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
January 29th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Everyone that claims to be an environmentalist should be schooled in these points, if necessary with the help of a stick.
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
This is absolutely correct. There’s some redundancy here. I can see how some of these points could be blended together or are at least related, but that might be a good thing because there are a lot of people who won’t get it on the first go.
You make a compelling case for the economic argument. It’s the reality of things. If you damage the welfare of human society it will only come back to bite you because people won’t stand for it and they’ll start stop caring about pollution as much as their own ass. Economics is missing part of almost all enviornmental groups message. It’s the whole idea that we should sacrifice to make the environment better. As you point out, it doesn’t work that way.
Everything I hear from them ignores the realities of how people think and act and assumes the idea of a perfect world where everyone works to keep things sustainable. Wrong answer. It’s naiveness and stupidity.
Basically you have the same damn thing as communism. It looks good on the surface, but totally opposes the way the world really works. Every time anyone has tried to build a country on the concept it ends up doing the exact opposite of what the set out to do. It doesn’t matter how many times it happens, there are always those who say “Oh but they didn’t really use true marxism there. It was corrupted by Lenin/Stalin/Castro/Mao/Ho Chi Mein/Kim Jong Il” No crap. It’s corrupted every single damn time they give it a shot because it don’t work out as nice as they make it out to be.
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I showed this to a friend of mine who’s all over this crap and he immediately said “Well enviornmental policy doesn’t need to hurt the economy. Using less oil helps the economy if it lowers fuel prices and the only sector hurt is the oil companies.”
“And how do you plan to do that, get people to use less gas? RULE 6″
“Well we could try to phase it out by increasing car effeciency and mandating that we import less oil”
“But do you think people will really get behind cars with much smaller engines? RULE 4. Don’t you also think that it would be a problem limiting it in availability? RULE 5. Also RULE 4 and RULE 1″
“Well I think people would be willing to…”
“RULE 4″
“Okay well we can offer other ways of transitioning to clean energy like biofuels which we’re working on and also going to things like hydrogen or even electric cars.”
“Biofuels: RULE 3 and RULE 9 (they’re not really all that much better)”
“Hydrogen: RULE 9 and also rule 4 (that it can be deployed and systems for delivery and production as well)”
“Electric Cars: Rule 7. How do we know we’ll have better batteries? If we don’t have better ones then we are stuck at rule 4″
It got him so frustrated
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
For those of you left who are left thinking “Ok so this means that the environment must suffer or that it is impossible to help the environment because that would hurt the economy so we should give up,” I offer you the following answer:
Mass deployment of nuclear energy and phasing out of coal and fossil fuel generation
A well established and managed reprocessing and fuel cycle management plan
Replace fossil fuel use with nuclear generated electricity where possible – plug-in hybrids, electric commuter trains, electric or steam heat, electric manufacturing
Where electricity won’t cut it, like for aviation, use synthetic fuel of the cleanest burning variety possible. You make the synthetic fuel with the energy from the nuclear reactors
Get rid of toxic chemical waste and other problem materials with thermal treatment, plasma arc, hydrogenation. And you can use this as the feedstock for your synthetic fuel!
BONUS:
WORKS BY OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE NOT JUST ATTACKING THE ESTABLISHMENT
Works within current infrastructure (although some electrical upgrades)
Staged deployment
Has other benefits (cheap plentiful energy) and possibly better performing and smoother car rides
Economical (large investment overall, but can be done in stages and you get economic benifits in the meantime)
Tackles the largest issues and doesn’t focus on small portions with a bad CBA
Everything is totally based on proven technology that we have now and know we can do!
Ok… I fess up. This was not all my idea or at least I’m not the only one to think of this. DRB has a nice poster here: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=314
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Congratulations Giant Pulsating Brain, you got it in one.
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Truely, I would be a visionary of energy if not for the fact that the idea of nuclear energy as the basis for a clean and plentiful energy supply did not predate me by a couple of decades. DAMN YOU SEABORG! DAMN YOU FERMI! If only they had not seen it’s potential and it only nobody else had… And if I had… Well then I’d look pretty damn smart, wouldn’t I?
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Brilliant. This sums up so many things I’ve seen. You do realize it will not be well received, right?
The argument “Well we could have a good economy and everybody would do fine and be happy if they just tried to save fuel and if they would stop doing things like running air conditioners when they don’t need to and…”
Woulda, Shoulda, Coulda! then it comes to “Well people should be willing to…” Yeah, maybe. You’re making a big mistake when you go up against human nature because you will always loose.
Every stupid plan I have seen for windmills to power the world assumes that we will be able to produce ten times as many and that we will have a 100% effecient battery in 10 years and that energy demand will drop and everyone in the world will stop driving big cars and accept living in a mud hut. It ain’t in the cards. Makes a nice fantasy.
The only option would be to mandate conservation, and that has problems too!
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
The bald fact of the matter is that environmentalist have been swimming in a sea of wishful thinking and ill informed opinion.
Dan M from Scientific American Community Blogs points out that many people have the “the Captain Picard syndrome.” Which is the belief that all they needed is someone to determine a desirable goal, provide leadership and funding, tell the geeks “make it so” and it should happen. If it doesn’t, its an indication of incompetence or malfeasance on the part of the technical community.
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Considering your feelings toward environmentalists it would seem more like you are less interested in the economy than in destroying the earth, which is just crazy. I think you should realize that environmentalism is about sustainability. Look at the price of oil and tell me that does not effect the economy. If we used less then it would be cheaper for the poor people and it would be better for the welfare of all sectors of the nation.
So that’s as simple as it is: You use less fossil fuel and the economics improve. The environment too. That’s the point is sustainable policy with green energy sources that are going to be better for everyone in the long run. Why would yoiu oppose that? Joe billionaire should not be allowed to use as much oil as he wants just because he can afford it. We should all use less. We should all move to better ways of doing things poor, rich and in between.
That’s how you make it sustainable. You don’t end up hurting anyone. You get rid of that dirty steam engine and you give the poor people a better train to ride on in the process. You have to have everyone share it and at the same time improve the environment. We all do our part it will not be as hard as you think.
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
If we used less then it would be cheaper for the poor people and it would be better for the welfare of all sectors of the nation.
No
Jevons Paradox states that conservation of fuel leads (paradoxically) to increased consumption of fuel. The idea is simple: if large numbers of people begin conserving fuel, this will lower the price of that fuel, and that will stimulate increased consumption.
This is not new, William Stanley Jevons in his 1865 book The Coal Question observed that England’s consumption of coal soared after James Watt introduced his coal-fired steam engine, which greatly improved the efficiency of Thomas Newcomen’s earlier design. Watt’s innovations made coal a more cost effective power source, leading to increased use of his steam engine in a wide range of industries. This in turn made total coal consumption rise, even as the amount of coal required for any particular application fell.
You can’t solve a problem with an imaginary solution just because it sounds fair.
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Indeed. But you could also force less use and overall conservation by strictly limiting the supply or imposing very strictly enforced quotas or standards for usage. You obviously cannot burn more oil than you have avaliable.
Of course this presents even larger problems. Not only the economic consequences and the fact that people would quickly begin to strongly oppose such a decremental policy, but people will find other things to burn if they need to.
Force conservation by heavy handed tactics and supply limitation… poor get poorer. People stop caring about the environment. People rise up in opposition of the policy. Spending decreases. The tax base goes down. Quality of life gets worse. The government has less money for enviornmental programs.
Bad economy -> less consumerism -> people don’t buy new stuff -> push energy effecient stuff as much as you want nobody will buy it.
I have used the example of Germany before for the ultimate in bad energy policy. The extreme expense of energy there and the fact that all fuels are taxed heavily as part of the plan to pay for “renewable” means that they have a glut of people using “alternative fuels” to heat their homes.
Now they are trying to impose a wood burning stove emission law because so many damn people are cutting down trees to burn or burning their garbage: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/post_23.php
You see that “multiburn” ad I posted up there. Is that what you want? People using their dirty motor oil as fuel?
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
True Jevons Paradox is only thought to hold in free economies, or at least where there is no problems on the supply side. Nevertheless if we had a situation where the price of fuel doubled, and end use efficiency improved by a factor of four it would still mean the effective price of that energy would be halved, this would definitely encourage more use. That’s why the environmentalists should watch what they wish for: cheap simple 250mi/gal cars and the third world drives.
