necessary that any technologies being implemented must be capable of compatibility with what currently exists in the midterm. For example, plug in hybrids which may be a stepping stone toward future electric-based vehicles but work well with existing technology.
Similarly, it is better to work with manufacturing, refining and distribution technologies that are already available as well as the existing skills of workers. It is better to deploy clean synthetic hydrocarbons, for example, than ethanol on a wide scale because ethanol cannot be pumped through existing petroleum pipelines due to it’s tendency to bind with water.
8. “Natural” “Organic” and “Bio” do not mean “good.” - Some of the most toxic substances known are natural. Furthermore there are times when using an artificial or engineered solution to a problem is far better than using a traditional low-tech or natural approach. Using synthetic substances, engineered approaches and technology can often improve the efficiency of an activity and therefore reduce the need for resources and the overall impact.
For example: a farm which utilizes insecticides and artificial fertilizers to grow a given amount of crops on ten acres may be far better for the local ecosystem than a farm which uses organic methods but requires twice the land be cleared. A common organic farming method for pest control is to import predator insects like lady bugs, however, importing large numbers of these insects may be considerably more disturbing to the local food chain and ecosystem than using a measured amount of an artificial pesticide.
”Nature” was not designed to provide mankind with food, energy and other needs in the most efficient, reliable and sustainable manner. Therefore, engineered or artificial approaches may have better overall outcomes.
7. Plans for the future should not be made on the most optimistic predictions and should consider the most pessimistic reasonable predictions – If you are formulating a plan for providing energy you cannot base it on the assumption that there will be an overall decrease in energy usage. Rather, one must assume that energy needs will continue to grow as they always have, if not faster.
Similarly, no plans for the future should ever be based on the assumption that it will be possible to do something better/faster/cheaper than it can now based on future technologies. One cannot, for example, create say “We’ll just have to develop a more efficient solar cell that is ten times cheaper than what we have now.” There is no guarantee that such research and development in such an area will be fruitful.
”Hope for the best but prepare for the worst” is generally the best policy. Any statement like “Well we won’t need to plan for that because in ten years we’ll be at the point where we’ll only need half as much oil” should be viewed with extreme skepticism.
6. Simply attacking an environmentally damaging activity is not effective unless a better alternative of similar or better economics and usefulness is presented – Protesting a coal fired power plant is, in and of itself, useless, because the plant is necessary to provide electricity. It is even worse to oppose coal, oil and hydroelectric because those are all major sources of electricity. If one wants to phase out something like coal there must be an alternative presented. It is always more effective to promote the alternative than to oppose what exists. If the alternative is accepted, the existing activity being opposed will go away on its own.
It is important that the alternative be reasonable, not speculative and capable of replacing what exists with minimal sacrifice in general. Any alternative which provides additional non-environmental benefits, such as cheaper energy, improved capabilities or better performance (in the case of a vehicle) will aid greatly in promoting the alternative. If such benefits can be presented the likelihood of success is extremely high.
5. Taxation, price increases and caps on energy are inherently regressive and cause great damage. – Regressive means that it has a greater impact on the lower classes than the upper classes and also affect upward mobility and general quality of life. Increasing the price of energy does not mean simply mandating a price or taxing it directly. Any measures which limit energy production will cause an increase in price due to market forces. This includes carbon taxation and carbon capping without providing a variable alternative. Mandating the use of energy technologies which are limited in output or are expensive will likewise increase prices.
High priced energy is a huge burden on the lower classes to a degree much higher than the upper class. Energy is a fundamental expense to living, both directly in the form of heating, transportation and electricity and also indirectly in how it affects production of all goods and services. The price makes up a much larger proportion of the spending of those with less. Thus, an increase in the price of energy DOES NOT make all people conserve energy in an equal manner nor does it prevent frivolous use of energy.
Joe billionaire still fuels up his yatch and barely notices that he spent five dollars a gallon on marine diesel instead of two, but poor families go cold because they cannot afford heating oil at twice the price. In the end, those with the money to adopt cleaner and more efficient technology and with the excesses which can be cut are the least likely to do so. The more likely outcome of higher energy prices is a move to alternative energy sources which offer a lower cost, even if doing so results in more pollution instead of less. An example would be the wood burning stove boom during the 1970’s oil crisis or waste oil burners.
This increases the class divide, as any shortage of such an important commodity will. It causes more poverty and limits upward mobility. The overall reduction in quality of life affects nearly all sectors including health and any burden on the economic system will only make government social programs more burdened.
4. It is unreasonable to expect the general public will accept major reductions in living standards or comfort and convenience. Simply put, it won’t happen – There is no point in debating the ethics of driving a big car and taking vacations versus making sacrifices to sustain the environment, because history shows that the public has a very limited tolerance for any measures which directly affect their comfort, convenience and other wants. Therefore, if you want people to drive a car which is environmentally friendly, it must not be a glorified golfcart. It cannot lack air conditioning and be small, slow and lacking in capacity. People will not accept that kind of sacrifice in general.
Because they will not move to environmentally friendly options voluntarily, the next thing which generally is proposed is to mandate very strict limitations on the use of anything from incandescent light bulbs to air conditioners to big engines. The problem is that this will not generally be accepted if there is not an equally viable alternative. People will either skirt the regulations or they will put pressure on politicians to change them. In a democracy, the politicians will always be forced to bow to the will of the people on any matter which is universally disliked.
(They want their damn bread and circus and you’d be a fool to try to talk them into living without them.)
3. Depending on continuous heavy subsidies is not sustainable. – Subsidies exist for a reason and are not always a completely bad thing. They are designed to do things like maintain a strategic capability which is not normally profitable or to stimulate a sector which is important to a country and might now develop on it’s own.
However, when it comes to energy and development, a subsidy cannot be a tow-line, but only a jump start. In other words, it must be for the purpose of establishing a capability which will have value and returns on the initial expenditure. Paying to keep something going for years when it has shown disappointing results is a complete waste. It is not economically sustainable and has low benefit.
It also should be pointed out that “creating jobs” is not an economic benefit if those jobs are entirely based on expenditures which do not result in a tangible payback and rely on direct funding to exist. “Creating 1000 jobs” is not a good thing if the way they were created is by paying 1000 people to do something useless. The sustainability and overall effect must be considered.
2. Every little bit does not help. – There is absolutely no point in perusing technologies or methods which do not have the potential for actually making an ecological difference, especially if doing so will expend funds, energy or other resources without any significant return. Even in cases where there is little overall investment, simply harping on the most insignificant overall issues will at least draw attention away from what credible solutions exist.
In the end, it is not really going to matter if there is .00001% les Co2 in the air in a century. Those technologies which have limited potential are best abandoned to cut losses as soon as it becomes apparent how limited they are. Campaigns against things like iPhones are idiotic, considering the massive discharges of waste by other parts of the electronics industry and other industries in general. Putting a solar panel on your roof might make you feel good but that’s about all it does. Saying “someone has to start” or “if everyone would do it” or “every bit helps” does not count for much when you know that everyone *will not* do it and “every little bit” helps a very very little bit.
1. Sacrificing the needs of an economy for the environment will destroy both. - This is overall and far and away one thing which environmentalists seem to entirely lack any understanding of. There are a lot of claims that sacrifices must be made economically or that “the price of damaging the environment cannot be measured in dollars. We need to consider that cheap power has hidden costs to earth.”
The major problem with this is that the economic health of a society affects nearly all aspects of the society. For example, during times of recession, crime rates tend to rise, health generally deteriorates, general public moral is far less. The effects are far reaching both broadly and individually. When the economy does well, more people have good paying jobs with benefits. More people have healthcare coverage and those who do not are generally more able to pay for healthcare. More people go to college and education in general improves. There are more funds for donation to charities and the government has far more of a taxbase from which to spend.
The impact on the environment is also effected by this for several reasons. It has been said that “environmentalism is a luxury” and this is actually true in many circumstances. In a poor country cars blow out more exhaust because owners are not as prone to good upkeep of the engine and exhaust system. Recycling does not exist in such countries because the funds are not available and the demand for more raw materials is lacking, thus making it less financially motivating to recover materials.