It’s strange, but it has happened many times in history.
I dismissed NVGurl1979’s implied rationing for the reasons you pointed out (not only that but her ‘rich guy’ will still get as much as he wants on the black market.)
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Well of course! The poor will sell their rations of gasoline and buy food instead! The price of food having increased so much that it will be a more important factor. They’ll give up the car and walk in the snow to the store because their survival is not more important. Without fuel though, they can alwasy take the tires and seats from the car and burn those to keep warm!
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
DV82XL, your logic only works if we keep doing things like we have through history. That is what it is based on but history has been a past of not sustaining things and not caring about the world. Things are different and changing fast because everyone is going to have to realize the real price of things. As soon as everyone starts working for sustainable and clean lives then we will all be able to shoulder the burden.
Joe billionaire won’t be using his money to buy gasoline because he knows that only makes things worse and no matter how much money he has he has to live here too. So he uses less fuel and there is more fuel for the poor. They use it because they need to keep warm and that’s okay, as long as it’s only used when needed. We all shoulder the sacrifices and our history is different.
We have to stop having unnecessary luxuries that hurt the world no matter how much money we have. You might be a billionair but you still have to live on the earth and you still breathe the air. We are equal there. And so what if a one person won’t stop it? We need all people to stop with luxuries. One is a small number but it doesn’t have to be one. People stop fueling their ships and limos and private planes as soon as they realize that it’s for the greater good and their good too!
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
And we have gone in a circle without learning anything, haven’t we, NVGurl?
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
As a sovietologist I feel more qualified than most to say that a “revolution in human consciousness” is the ultimate unobtainium. Both Communist and green ideology are based on the premise that human nature can be changed, and that this is necessary and predictable. But if history has demonstrated anything, it’s that humanity’s baser qualities are pretty darn immutable. People are selfish and short-sighted and are going to stay that way. Any policy or worldview that denies this fact is going to ultimately run ashore on the hard rocks of reality.
At the same time, I believe that the environmentalist movement is finally experiencing a paradigm shift away from this kind of thinking. I think the best evidence is the ongoing panic from the elders of the movement who came to prominence in the 1970s at the fact that younger people who identify as environmentalists are often open to nuclear power. There was a great article written by these old-timers in the Earth Island Journal last year that outlined this “problem.” Read it here: http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/new_articles.cfm?articleID=1174&journalID=95
“The argument over nuclear power reveals a long-standing tension in the environmental movement between those who say there are technical fixes to the greenhouse gas challenge, and others who believe that we need a wholesale restructuring of society if we are to avoid global meltdown. To embrace a new round of nuclear reactor construction is to say that we can have our climate and eat all the energy we want, too; it is, in some ways, a maintenance of the status quo. To oppose nuclear power is to suggest that we need to reform the ways in which we live. For if we can find a way to create lifestyles that don’t demand as much electricity, then the nuclear question is moot.”
So I don’t think we should antagonize “environmentalists” per se; just the unreasonable dogmatic ones. It sounds like there are many great allies to be had waiting in the woodwork.
Quote Comment
January 29th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Well, if you’re an “enviornmentalist” you should know some things like these ten. I think that’s the message is to those who are on the side of all holding hands and enjoying the trees in our loin cloths. Also there are those who just haven’t put much thought into it or who don’t know the full story.
The first thing people who want to help the environment need to learn is the reality of the world we live in and what works versus what does not. Without the basics of technology, history, sociology and economics you will not be able to do a thing for the environment. They all are part of any workable plan.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Those of us that support nuclear power are environmentalists. The appeal of nuclear energy is that it is the lowest impact source of energy that we can practically scale, and I have yet to meet a nuclear supporter that is so in love with fission technology that they wouldn’t give it up in a flash if something better was available. The problem is that there isn’t and there isn’t likely to be a better option in the foreseeable future. We have come to this conclusion after a critical examination of the alternatives. It’s just that simple.
Sovietologist is correct when he points out that there have been some conversions, however I think it’s rather obvious that the lead article is addressed to those that are still backing the green agenda that in short calls for the deindustrialization of the First World, returning to an agrarian economy typical of the 17th and eary 18th centuries.
Unfortunately they still command a significant number of followers, most of whom have bought in to a romantic dream of living in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Shire and haven’t given the implications a great deal of thought, and those who hold to the green position without having thought of what sort of living conditions would follow at all.
These are the folks that need to be made aware of Doc’s top ten list.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Well I am not all about the fission. I’m generally in favor of nuclear as the guiding force in energy development because of the fact that it is then most fundamental and high density energy source. Yes, fission is the best option for large scale self-sustaining reactors. However, I see a lot of reasons for excitement over the concept of a hybrid spallation reactor where an accelerator drives neutron generation for fast neutrons which induce fission and activation. It produces practically no waste and is so safe and easy to shut down that I honestly think it has potential to be in “everyone’s basement to heat the house and melt snow” in the future with some more development.
Fusion is not something I’d ever oppose if we could do it reasonably. It simply presents some technical problems inherant to the concept which are very hard to tackle. I’m not confident we’ll ever be able to use it as a large scale energy source and if we do, I’m convinced it will be due to a radically new idea in containment that is not based on the tokomak system. (just too inherently expensive, complicated and inefficient)
Of course, fusion is still great for neutron generation and other purposes. But if you want to know how man kind is going to ever break the bounds of relying on limited energy resources in the form of chemical fuels and environmental sources of limited usefulness and availability, it will be nuclear. 100% guaranteed.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am
A quote from Sovietologist’s linked article:
“That kind of vision makes nuclear power irrelevant. If we can reach a societal consensus that what we desire is a slower and smaller way of living, a re-conceived notion of success, then we can fundamentally reformulate our energy system. In any discussion involving a redefinition of “progress,” nuclear power is not simply dangerous or dirty – it’s pointless. That’s a conversation the nuclear industry is unlikely to win.”
It’s going to be a long time before #4 sinks in with these people.
I only heard of Jevon’s Paradox recently, but even before then I had grave doubts about the supposed virtues of conservation. Even if we did all suddenly become selfless Utopianites willing to use maximally efficient devices without increasing overall consumption (we wont), any reduction in emmissions thus achieved will be rendered irrelevant by the industrialisation of the third world. I personally think conservation is a dangerous illusion, the only effect of which will be to decrease the incentive for real solutions.
Finrod.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Finrod’s right that the authors don’t get #4. The reason I find the article so exciting is that its conclusion reframes the nuclear power debate in a way that ensures that nuclear power will ultimately win. And this reframing is coming from hardened anti-nuclear types. You see, it’s an outright admission that “To maintain current standards of living, we need nuclear power.” If this is the way that the debate is really developing within environmentalism, the future of nuclear power is assured. It’s absolutely true that the old-school “environmentalists” are anti-rationalists who don’t comprehend these ten points- but it seems to me that the younger set is finally rejecting the anti-scientific dogmatism of the 1970s and replacing it with a balanced understanding of environmental problems with the social and economic effects of policy choices. And the old-school environmentalists are starting to get flustered, even as they try and use wishful thinking to eliminate the problem.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
What we have to drive home is that low energy lifestyle = poverty. Unfortunately crap like: ” reach a societal consensus that what we desire is a slower and smaller way of living, a re-conceived notion of success” appeals to some vestigial protestant ethic that still colors our ideas of ‘correctness’. Also a disturbing number of people that pay lip service to the green agenda still think that some technological fix other than nuclear is possible and is not coming to for because of some conspiracy of the ‘centralists’ or the obstreperousness of the technocrats that don’t want to lose power.
As far as an admission by the green leadership that nuclear is the answer I have never doubted that select groups ability to think. They are terrified that should nuclear gain wide acceptance, the flow of money will dry up as they become irrelevant. This appeal to minimalism is just an attempt to reformulate their stand to avoid that fate.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Indeed point 4 will not go down easily but it also relates directly to other points especially point 1. Even if you could get the public to stomach wholesale sacrafices the economic effects of dramatic reduced consumerism (buying less things in general, driving a lot less, going out to eat less because it’s less effecient, making appliances last longer) would result in a general economic slowdown. Consumerism is ultimately the base of the economy. If you have national or worldwide decreases in consumerism you have a recession. If it’s extended and universal you have a severe recession to the point of being a depression or even a collapse. Thus you are back to point one.