In general, people become far less concerned with the environment when they see that their own lives and the lives of those close to them are not very good. A person does not buy highly efficient lightbulbs or a hybrid car in such circumstances. If they cannot afford oil to keep warm, they will not insulate their home but rather are more likely to start cutting down trees for fuel. They may even buy a simple stove and start to burn garbage for fuel.
An economy is not healthy when it is stagnant. It must not only be growing to be healthy, but to be prosperous it should have the highest possible growth rate while maintaining sustainable funds and keeping inflation in relative check. Only under such circumstances will the government and private organizations have the funds and the ability to tackle environmental issues. The flip side of this is that it means an increase in consumption and in consumerism in general. This equates to more potential for environmental impact.
The key, in the end, is to find ways to keep a robust and healthy economy while promoting good environmental policy. Doing so will increase standards of living, decrease poverty, increase environmentally positive projects and benefit all aspects of life and ecology.
Added (2/5/08):
Having gotten a lot of attention on this article I’ve added a couple of follow-up posts which related to this and which I might suggest checking out. You may also want to check other parts of this blog filed under “environment”.
Agree or disagree your comments are welcome and will not be removed – at least as long as the discussion is factual and substantive. Railings, flaming and profanity are not desired, however. However, although descent is welcome, don’t expect not to be refuted, taken to task or otherwise countered. Feel free to do the same. This is obviously a contentious issue. Any discussion, even if heated, is positive if it stimulates thought and education.
Sources of Greenhouse Gas and a Quick Math Lesson
Stuff “Environmentalists” Should be (more) Concerned About
Does Every Little Bit Really help?
“Green Groups” Give Me Deja Vu
Also, since there has been a lot of discussion of nuclear energy resulting from this, here are some previous posts with relevant information:
Ten Myths About Nuclear Energy
Greenpeace On Nuclear Science
A Graphic Illustration of Nuclear Energy Potential
What is Spent Fuel? – I’m most proud of this one as it addresses an issue most people know very little about. The issue of nuclear “waste” and methods for dealing with it.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am and is filed under Bad Science, Education, Enviornment, Good Science, History, Not Even Wrong. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
June 9th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Doctor Strangelove said:
“This would be an example of the USA deviating from free markets and is NOT inherent to the capitalist idea”
Oh my God… deviating from free markets? And why? Are the Marxists to blame maybe?
“No. The Taliban and Osama Bin Laden were never the good guys”.
So USA told the world they were the good guys. But they were not. Then USA says Saddam is a good guy. But then it turns to be that he is bad in fact. He has no weapons of massive destruction, but anyway, forget it. Hum… sorry, one stupid question: Is the rest of the world supposed to be stupid enough to believe anything USA says?
“It is simple. High standard of living. The opportunity to make good money. Good jobs. Stability. Safety”
Yes sir, yes, you are so, so right sir. I am so stupid I skipped that fact! Life in the USA and Europa is much better than in Somalia (where by the way, the American Army was also there)… Gosh, never thought about that!
Nobody is denying that fact, if I may stress. But the reason why situation is that way is interesting. Because “capitalism” is only “high standards of living”, that way your wonderful definition skips the rest of the world. Which is the political system that rules a country so fascinating as El Salvador, for instance, where a poor guys life means less than nothing? Humm… are they communist? No, they are not, USA prevented that, Thanks God! They are so happy now!
Oh, I understand, don’t say it: it is NOT capitalism, it is “corruption”, “problems”, “government fails to protect liberties” (this is a very good one! Tell Pinochet: “Mr. Pinochet, you have failed to protect liberties”, I cannot stop laughing), “war”, “hunger”, “people bombing”, “terrorism”, those things that happen in those underdeveloped territories we have no idea about. My welfare has NOTHING and will never have anything to do with all that.
That’s why I buy newspapers: to calm me down.
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Michael Ejercito said:
Serious question?
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
drbuzz0 said:
This clown isn’t a Marxist-Leninist, he’s just a motor-mouth. He shown no understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory, dialectical materialism, or the historical roots of the movement. In the old days I crossed verbal swords with intellectual communists in university, and this guy couldn’t hold their shoes.
Quote Comment
June 9th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Jack Celliers said:
I see so this really is not just about the enviornmental issue, but that’s just a small part. In reality, the enviornmental problems are just another issue that can be solved with communism, the others being every social and economic and security problem in existence. In reality this is a social warfare issue that involves the few rich who cause all the problems…
I think I understand what you stand for and what you are all about.
As a supporter of the free market of both commodities and ideas, I respect your right to your opinion. As a human and a person with some knowledge in this area I have no respect for your opinion or you personally or others like yourself. I do not care to continue this or even bother with this song and dance anymore.
I will no longer engage you in this discussion or any other and I encourage others to do the same.
Cliche, perhaps, but also true. How about this one: “Our system may not be perfect, but we don’t have to build a wall to keep our people in”
Quote Comment
June 10th, 2008 at 5:54 am
DV82XL said:
Hum… look at this: “I don’t debate with communists as a rule”. This was a couple of comments ago, now it is: “In the old days I crossed verbal swords with intellectual communists in university”. Very reliable.
Besides, I wonder why there is not a single religious freak, fascist, or any kind of anti-Marxist who won’t claim to know more about Marxism than you, not forgetting to mention “Marxist-Leninist theory”, “dialectical materialism” and the “historical roots of the movement”. It’s some fascinating thing. Of course, they tell the same to every Marxist (or what they think is a Marxist) they talk to: “there are some intelligent commies, but you are the last dumb”.
By the way, what part of “Marxist-Leninist theory” have we discussed here so that you can say I have no knowledge about it? What the hell has “the historical roots of the movement” to do with the subject?? And you really want to engage in a discussion about what dialectical materialism is? Of course you don’t, but mentioning en passant it is a handy (and cheap) way to show your deep knowledge about something, knowledge you will never have to prove.
I expected more, really.
Quote Comment
June 10th, 2008 at 6:03 am
drbuzz0 said:
Thanks very much for “respecting my right”, but I own that right so I don’t care about your “respect”. Regarding your personal respect for me… I think I can live without that, don’t worry
I only wanted to discuss the issue presented here. Of course there are political implications, and certainly from a Marxist point of view there will be a particular opinion. But there are (I’m telling you, because evidently you don’t know) smart ways to deal with energy crisis even in a capitalist market. Again I mention Norway (not a Marxist state) as a good example of how to manage oil markets.
But there is no interest in that, because the guy telling this happens to be a Marxist, who by the way does not know anything about Marxism. Delicious.
Have a nice day, guys.
Quote Comment
September 7th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Justice said:
Long-distance buses have started offering wifi on the east coast — some friends of mine were blogging from it during a recent trip between NYC and Boston. Sounded very relaxing and fun! I recently went from Boston to NYC by train and there was no wifi but it was still a nice low-stress trip and easier than driving or flying would have been.
Quote Comment
September 27th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I was surfing the web and ran across your web site. My name is Jason Lee and I have strong ties to the Pacific Ocean, I was raised in both Hawaii and California. In the 60s I started SCUBA diving and by the 70s I spent some time as a commercial diver – I have watched life in the Pacific Ocean die away.
I am writing to you because my hope is for the oceans of the world. I am working with a new technology that can take any water and clean millions of gallons per day per plant. The process is hot-fusion with hydrogen. Hydrogen being the most abundant element in the universe and consequently it is the most inexpensive fuel on earth. We have all seen ads on television promoting the need for clean energy, yet all of the sources I have followed were promoting unrealistic solutions for they are dependent on weather and are not designed to generate enough power to justify the expense.
With gasoline and diesel fuel prices jumping to all time highs, all of America is feeling the pinch. We are not addicted to foreign oil; we are addicted to the lifestyle that is based upon consuming a depleting resource. The oil companies want us to panic and let them drill everywhere. Solar and wind technologies are dependent on the weather and still can’t produce enough electricity to be considered seriously. People are afraid of nuclear power because of the radioactive waste and control problems.
For the past 50 years the government has invested over a trillion dollars in research for the development of hydrogen fusion because it is not a depleting resource, and they were not successful in gaining an economic answer. But, what if a different direction changed all of that?