So you cannot get people to do anything like that by choice. Even if you say the standard of living will increase because of less pollution that does not matter because the actions of the individual make no tangible difference. The collective does not do it because it is made up of individuals. The effect is also not immediately apparent. It may have no apparent effect. People will not pat you on the back if you stop catastrophic global warming, for example, because you have not *improved* things in tangible terms. You have only prevented things from getting worse. That is less likely to inspire such sacrifice.
Your only option is to mandate conservation or somehow try to cap the supply. This now is problem #1 #4 and #5.
Try to mess with the equation more. No matter how you slice it you end up with it not working or causing more trouble than it is worth.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I am reminded now of a conversation I had with an “environmentalist” or “green” not long ago:
“Why is it that Americans drive such big cars with big engines when others don’t?”
“Because the roads are wide enough for it in America and big cars are comfortable. If you want a big car to go fast you need a big engine.”
“That’s so wasteful why can’t they be like everyone else?”
“Canadians do too. Latin Americans do if they can afford it. In Asia it varies but is usually too crowded to make it worthwhile. Those who can do.”
“You really think it’s just that the Europeans have narrower roads and not that they care more about doing the right thing? Then we need to make regulations better in America. We need to make cars more effecient.”
“They tried that. People who still wanted a big car bought something called a ’sport utility vehicle’ instead and it was registered as a light truck.”
“We should outlaw big cars and SUV’s because they are inefficient”
“Okay, so we outlaw them for everyone. But doesn’t this cause a problem. Don’t some people get to have bigger vehicles? What about the handicapped? Can they have a bigger vehicle for their wheelchair to fit in? What about big families? If someone has five kids isn’t it more effecient to have them all in a minivan than have to have multiple cars for all seven?”
“Well, yeah. You can have them but only for those who really need them. Big families and the handicapped or others who really need them yeah.”
“Okay, what about those who might not totally need them but would benifit from them legitimately? Suppose, for example, I’m an electrician and I need a pickup or a van to carry my equipment? What if I often work at construction sites that are muddy and so I need a pickup with four wheel drive so I’m not always getting stuck.”
“Well, okay. Yeah, if your job needs it then maybe then you could, but only if it’s really something you need.”
“Well what about if I live far out in alaska and I need a vehicle I can depend on in the snow. What if I live in an area with bad weather and snow and I’m a paramedic or volunteer fire fighter so I need to be sure I can always get there fast even in really heavy snow..”
“Yeah okay, but those aren’t most people.”
“So who decides who is allowed a big heavy gas-guzzeler suv?”
“Uh… uh… I don’t know. I guess maybe a special permit…”
“Oh ok. Now what if I’m a volenteer fire fighter and I decide to stop doing that because of a health concern or I just retire. Do I need to buy a new car?”
“Um… uh”
“If I’m an electrician is it okay to drive my kid to soccer in the big pickup after I’m done with work?”
“Uh uh.. I don’t know the whole thing… there’d have to be a procedure to do it and have permits and figure out exactly how much each person needs. Yeah, I mean only people who have a real need they would have it. But um… you’d only be allowed to use it for a limited extent for non-essensial stuff”
“Ah… welcome to the Soviet Union. Please take a number to apply for your SUV permit”
…
I have the same discussion on occasion about air conditioners and how hot it needs to be before it’s legitimately okay for someone to own one. Also, if they’re okay for the sick and elderly who would have health problems in the heat, how sick and how elderly!
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I hope you are wrong about this, but if you are right I still don’t see why that makes nuclear power the right thing. Considering it’s worse for the environment in every way and actually makes more global warming then it helps and is so dangerous and horrible then maybe you should rethink that. Did you know that nuclear power plants need a lot of water or air to take away the heat from them? That does not help global warming one bit because hot water means eventually hot air. Plus, when they build them and when they dig for the fuel they need tractors and trucks = more pollution. That’s why it is actually much worse then anything else.
If you are right and we can’t conserve to save the earth and people won’t do the right thing then I think there’s only one outcome: we have bad global warming and fuel problems and smog. We just learn to live with it because there’s nothing else we can do. We keep it to a minimum but we also may need to forget about New York and London and move inland. Or we need to build sea walls. We need to move north and we will take lots of pictures of polar bears because we know that’s all we have.
That’s a terrible idea for the future so I hope you are wrong. It’s not as terrible as a nuclear future though.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Have you bothered to read anything legitimate on the subject? Ever?
- Nuclear power does NOT make more global warming. End-over-end full life-cycle it makes less than any other source per unit of energy produced.
Does anyone making the “you gota burn fuel to mine it and refine it” argument think steel, aluminum and silicon are found in the woods in ingots? Or that coal falls out of the sky beside the power plant? Just think about the amounts we are considering here before making a statement like that.
No, the whole point of most of this thread is that we won’t “forget about York and London” the people there will stay and power will be supplied to them, the only choice on the table is how: burn coal or fission uranium/thorium.
Wake up and smell the coffee – you might want to live like a peasant, the rest of us don’t and we’re in the majority.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“I still don’t see why that makes nuclear power the right thing. Considering it’s worse for the environment in every way and actually makes more global warming then it helps and is so dangerous and horrible then maybe you should rethink that. Did you know that nuclear power plants need a lot of water or air to take away the heat from them? That does not help global warming one bit because hot water means eventually hot air. Plus, when they build them and when they dig for the fuel they need tractors and trucks = more pollution. That’s why it is actually much worse then anything else.”
No. You’re mistaken on these points. Currently, the amount of CO2 generated in construction of nuclear plants and mining the fuel is minimal compared to every other means of generating electricity except (I think) hydroelectric, which is about on par. This situation, already very good, will be improved further when the bulk of energy production comes from nuclear sources. The allegation that electricity generated by nuclear sources has a high CO2 footprint comes from a report commonly known as Stormsmith (after the authors). This report has been comprehensively debunked and the fallacies embodied therein exposed.
Heat produced by power plants, nuclear or otherwise, is not a significant factor in global warming. The disk of the Earth is illuminated by 175,000 Terrawatts of sunlight. This is vastly in excess of our meager contribution. Current global industrial civilisation is simply too feeble to directly heat up the environment to any significant degree. the concerns for global warming spring from subtle alterations in atmospheric chemistry and their ability to rechannel some tiny fraction of the large-scale energy flows of the aforementioned 175,000 TW of sunlight into atmospheric heat.
Finrod.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
EarthIsMyHome2 you have been duped into beliving just about every myth there is about nuclear power. There is no point in trying to convince you otherwise I guess but just for your own amusement do these things.
Compare the difference betwen the energy the earth gets from the sun with the totaly energy produced by all the worlds nuclear power plants, consider the magnitudes and then figure out how many power plants needs to be built to even come close to 0.1% of the heat the earth gets from the sun.
Google for “life cycle assesment” comparing different energy sources, you might be suprised to se that the pollution from nuclear power, including mining, construction ect is less than from wind and solar. You need those trucks and tractors even more when you build renewable energy.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Well I’d just like to make a comment: I understand what you mean by “bread and circus” because I looked it up and so your analogy I take it means people want their needs and wants fufilled such as food and entertainment. Okay, that makes sense.
Let me just ask though, what if you say to everyone: “We understand you have needs and wants. But you are going to have to have your food in a simpler way. You are asked to just eat what is needed and no exotic fruits especially out of season. You can’t have things like ice cream every day you want, but you can still have it on your birthday and you can’t drive a big car but you can still have a car as long as it is small and you drive it only when you really need to. You can still have things for fun, but you are only going to be able to have one television and it must be reasonably small. You can still travel but you can’t go on vacation over seas every single year. You just make these small sacrifices and the world will be better as a whole.”
Let me ask has anyone ever thought of trying that? being reasonable and helping people understand they don’t need to loose everything? I think people will choose the right thing if you just work with everyone and stop being so forceful.
Has anyone ever tried asking people to have “just the bread they need and less circus”?
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Now why didn’t we think of that? While we are at it why don’t we get rid of all of the military and the police too and just ask people to be nice? How about getting rid of money – we’ll just ask people to share? Why don’t we get rid of all the governments as we will just ask everyone to do their bit
Do I need to tell you why?