Hot-fusion with hydrogen can generate temperatures that rival the sun. Unfortunately, past research has not yielded economically feasible solutions. I am sitting on patent pending technology whose method of operation has already been proven by prominent nuclear physics labs. It needs to have production development and testing. Instead of using inefficient magnetic confinement, this one uses an alternating current particle accelerator that enables the technology to control the burn to as little as 1/50,000 of a second. Instead of using having to use heavy hydrogen only, this one can use plain or light hydrogen so expensive concentration of special fuels is not needed.
The reactor creates steam to operate steam turbines for generators of electricity. It also can be made into a giant desalinization plant. Pollutants can be recycled or molecularly altered at the atomic level into inert elements. Yes, by altering contaminants, including radioactive waste, it would be possible to process hazardous waste into non hazardous wastes while generating electricity from a nonpolluting fuel. Radioactive wastes can be recycled into non radioactive materials. Ocean water can be used to produce cheap distilled water for agricultural use and human consumption. It can be piped from ocean side areas into areas where it can be used by man for drinking, agriculture, or to make arid areas of the planet habitable.
If I have tickled your imagination with a cure for some of man’s problems that have led to the planet’s problems, I hope to hear from you. We are seeking money from non-government sources as this technology can also be used for military purposes. Our feeling is that this technology should be reserved for humanitarian purposes including fulfilling a need of supplying clean inexpensive energy.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Jason Lee
Quote Comment
January 26th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
It is true nuclear energy is very mature, and so is the NEI’s quest to build more reactors. The atomic bomb is very mature, so is nuclear waste. Another very mature fact, the NEI does not tell the truth, neither do you. Very Propagandicious of you in your criticism of environmentalists. Expecting the truth from the NEI is like expecting socialists to promote capitalism.
Quote Comment
January 26th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Garry Morgan said:
Oh please! Do you really think this sort of hyperbole will make a favorable impression on people here? It is you that are the propagandist sir. Making open statements and veiled accusations is exactly the sort of behavior that we have come to expect from your kind since they know that none of their arguments can stand the harsh light of examination by the facts.
What is worse is that apparently you are an educated man and according to your website served for 10 years, Comptroller General of the United States and head of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Hollow statements like you made above are both beneath you, and demonstrate your utter contempt for the readers here.
Go through the leading post and marshal some decent arguments against the points, if you have them. But be aware that I am a trained scientist with many,many years of industrial experience under my belt, as do many of my colleagues here, and you will not get away with statements you cannot prove.
Quote Comment
January 26th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Garry Morgan said:
Nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons are related in exactly the same way that incendiary bombs and candle flames are – they both use the same basic reaction. Atomic bombs have killed far fewer than incendiary weapons have in even a single incident.
Power reactors are all but useless for creating nuclear weapons. A modern light water reactor produces spent fuel which is far too contaminated with Pu-240 to make an effective weapon. About the only thing a power reactor could possibly be used for in a weapons program is the possibility of breeding tritium, but that’s hardly relevant since it can be acquired by other means and is not a necessity to produce a weapon.
What nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants have in common is one thing which makes them the be-all-end-all: Energy density. A nuclear bomb is the ultimate weapon of destruction becasue it packs such energy density. A nuclear reactor is the ultimate instrument of producing bountiful energy becasue it also has enormous energy density.
The NEI is made up of nuclear companies and thus they have a vested interest. This is understood. It does not mean they are liars in general. There are plenty of groups lobbying for wind or gas or other energy forms that have much greater funding than NEI and much worse of a reputation in terms of honesty and motivation.
I support nuclear energy because of the good it can do for humanity and for the enviornment. I don’t support it because I have a direct financial role in it. You might hate this, but there are others like me, we’re a group of honest, intelligent, forward-thinking nuclear energy supporters. We don’t necessarily have a stake in the industry but we care about society, about the enviornment, about human progress and about the security and availability of energy.
Quote Comment
April 17th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
THANKS GOD NOT EVERYBODY THINKS LIKE YOU!!
Quote Comment
April 18th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
phebe said:
Just a spammer. Boy is that ever lame.
Quote Comment
May 29th, 2009 at 4:38 am
The current economic system and environmentalism are mutually exclusive. One or the other, and I don’t think we have the knowledge to go back and live on the land. Not that it was ever very good for humans to live on the land. The only real options are:
Keep going the way we are going and hope for the best, that all forces (including our pollution) ballance out and not too much damage is done.