People behave to maximize their own gain, that’s what every rational poster in this thread has been saying, and any attempt to go against that impetus has historically ended in a spectacular failure. The big problem is that in the end you have to use force in these plans because they don’t work unless everyone is on the same page, and because of human nature people are going to cheat.
Christ, doesn’t anyone read Orwells Animal Farm in high school anymore?
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Has anyone ever tried asking people to have “just the bread they need and less circus”?
You know those Communists I mentioned? They did that. Lenin even had a snappy phrase for it: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” In practice this was because resources were being diverted to the military or prestige projects, not to “save the Earth,” but the results were the same. And they were willing to go to almost any extreme to enforce this. The Soviet Union had a special police force whose activities largely consisted of fighting economic “crimes.” Being a “capitalist” could get you exiled to the GULAG, or worse. But after seventy years, they had to give up and admit that human nature just wasn’t going to change.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Well then human nature is what we need to work on
It seems to me that’s the cause with all our major problems. Maybe we should consider that our schools shouldn’t just teach people not just knowledge but also to be good people too! I agree with the link above that we need to stop focusing on technology and start focusing on making the world a better place by working together to change our society. That will end up making everyone else happier when we can learn to care for earth and each other again!
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Yes many have asked people to have only the bread they need and less circus. It always fails and people won’t stomach it. People will at best, accept it for a limited time, if they are scared enough. The last time the US did forced rationing by policy was world war II. It was damn hard to get people to stomach it and a lot of people cheated. There was HUGE propiganda about how the germans and japanese were a just a tiny step from bombing the US to oblivion. The only way it was kept workable was by the perceived impending danger and only for a short time. If it had gone on longer, likely there would have been calls for peace talks.
Yes, many many have tried the “less bread and circus” and it fails.
And it’s not that people don’t care about each other. One of the most motivating factors in human desire for material can be to provide for one’s family wellbeing.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Let me just ask though, what if you say to everyone: “We understand you have needs and wants. But you are going to have to have your food in a simpler way. You are asked to just eat what is needed and no exotic fruits especially out of season. You can’t have things like ice cream every day you want, but you can still have it on your birthday and you can’t drive a big car but you can still have a car as long as it is small and you drive it only when you really need to. You can still have things for fun, but you are only going to be able to have one television and it must be reasonably small. You can still travel but you can’t go on vacation over seas every single year. You just make these small sacrifices and the world will be better as a whole.”
I’ll let someone else put this proposal to The Peepul. I’m a sensitive guy, and I get upset when sworn at.
Finrod.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“Well then human nature is what we need to work on It seems to me that’s the cause with all our major problems. “
You and what army?
Finrod.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Well I read it and all I can say is that this is the same mentality that destroyed the environment and will continue to. It seems what this blog is trying to say to environmentalists is “Stop being environmentalists” everything here basically says “protecting the environment is just going to hurt you in the end so don’t even try”
I think this guy should shut the hell up. If he doesn’t want to be part of the solution fine. There are other people who do care and it’s just sad that people listen. “Yeah screw global warming. It would hurt the economy If we try to conserve well just use more and hurt everyone so burn away!”
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Tell me, Peter, what is your “solution”? My solution is to harness the power of nuclear fission to provide for the wants of mankind while protecting the environment. That’s very different from “protecting the environment is just going to hurt you in the end so don’t even try.” Is my solution unacceptable?
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
So what’s stopping you from living a subsistence existence? I see you have a computer, what powers it. Do you have a roof over your head? Did you build it yourself? Do you have cloths on your back? Did you make those textiles yourself? Did you eat today? Did you grow the food yourself? No? Then who the hell are you telling anyone how they must live?
We can save the environment by getting off burning things to make power and use nuclear energy.
Or haven’t read anything that’s been written here?
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Well I agree with basically what is here. Any plan has to work within the laws of how society works and how the economy and human behavior works. But I want to focus on the idea of “every little bit” and “go for the one with the biggest impact and lowest price”
I do see nuclear as being an important part of energy but there are other forms of energy which are useful and avaliable and you never hear ANYTHING about. I’d like to point to two: hydroelectric first of all. Most of the hydroelectric reserves are taken in most of the developed world, but we can still increase the effeciency of existing systems by upgrading the generators. We can even add capacity. Some dams loose 50% of their power potential diverting water because they don’t have enough turbines to take advantage of it all. I have seen reports that upgrading we could increase hydro power by 20% which is very significant.
The other one is landfill and sewer gas. You actually do better than carbon-neutral with this from a greenhouse perspective. Sewage treatment plants and landfills both spew out methane which is four times as potent a greenhouse gas as co2. It can be captured, especially at sewage plants. You can burn it or use it in the natural gas supply. Some of the vacuum-based methane harvesting plants at large landfills can do 50-100+ megawatts. Not a real lot, but it’s something and remember it actually burns methane so it’s very good at all levels.
Where are the environmentalists on this? Do you hear this? No never. It’s always wind turbines. Fine but if you devoted half that talk to land fill gas you know how much more you’d do?
Ok another thing I want to add: Where are they on grid upgrades? I have never seen a single pro-enviornmental page on upgrading the power system. Do they know that especially when demand is high that there can be a lot of line loss? Did they know that if they added more high voltage lines on runs they would in some cases signifficantly cut line loss of current?
Did they also know if they spent half what they spent on wind farms on replacing the vintage 1950’s voltage regulators and phasers at substations with high effeciency modern ones they would save many many times more energy than a windfarm?
I have never seen one enviornmental group for grid upgrades. Never one for hydroelectric upgrades. And only a very few for landfill gas recovery. Yes, nuclear is good too, but so many things are BIG and the cost is relatively small and they don’t give two craps about it.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Aussie: I don’t think many who understand things will disagree with you. No, the issue is not just nuclear. I support nuclear but I’d also support other forms of energy that can give good consistent results like hydro, which, as you mention, still has a reasonable amount of potential for some expansion. It has an excellent Cost-Benefit Analysis.
I’ve been saying for a long time though that underground coal fires are the elephant in the room for CO2. Nobody has even made a reasonable effort to try to control them. Comparatively, they are enormous.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
I am not sure about what you are saying. Yes if there were a lot more energy to be saved in transmission lines upgraded and hydroelectric improved i think environmentalists would support that and I would say that then it would be stupid to focus so much on making people conserve and none at all at that. That sounds to me like it is probably not true or it’s not really possible to do that. I don’t know about gas from landfills but I think that’s probably not true too. And how can coal burn underground? It couldn’t get any air so that’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard.
I think groups like Greenpeace care a lot and if they aren’t out there trying to get more transmission lines or dam turbines then they have a good reason. I’m very unsure of the truth here. This sounds very far fetched. Please prove me wrong if not.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
The top ten list presented above is necessary knowledge, but not sufficient. Humans writhe through history using many thought patterns that are not addressed by the list. Ideology and criminality come to mind. If someone can force you to use coal, and force you to pay them for this privilege, then they will not be open to changing that arrangement. They may even prefer death (both theirs and yours) to change. This is the world we find ourselves in – one filled with people having vested interests that conflict with our long term well being. I particularly like the situations where the criminal and the victim are the same person as happens when the government get royalties from oil and uses this money to provide improved health care for everyone. In such a country new nuclear would mean no hospitals for an interval long enough to hurt. There are loops like this everywhere in our society.
I suggest that we try to muddle through all this, being as nice as we can to each other as we sort out the problems with less than optimal solutions. Life is messy.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
It may come as surprise to some that there is still a significant amount of undeveloped traditional hydro potential left in North America.
The National Hydropower Association (U.S.) river basin studies show a potential of 73GW of additional U.S. hydroelectric capacity in 5,677 undeveloped sites.
The situation is better for Canada, at 118GW, including the Far North where eight major rivers draining into the Artic Ocean are considered ripe for exploitation. Of course this is emphasizing engineering feasibility and some economic analysis, but no environmental considerations.
Despite the widespread belief that hydro is the ideal clean source of renewable energy the bald fact is that it is hugely destructive to local environments and can and does create disruptions to the hydrology of an area several orders of magnitude greater.
Plus these will not be easy sites to work- the low hanging fruit has already been picked- the cost of these projects will be so high and lead time so great that nuclear again becomes competitive.
But upgrades on existing installations and the grid is going to happen. Standard and Poor’s energy report released this week said that that will be the major thrust of investments in the power sector this year.
I also know how you feel on the subject of landfill methane, a major dump in an exhausted quarry flared the stuff off for eight years, and I had to look at it every time i came back from work after sunset. Pissed me off something critical.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I think groups like Greenpeace care a lot and if they aren’t out there trying to get more transmission lines or dam turbines then they have a good reason. I’m very unsure of the truth here. This sounds very far fetched. Please prove me wrong if not.
Yes, they have a good reason… these proposals would actually help alleviate the situation, and are therefore useless diversions from the anti-industrial program.
Finrod.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 5:36 am
Why are fossil fuels astronomically popular, not nuclear and renewables? BOTH nuclear and renewables have been shunned, not just EITHER nuclear OR renewables has been shunned. Why “both”? The power utility loves fossil fuels so much as SUV drivers do, so the power utility is part of the “SUV bandwagon”. So, the power utility hates nuclear and as well as renewables. Businesses, homeowner prefer gas appliances, so they are in the SUV bandwagon. There is FIVE energy sectors called: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and power generation. So, ALL of them are using fossil fuels at very significant amount. Power generation is the ONLY sector can be complied for Kyoto Climate Pact & Smog Ozone Rules without sacrificing economy too far. Nuclear is the only option to do that. Then, transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial sector has to depend on the power generation sector to take advantage of zero emission. Eco-Cute CO2 refrigerant heat pump is the only known technology that can function in cold climate, which CFC, HCFC, or HFC cannot.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 7:51 am
DV82XL, you are right about hydro in certain circumstances being very disruptive, but in existing installations or in places where there are high returns in flood control and water management, I still think it can be very positive.
My question is not why the enviornmental side does not support all things that are helpful. Here is my question: If hydro upgrades can create more renewable energy in a way that is faster and provides more energy than wind and if landfill gas recovery can also provide energy with a net negative effect on greenhouse gasses and if transmission upgrades can have a huge effect on energy waste, then does it not follow that this should be a HUGE issue? Shouldn’t they be all over this? Shoudln’t lobbiests be yelling and demonstrations be held?
You see zero and the CBA on that is ridiculous. This is idiotic. Start telling people to switch to better light bulbs is find but you should be telling utilities to swap out the 70 year old voltage regulators with twice the time and energy. You should be all over landfill gas and that kind of thing because it has a great CBA and its totally doable NOW.
Do they simply not care about solutions which work because they are not part of the “change your lifestyle” mentality? I’m beginning to strongly suspect so.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 10:07 am
Well Aussie it’s been my contention all along that these groups are nothing but self-serving frauds interested only in donations and very little else. To that end fearmongering among the ignorant and the uninformed is much more profitable than lobbying utilities.
In all fairness however we do have to take note that those parts of the electric power system that will benefit from upgrading are in progress or scheduled to begin in the next few years. These are not tasks that can take place over night or with wholesale disruptions to service. We should take note that seismic upgrades to older dams are also part of this as well – important, true – but these are not going to increase output.
Not that I’m letting Greenpeace et.al. off the hook for their obstreperous resistance to nuclear energy, and their stated objective of turning back the clock on the Industrial Revolution or their hypocrisy in general.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 10:36 am
Think about it this way. Lets say, for example, a bill is introduced which would encourage faster expansion of the electrical grid and increase effeciency of transmission with things like faster zoning for power transmission lines, land grants if needed, money for upgrading publicly owned utility systems.
Would Greenpeace support this? You might think so because there would be a savings of energy that they would lobby hard for that kind of law. It’s effective and it would benefit the consumer too. FALSE
even if it causes a net reduction in many megawatts of power because the system was now more effecient and energy could be transmitted to where needed through longhaul hv lines and not go through overloaded lower voltage mazes they would see this as a problem not an improvement. The problem is that to them it’s not an issue of energy being wasted by that but it’s that using energy is sinful. They would say that it was a step in the wrong direction because it doesn’t reduce people’s use of energy and (heaven forbid) might actually lower prices and allow them to use more or somehow benifit the evil utilities or some other profit making entity.
If a power plant generates 1000 megawatts of power and looses 200 in transmission you might think that cutting that in half would be great but greenpeacen would rather that the 800 megawatts remaining is cut by 40 then see the line loss cut by 100 because that does not address the sinfulness and evil of usage.
The best thing for them would be rolling blackouts. That would force the people to use less. But what if that actually causes more polution because it destabalizes the grid and means more generating power is lost? Doesn’t matter. That’s not the sinful part.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 10:38 am
They are in schedule to be upgraded and will benefit, but I don’t see greenpeace having any thing to do with being responsible for encouraging that. I never saw them waving the banner of “We need to get these upgrades done and we should do them as soon as possible.” The plans for upgrades on hydro and transmission may be happening but it had nothing to do with the groups which claim that they support the environment. I NEVER saw them calling these plans a good idea or telling people to support them. NEVER
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 10:44 am
Nord, I think you’re right.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
YOU SHOULD SHUT THE HELL UP BECAUSE YOU DONT GET IT. IF YOU BUILD MORE POWER LINES AND THAT SAVES ENERGY FINE, YOU HAVE TAKEN ONE STEP FORWARD AND ABOUT 800 STEPS BACKWARD. YOU SAVE ENERGY NOW BUT YOU JUST REENFORCE THE SAME PROBLEM WITH CENTRALIZED POWER GENERATION AND ENERGY GLUTTENS. YOU NEED TO STOP FIGURING OUT HOW TO DELIVER DIRTY POWER BETTER. YOU MIGHT MAKE LESS POLUTION NOW BUT NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE CHANGES WE NEED: ENERGY FROM SMALLER CLEANER SYSTEMS THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN KEEP AND MOVE TO A LOCAL SYSTEM THAT IS MORE SUSTAINABLE.
YOU KNOW HOW YOU MAKE PEOPLE USE LESS ENERGY! TURN OFF THE BIG DIRTY CENTRAL POWER PLANTS AND PEOPLE WILL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO USE LESS POWER AND BE BETTER FOR IT IN THE END AS SOON AS THEY REALIZE THAT LIFE IS ACTUALLY BETTER THAT WAY. YOU SAY WIND DOESN”T MAKE ENOUGH> IF YOU WOULD HAVE A LESS GREEDY SYSTEM WHERE YOU ARE BEING A BIG FAT GLUTTEN SITTING ON YOUR ASS YOU WOULD NOT NEED IT AND WIND WILL BE FINE
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I HOPE PEOPLE LIKE YOU DIE FOR THE GOOD OF THE FUTURE
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
HA YOU HAVE PICTURES FROM INDIA! YOU SAY ECONOMIC GROWTH IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT? LOOK AT INDIA AND CHINA YOU BASTARD AND LOOK AT HOW MUCH MORE POLLUTION!
Yea yea, we’ll have less polution with more consumerism just like it worked in India. They’re making money like crazy AND LOOK WHAT THE F*** HAPPENED.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND SO STUPID AND WRONG ON EVERUYTHING YOU SHOULD SHUT THE F***UP AND EAT S*** AND DIE SO THINGS CAN BE BETTER FOR EVERYONE ELSE YOU ARE THE PROBLEM AND DONT BLAME ME IF EVERYONE HATES YOU YOU F*****G IDIOT I HATE YOUR KIND SO MUCH
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
India and China were dirt poor to begin with. The fact that their amount of pollution has risen is a symptom of the fact that they are expanding but continue to lack the funds for ecologically friendly energy sources and vehicles.
It’s a general rule that human needs are put before environmentalism. Hence “Environmentalism is a luxury” The overall standard of living in those countries is still very poor and as such the environment is not a big concern. They have a long way to go. They are still very much in poverty for the average person even if industry is expanding. That’s the problem. But in reality, this trend is the only way that one can reasonably expect standards to eventually improve. It’s an issue of scale versus effeciency. The effeciency was always horrible. The scale has increased. When will the effeciency? Well it already is beginning to but not enough to compensate for growth. It will begin to more as they develop further.
(By the way: I’m taking your words as generally bad wishes and not a direct threat of any action. If this is a misunderstanding, please clarify so that I can take the necessary actions)
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield
Against stupidity the very gods Themselves contend in vain.