Change our economic system to one that environmentalism will compliment (huge task, I think it’s pretty impossible)
Or somehow make environmentalism more economocally viable. (Again, I don’t know how that will happen).
Quote Comment
May 29th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
rollinginsanity said:
See that’s the BIG LIE – the fact is we can have our cake and eat it too, all that is needed is cheap, abundant energy. We have the technology available in the form of nuclear fission, in fact we have had it for the last half-century, even most of the ‘new generation’ reactors had examples running in the 1950’s!
Nuclear power reactors each have an output similar to coal power stations, namely around 1000 MW. There are now about 440 nuclear reactors worldwide delivering about 2,500 TWh per year, around a fifth of world electricity consumption. The numbers of nuclear power stations built in each country depends on its natural resources, principally coal and oil. France, which lacks these resources and is unwilling to become dependent on imports, generates about eighty percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors. It is unlikely to rise higher than this because nuclear reactors take time to get started and therefore cannot react quickly when there is a sudden demand. They are best suited to supply the base load, supplemented by other methods of generation (such as gas power stations) to handle the fluctuations in demand. Many other countries generate around fifty percent of their electricity from nuclear power, and now nuclear has outstripped coal in Western Europe. There is thus no doubt that nuclear power stations are able to provide for the world’s energy needs.
Please note that ALL of the issues that detractors like to wave about when nuclear energy comes up HAVE SOLUTIONS right off the shelf: The wastes can be reprocessed as they are in France and several other countries; we are not running out of nuclear fuel -there is enough to last us for as long as we inhabit this world; nuclear weapons are not made with power reactors, nor do such reactors blow up.
The only thing standing in the way of nuclear energy is politics and lies, it’s that simple.
Quote Comment
May 29th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
DV82XL said:
My mistake, I did forget about Nuclear. I tend to just forget about nuclear, but it is a perfectly valid source of power. Just thinking about it, it would be a cheaper and easier idea researching even better ways of disposing nuclear waste instead of finding alternate fuels.
Quote Comment
May 29th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
rollinginsanity said:
There are several valid ways of dealing with spent fuel. Reprocessing removes the transuranics that act as neutron poisons in the reactor. What you are left with is new fuel and a small bit of material (about a golf balls worth from every 1000kg) This has been practiced, most notably in France, for decades. The fact is, our ‘once through and bury it’ cycle is very wasteful of good nuclear fuel.
The other option is to use liquid core nuclear reactors, a technology that had working examples in the 50’s and 60’s, which are so effective at burning their fuel, that they leave very little waste at all.
It’s all there, just waiting for the political will to deploy it.
Quote Comment
May 29th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
DV82XL said:
Thankyou very much for the little informative conversation. I personally have no fears of nuclear power, but in Australia where I live Nuclear power is opposed quite heavily. The incident of Chernobyl is often touted as the reason why not, but people don’t seem to understand that chernobyl was 95% human error and 5% dodgy Soviet reactor design.
Quote Comment
May 29th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
rollinginsanity said:
Ya, except I would put it at 80% criminal stupidity and 20% shoddy reactor, but that’s all moot. The bottom line is that there is no reactors of that type anywhere outside of the old U.S.S.R. and the ones there are all scheduled to be decommissioned in the near future.
Quote Comment
August 5th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I was told by somebody in industry as a passing remark (but they could not remember source when asked) that a large cargo ship or tanker travelling across the ocean puts more pollution in to the sea & more c02 that all the cars in the UK in one year! I would love to see the figures for this from an official source…
Quote Comment
January 10th, 2010 at 4:33 am
Green Is The Color Of Life said:
Do you seriously think that this is even remotely viable?