Exalted reason,
Resplendent daughter of the head divine,
Wise foundress of the system of the world,
Guide of the stars, who are thou then, if thou,
Bound to the tail of folly’s uncurb’d steed,
Must, vainly shrieking, with the drunken crowd,
Eyes open, plunge down headlong in the abyss.
- Johann Christian Friedrich von Schiller
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
The nuclear people and the rich guys have been lying for years. This is all the same bull****. It’s not about economics but about people and the earth. You want to improve both you stop caring about money and start caring about what is right.
And I think green4clean is right even if he shouldn’t get so angry and threaten people. India and China both make more pollution then every be4. There’s your proof that this is all lies.
If you make more electricity people use it (duh!) and if you put in more power lines it makes things worse, that is why no environmentalist would ever call it a good idea. We have to live within our means. That is the important thing. If people won’t do it then they’ll have a rude awakening when they have to. If we were more modest and didn’t all care so much about travel and big cars and stuff that is not really necessary we’d be able to power the world on wind with no problem.
We should not build power lines or dams or power plants because we have too many as is!
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I am told that there is a saying among trial lawyers that goes something like this:
“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
If you got nothing, pound the table.
Green4Clean420, you are clearly pounding the table. It makes you sound mean and ignorant and will not win you any allies or converts.
I don’t think anyone here is trying to say that using less is a bad thing. We should, indeed all do so. Especially those of us who are well off enough to afford it. We are simply saying that as a global or national policy to solve the energy problems, it has never worked.
Never.
Not even once.
Every person who has responded here wants to help solve this energy problem. We are simply asking the very hard question of “How can we formulate an answer that will work in the reality of our global situation?” The “mainline” or “hardcore” environmentalists seem to have a huge amount of energy to pour into solving this problem. We are only asking you to think a little harder. What is the harm in focusing on solutions that might actually have an impact on the global energy situation. Isn’t that significantly more appealing than jumping up and down and ranting irrational nonsence at a higher volume?
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Keep up the moronic posting please! Every time one of you Green apologists puts your thoughts down you are illustrating just what sort of people you are: impractical, delusional, and irrational.
We have yet to hear from one sane mature Green supporter using numbers or logic or in fact or with any knowledge of even the fundamentals of the topic at hand. You’re perfect illustrations of the sort that are attracted to the B.S. that’s served up by Greenpeace and the rest. No wonder they don’t want to see a solution: they have a herd of cash-cows they can milk for donations without really making any effort other than serve up some fabricated lies.
Your a perfect illustration of why and how you got to be so wrong. Keep it up.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
And talking about green hydropower. Very green. Look at this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046
And as to some other comments here, especially from the green religous fanatics: Einstein once said that there are only 2 things he knows to be infinite. One is the universe and the other human stupidity. And he’s not sure about the universe.
As to some of the posts about moving to distributed generation. Almost any technical or other installation that CAN be scaled (many can’t, like hydro), follows the cube/square law in cost. You increase the size by 8 times, the cost only doubles. The reverse is also true. So distributed small generation, as many dream of, are just not an economical reality of feasible. Not only from the initial cost, but from energy use of production and/or transport of fuels or maintenance.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Well I totally agree hydropower can be totally anti-environment. It is a case-by-case thing. Hydro can be very good if it is part of a well planned water management strategy and where dams are already needed or beneficial for flood control and irrigation then adding hydroelectric makes sense.
If hydro has large areas that need to be flooded where vegetation will be killed and therefore decay and especially if there are going to be periods of draw down which end up accelerating decay and release then that is not good either. So I certainly do favor hydro *where avaliable with minimal consequences* and I do favor upgrading existing facilities if the current setup leads to wasted energy.
At best, however, hydro can only provide a small portion of total energy needs in most places. Far more than other “renewable” but still it will be less than 50% in most areas.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
India and China have been making way more CO2 and other pollution and both of them are growing and getting richer all the time. There’s your numbers. There is your proof that this is 100% wrong.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Chelsea, which of the ten rules do you think is incorrect? (And, thank-you for staying rational, calm and constructive! One of the hardest things about trying to talk facts and useful solutions with most people who brand themselves “environmentalists” is that it is simply frustrating to have people get rude and yell and spit when they find they haven’t done enough research or thinking to hold up their end of the conversation. Very tiresome at best…)
You say that the “nuclear people and rich guys have been lying for years”. I would be interested to know what you think they have been lying about.
Why do you think India and China are producing more polution than ever? My thoughts are that billions of people who have been living in abject poverty are each seeing small ways to make life better for themselves and their children. This is, in my view, the only reason we produce energy. We want to make our life better. I don’t believe there is any malice in the heart of any of these billions of people when they choose to install a lightbulb in their home. Nor do I think there was any malice in your heart when you purchased your computer (which cost more energy to produce than most of those billions of people have used in the last decade.) Each person will make decisions to improve their own life. There ARE rare groups, like the Amish, who strive to think long and hard about the longterm consequences of changes in their lifestyle. One of the underlying points of the 10 rules presented here is simply that these people are exceedingly rare and it is bad public policy to assume that next year the remaining 99.9999% of the world will join up.
The other underlying idea is that it may not be good for the world if they do. there are more than six and a half billion people on the planet. If we all suddenly switch to riding horses and burning wood stoves to cook and stay warm, the methane and CO2 production will be much greater than it is now. There are simply too many people on the planet to live that inefficiently – unless we all go much further than the Amish and choose to live in abject poverty where we have neither a horse or a way to heat our home (this is where the peoples of India and China were a decade ago. how can we ask them to go back? How can we ask ourselves to join them? Who will choose to do so? I think we need to look for a different solution. will you join in the struggle?)
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Yes I have a computer but I don’t see why that is a problem because I use it for then greater good just like Greenpeace is right for burning oil because they have to to stop a big oil tanker from coming in and doing worse by having more oil burned.
That’s okay and also Greenpeace would not use oil and I would be able to use my computer all I want if we had a clean source of energy. Greenpeace wants something to power their boat on that is not oil and I want to have something to power my computer on that is not nuclear but we can’t because of the scientists who will not invent ways or who have but won’t let them out. You should see there is a youtube video if you can find it. There was a man a long time ago who made a car which could run on water and produced no polution at all but the big oil companies stopped him and he died mysteriously and it’s known that it was big oil but they can’t prosecute them because they have too many friends in the government. I want to have my computer powered by solar and my car powered with water and the only reason I can’t is that nuclear and oil and coal companies and the politicians make too much money to ever let that happen!
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
OK THIS GUY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ3juM6vHwg
Sorry the video is old but he died a long time ago and the oil companies try to keep this from being broadcast but somebody had a video of it from before. Nobody will make a car like that anymore they are too sacared
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
“Greenpeace wants something to power their boat on that is not oil”
There called sails – we’ve been using them steady for the last 10,000 years (minimum)
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Journey 1984, The Mythbusters used this notion to prove yet again that the Second Law of thermodynamics has not been repealed.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
They could use sails, DV82XL, but do you know how hard it is to control a boat with just sail power versus motors? You are at the mercy of the wind and can only go as fast as the avaliable winds. If you want to sail in the opposite direction of the wind you can’t do that! All you can do is do a sort of zig-zag in the overall direction you want to go in by deflecting the wind and it’s not easy or fast or toally controlable.
Considering you have to compensate for wind direction, especially if you’re not sailing with the wind, you need secondary sails and rigging and it’s a big pain and requires a good sized crew and if you’re caught in the dulldroms you can not move for a long time. A stalled front will cause you to be stuck in an area until it moves and if the weather is really bad sailing ships can be dangerous!
Of course… this is true for all forms of wind power in general but you wouldn’t think so if you listened to them!
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Yeah, I have one of these carburators that makes my car run on water. Works real well. It’s just that my car doesn’t want to start.
Seriously. Some of these green people remind me of the alleged state senator in the 30’s that wanted by law to make pi equal to 3. To make it easier for calculations.
The green party in germany also has tried to repeal the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They were after all LAWmakers. Results were and are predictable.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Journey, the other available form of power for the green peace ship is oars. If you get enough rowers, you can move a fairly large boat that way when the wind is not blowing in your direction.
The reason Greenpeace will never do this is because it is not convenient. I think you will find that the 10 rules that started this conversation apply pretty well to the Greenpeace organization. Just like the people in South America cut down the rain forest so that they can have a small piece of land to feed their family, Greenpeace will choose to do what is possible, expedient and efficient over what is hard, inconvenient, and unreliable. They may not choose it every time, but they will choose the expedient and efficient path over the hard and unreliable, environmentally friendly path often enough that it is important to make solutions which assume they, like the rest of us, will do so. They will act in their own short term best interest.
And remember, in addition to the power it takes to run your computer, it took a large chunk of power to turn the dirt and crude oil found in nature into that technological marvel. Most of what you pay for in the price you pay is not the few dollars worth of raw materials required – it is the energy required to change those raw materials into something useful and then transport it to you.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Hello,
I would like to say that I cannot disagree with everything here. The idea that we need to work on the largest sources is correct and also that it is important to fit into the infrastructure. It’s also true that human technology can be a good thing in helping. On many of the points however, you do not understand how important the environment is or you are overextending your reach and speaking of what you do not fully understand and giving wrong information and discouraging important activities.
I am going to ask you to take this down. It is not going to do any good and as someone who cares very much about the earth, I will say right now that this is not true. Please trust the real honest and caring people. This will discourage people and send them to the wrong things. Every little bit does help when it is all added up. You should leave the environment up to those who work to make it better.
If you do not support environmentalism or you think that the earth is not in trouble or is not worth saving then that is your right and much as we disagree you are free to do the harmful activities you champion. But I ask that this be removed because these pages are not the right thing to do. Do not make an argument but just go on your hateful way. Just take this down as soon as you can please. That is the one important thing you can do.
Thank you,
Vincent
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Paraphrase: “We agree with your right to disagree- now please censor yourself.”
Wow, you must be incredibly threatened by this.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Ecofriend, I find it very ironic that you are from a website which starts off with the first story on cloned meat (something I addressed in a recent post) and the second thing is about aircraft CO2 emissions – it states right here in one of the things which you actually agree with that aircraft are an example of a compartatively small contributer with a huge cost of fixing so it’s best not to focus on.
Jesus, if this is so wrong, please go ahead and make your argument. You are encouraged to provide scientifically valid facts, historical refrences and draw logical conclusions based on established principals which have been tested and shown to be true. If you can do this then I’d like to see you prove this wrong.
Please, this does not need to be taken down if it is wrong I am sure commenters will not have a problem showing that and I promise I won’t remove any comments. Okay, I guess that you’ll have to trust me on that but hell, you have your own website or at least are a member of it, right?
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
If I may clarify, I am not representing Friends Of the Earth entirely, but I am a very active member in the group and can tell you it is a very good group to be a part of. It may require too much of a commitment from some who are starting off to become a full time member in some activities but they can still provide good information to be active in your community. People who want to make a difference can also donate to them and know it has done something good for earth.
The debate on whether or not it is helpful to work for the environment is not useful. People who do not care about the environment will always be part of the world and we just work to try to convince them otherwise. I believe you are beyond convincing of the importance of this, but you still should not bring this up for others because it is no harm to you. I see nothing but bitterness and hatefulness. This hurts those who want to do a good thing, even if you do not.
You should look in your heart and you will find the answer. Remove this promptly. It is the right thing to do. I am not here to talk about science or history. Only right and wrong. This is wrong. Please be a good person.
Thank you,
Vincent
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 7:07 pm
A message to environmentalists: If you have found this website on the internet I recommend that you do not consider it a good source of information. This starts out sounding honest. This is not a good place for environmental information. Please visit a better website for information on how you can help.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 7:17 pm
EcoFriend, drbuzz0’s point is not that the environment does not need protecting, it’s that mainstream environmentalism has eschewed science and logic in favor of dogma and sentiment. The result of this is ineffective environmental protection. It’s extremely painful for longstanding members of the Green movement to admit this, but the fate of the earth ultimately depends on their coming around.
We need environmental policy that actually works instead of measures that “feel right.”
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
” I am not here to talk about science or history. Only right and wrong. “
What breathtaking arrogance! What conceit!
How dare you presume to lecture us on right and wrong?
Argue with fact. The fact is we care very much for the environment, a great deal more that you or your fellow-travelers.
Science proves us right and history will record the we are right, you and your ilk will be seen in the same light as those who supported slavery, fought woman rights.
It’s time that you started being part of the solution, look at the ten points. If you have legitimate concerns, bring them, I want to hear them maybe you do see something that was missed. But don’t lay on that ‘look into your heart’ crap on.
It only makes you look like a fool
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
The energy issue is certainly an interesting debate. I have enjoyed reading the submissions made. Many exceptional points have been raised and some irrational drivel has also polluted the page. I’m going to throw my hat in the ring and say immediately that nuclear fission is not THE solution. Yes, it is one solution and perhaps when speaking of large-scale, base-load power generation, it is the most feasible solution for future power generation put on the table thus far (until fusion can be contained), but, it is not THE solution. I have noticed one underlying theme throughout the discussion. We seem to be focusing on the ‘grand-scale’. Searching for the technology that will solve the GLOBAL energy crisis. Why is this so? Power generation should always be site-appropriate and should not necessarily on the grand-scale.
I won’t talk too much about nuclear as it has been discussed extensively already. I will reiterate that nuclear is potentially a clean, cheap, base-load power supply that can be established in the absence of viable alternatives and it can potentially utilise existing infrastructure. What hasn’t been mentioned is the waste from nuclear power generation. Yes, there are safe measures for storing nuclear waste. The most widely utilised is the storage of waste in a geologically stable environment. Not all countries are blessed with geologically stable regions. This creates the issue that I think is most pertinent. Transport of nuclear waste. I think we would all agree that a minimal distance travelled is preferential. Despite Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, nuclear power generation is safe. Nuclear reactors must meet a 1 in 10,000 yr core damage frequency and most far exceed this. Rail, road and ocean transport do not meet the same safety standards unfortunately. Just as we wouldn’t shoot nuclear waste into space via a rocket, we should not transport nuclear waste long distances via public transport routes. Ideally, waste repositories should be established within close proximity to the power plant and transport should be via private transport routes only. Nuclear is not site-appropriate for all regions.
Alternatives… generally considered a dirty word… can be vaible for site-appropriate power generation, especially on smaller scales. Communities should look to use what they have at their disposal. Hydro was mentioned. Clean, efficient but not always appropriate on a large-scale, especially in dry continents like Australia. Micro-scale units in fast flowing rivers can provide energy for smaller communites to suppliment grid electricity. A number of other viable alternatives exist. Geothermal is already used in a number of countries including Japan and NZ in the form of geyser utilisation. Geothermal hot-rocks are another viable source that has the potential to yield large reserves of base-load power. Tidal power in areas such as northwestern Australia where tidal ranges exceed 10m. There are even potential sources of energy within cities if people want to utilise them. Arrays of small wind turbines installed between buildings to take advantage of the wind-tunnel effects may help reduce the reliance of high-rise buildings on grid power. None of these alternatives will solve the global energy crisis but they will help alleviate it to some degree. We should not be entirely dependant on single, large-scale technologies. We should diversify and utilise the resources we have at our immediate disposal. We should suppliment our base-load power supply with smaller alternatives. There is such a dog versus cat mentality. Who cares which one you prefer. They both have their merits and both have a role to play.
What I wish to say next is about individuals having the power to make a difference. I have heard this pessimistic drivel about people being selfish in their endeavours and therefore there is no hope for significant change. Change does not have to be on the grand-scale. Small changes by individuals can have a significant cumulative effect even if it starts out as a token gesture. Someone mentioned living a subsistence life-style. Their response was met by the following…
“So what’s stopping you from living a subsistence existence? I see you have a computer, what powers it. Do you have a roof over your head? Did you build it yourself? Do you have cloths on your back? Did you make those textiles yourself? Did you eat today? Did you grow the food yourself? No? Then who the hell are you telling anyone how they must live?”
What an offensive, narrow minded response. The problem is, that it is the excepted argument provided by ignoramuses. You can say the same about people who are against drugs but still use medicinal drugs, consume caffine and alcohol etc. It is just a rediculous argument. Sure, ideally someone wishing to live a subsistence life-style should be completely self-sufficient but isn’t it noble of them to at least make some effort rather than none at all? People who are making an effort should be commended for living in accordance with their beliefs even if their beliefs are not alligned with your own.