There are an absolute myriad of issues I could raise here, but I’ll go with one that most people would probably overlook: population. First of all, there is absolutely no way you’ll feed earth’s current population on organic agriculture. It’s not even remotely possible. But put that aside for a moment, do you know what the population of earth is? Overpopulation has long been cited as potentially disastrous, both for humanity and the earth, but growth is finally slowing and projected to level out. If you break down population growth rate by country, you’ll find that the most affluent societies have slowed the most (enough that in some cases they now actually worry about “demographic collapse!) Whereas in more “humble” agrarian societies, it remains high. Put aside the fact that in places where people live the closest to your “utopian” vision they tend to have the lowest qualities of life, if we all somehow went back to that level of society, population would explode, starving people would carve up the grasslands and forests in an attempt to feed their families, and everyone and everything would be in a much worse situation.
Quote Comment
January 10th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
I’d like to point something else out: Living a “humble” life in a “humble” society, where everyone takes the absolute minimum and has enough to live a reasonably healthy and safe life, but not even a tiny big more than they need to do so will only work if 100% of the citizens agree to this and also must never deviate from the principle of always taking only what is needed and never even a tiny bit more.
In such a society, if one person becomes enterprising and tries to achieve more or to have more then is absolutely needed, they will end up succeeding more than others. The system favors those who will use their creativity, skill or drive to go a little bit further than the minimum and as soon as that gets rolling, people realize that it’s kinda nice to build an addition to their home to have some more space or to go and get some stuff they might not absolutely need.
Once this happens, the ideal of everyone living in modest little cottages that are exactly as large as they need for basic shelter and not a square inch larger completely breaks down. Those with drive and incentive to do more, to have more, to make more will do better and the ones who spend their time trying to do as little as they can get swept under.
How do you prevent this? Simple you must use force and draconian measures. Historically, every society that attempts to institute Marxist systems and absolute economic equality does this because they have to – it is the only way such a system has any chance of working.
In practice, you must keep a very close eye on everyone, and the moment anyone takes even the smallest action that is not in line with the societal plan or begins to do anything that might somehow oppose the instituted social order, they are immediately given the harshest punishment possible.
In any society that attempts to actually have true Marxism, true social and economic equality, there is, by necessity the mass use of execution, often immediate and without trial. The threat posed by anyone who does not conform is so great that you can’t have a trail system in which there is innocence until proven guilty – the burden must be on the other side. Besides, it’s society that matters, not the individual, so if a few innocents get killed in the process, it’s worth it for the greater good.
And this is why there are death squads in any system that has such planned equality. People are dragged out of their homes and shot at even the allegation of not supporting the state. Stalin did it, Lenin did it, Mao did it and even the various darling Marxists who people put on T-shirts lived by this idea. Ho Chi Mein, Che Guevara were all loyally committed to deadly force in keeping economic equality.
Quote Comment
January 13th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
One at a time:
10. A degree of truth in the main premise – but it’s way too late to focus on any one thing, or even on just the noticeable items. The narrower the focus, the more intense the pain. Yes, coal is the worst case – but ceasing all coal production would be disastrous for those involved, while all the other sources go unchecked.
9. Well, it would be nice if we didn’t have to change anything at all – but it’s not practical or likely. All our infrastructure is going to have to change – any way; it has a limited lifespan, and will need to be replaced. Why not replace it to suit the 21st cntury, not the 20th? An infrastructure has always changed, over time. The mistake is to imgine that the current setup is somehow ideal.
8. ” “Natural” “Organic” and “Bio” do not mean “good.”” So what? Nothing to do with environmentalism.
7. Eh? It’s the business-as usual crowd who are the wildest optimists.
6. Well, duh! But we are perfectly entitled to criticise plain bad behaviour – especially when there are plenty of alternatives.
5. Bollocks. Taxation can be progressive, caps are neutral (but tend to weigh heaviest on the most profligate). Price rises certainly are regressive.
4. More nonsense. A purely American conceit, it would seem. Most of the rest of the world acknowledges that we can’t always get what we want.
3. Oh yeah? Tell that to the European railways. Do the huge and persistent subsidies on the US arms industry have the effects you describe?
2. No, every tiny effect isn’t worth much effort. But every class of effort that is excluded, increases the degree of effort required on everything else. At the heart of this is the need for the broadest possible action, to share out the costs. That puts a personal responsibilty on everyone to do what they can – even if it’s just a bit.
1. A really doozy,this one. Sacrificing the envionment is the surest way to destroy the economy.
Quote Comment