There are many ways that people can make a difference around their own home. It doesn’t matter if it won’t save the world from the supposed destruction of climate change. It doesn’t matter if it starts as a token gesture. Changes in attitudes start with grass-roots education. A rampaging, rolling boulder was stationary at one time. Why can’t people make those small changes? You don’t have to employ all of them. Just the ones that you think would be of benefit. Plant deciduous trees to shade your house during summer months and allow sunlight through during winter. Rubber-backed curtains, solar hot water, construct your house with eaves or verandahs and use a large mass to build upon. Use insulation. Shorter showers. Cheaper cars. Grow your own vegetables or if you don’t have space then why not establish community gardens? These are not huge gestures but they can have significant cumulative effects if people choose to emply them.
There is no one solution. Power generation should not always be considered on a grand-scale. Yes, we need a base-load power supply but viable alternatives to tradition fossil fuel combustion can in some instances, such as geothermal, be used as a base-load supply. Alternatives can also be used to suppliment the grid power or they can be used by individual households, highrise buildings or smaller communities as a predominant power source. We can reduce our impact by living a subsistence life-style if that is your thing or by at least living more efficiently. A change in attitudes must start from grass-roots education. Of course attitudes will never be universal but even a minority can still have an impact. Change should not be just to stave off potential world destruction. Change should be made because it is the right thing to do. We are guests of mother nature. She supports us. We should respect her.
The last thing I wish to say is in regards to China, Indian and other tiger economies. Yes, their escalating levels of pollution are alarming but who are we to say that they do not have the right to develop? We, in developed nations have already gone through that stage of rapid expansion. We do not have the right to deny it of developing countries. We can try to change their attitudes through education or share technologies etc but we can’t deny them the right to develop.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
EcoFriend, I want to chime in as well. Thank-you for staying civil. Please point out flaws in the 10 points. I personally agree that if each person makes changes in their lifestyle, it helps. My feeling is that these ten points are written to help us focus our energy where it counts. Turning off your light when you walk out of a room is important. Turning off your LED light is even better. But when you turn that light on in order to compose a letter to your congressional representatives, make it count for as much as you can. Pick the issues that actually impact the globe. Do the research. Think about how the general population really reacts – rather than how we might wish it would react. Make your time and energy count for as much as you can. That is what the ten points are about! If you have issues with the facts presented – make them plain and change this corner of the world too!
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Environmentalist never cease to amaze me. In the 1960’s and 1970’s Environmentalist foght tooth and nail to prevent any more rivers from being damed. The told us what a terrible rape of mother nature daming any more rivers was. Now they are gladly willing to sacrifice every river in the country to the fight against nuclear power. Whell what do you greens want to do. Destroy mother nature or protect it? Greens are simply neo-ludites.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I’d also like to add a few thoughts about nuclear waste. One of the things that drives me nuts is the fact that no one ever talks about scale with respect to neclear waste. Just north of the town where I live is a nuclear power plant that has been in operation for a little over 20 years. It is an 1100 net MW power station. So, it generates over a million kW-hrs per hour. It is big. In spite of this, all of the fuel (and when I say all, I mean every single pellet.) fits neatly in a pool of water at the top of the reactor building. I am going to repeat that because it is simply astounding to me! ALL of the fuel that has been used by that power plant in 20 years of continuous operation fits neatly in a pool at the top of the reactor building.
Think about the waste products of other base load power generation and try to imagine what a volume of waste is generated by coal, or oil, or incinerators. We dump the CO2 to the atmosphere because the quantities are huge.
About transport of spent fuel, two things: One the transport containers are incredibly tough they have been physically tested against drops from airplanes, direct strikes from speeding locomotives, they have been slammed by rocket powered sleds into concrete barriers, suspended over pools of fuel and burned for many hours. The containers for transporting spent fuel are astoundingly tough! The second thing is that one of the nice attributes of nuclear waste is the same property everyone worries about. Namely, radioactivity. In large doses it is, indeed, bad stuff. However, it also makes it extremely easy to detect. Should the pelets actually manage to escape a transport container. It is very easy to know that you have found them all. You don’t have to worry about some lingering spill danger.
Lets also be rational about the longevity. We need to put the waste out of harms way for a lot of years. But look at mercury. It is highly toxic in minute quatities. Do you know how long it is highly toxic? It is not measured in thousands of years, that’s for sure. The lifetime of the planet is a better measure, and yet we spread mercury all over the land in nice little packages like batteries and ecofriendly flourescent bulbs.
Point three is that the waste problem can be made even smaller if we start reprossessing the fuel as is done in Europe. Even though all of the spent fuel from that reactor north of town fits in a pool at the top of the reactor building – with reprocessing, much, much more energy could be extracted from it before it needed to be treated as waste. In addition, the eventual waste products are less toxic and not as long lived.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I’ll give you points for recognizing the nuclear waste issue is not the problem it’s made out to be and I note you do support nuclear power in general – however I do have a bone or two to pick with you.
I believe you are talking about my criticism when I ask if green supporters still enjoy the fruits of Western technology while still condemning it. To me this is bald-faced hypocrisy, and it bears pointing out. There are minimum energy communities,the Amish were mentioned, but there are others, of a less religious bent out there, yet very, very few of the vocal greens are living in them, or starting them. It would seem to me that this would be a perfect position to lecture the rest of us on how WE should live. Until I see them making examples of themselves, they are just full of hot air.
No I am not polite about it anymore, I’ve watched these people dominate the debate since the late Sixties, and their leaders resort to any number of unfair tactics to undermine any rational debate about environmental issues. In the beginning when we (and yes I was one of them) were fighting wholesale industrial dumping in the watershed and the air we were up against reactionary forces that threated jobs, the existence of towns, and the specter of another Great Depression (to an audience that had lived through it) and we had to fight dirty.
Well we did make gains, but not without the help of Love Canal and a few other examples that drove home the point to the general public that something had to be done. True the job wasn’t finished. but by enlarge that first group started to suffer battle fatigue, and many of us had to get on with our lives. In retrospect that was a mistake.
The Movement fell into the hands of those who saw it as way to make a living. To do so they had to keep the donations flowing and thus the message started to get more shrill. The push against nuclear power is a perfect example of this. with nothing more than ‘The China Syndrome’ and the ragtag ends of the Ban-the Bomb movement that had lost its way after SALT I they staged an attack on nuclear energy that wasn’t warranted.
Much of the problems we are suffering now is a direct result of this group of people frightening the general public over nuclear energy, and even now when it has become crystal-clear that this technology is the only one that can save our collective asses, they persist. Their plan of low energy living is just simply unworkable. It’s unworkable technically, it’s unworkable economically, and it’s unworkable politicaly (or socially, if you prefer) yet they still beat this drum.
Power generation MUST be considered on a grand-scale. There is really no other choice. What little other small local sources can contribute mean very little given it is not cost effective to integrate them into the grid. Scaling things like geothermal bring up other problems, as does wind and solar; these things do not have a zero impact ether.
Frankly I find your suggestions for energy conservation naive and unworkable for most of the population of this continent, many of which are struggling to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. Talk of retrofitting every building is just as unworkable as attempting to rely on wind and solar for all of our energy needs.
At any rate, anything that individuals do is a spit in the ocean and only provides the illusion that something is being done, and that’s not what we need.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I agree whole heartedly with you about the hypocrisy of living the lush western lifestyle while saying it is evil. My point is simply that hypocrisy is a wide spread disease and we are all a bit infected by it.
I also very much appreciate all you said about still dealing with the aftermath of early scare tactics with respect to nuclear energy, and the wrong-headedness of not changing course.
I will continue to disagree with you on the point of individual actions not adding up to big impacts. The whole reason we are in the situation we are in is simply because when six and a half billion individuals increase their standard of living even a little bit, the cost is enormous. The almost magic transportability of electricity allows us to centralize power production into very efficient large scale production facilities. We should take advantage of that and look at power production on a grand scale just as you say. However, all that centralized power is made for the sole purpose of enhancing the lives of millions and millions of individuals making small choices. For example, if each of the approximately 300 million individuals in the United States burns one of the 100 watt light bulbs in their bedroom for one hour less per day, that is 30 million kWhrs per day saved. 30 million kWhrs is the entire output of a 1250 MW base load power plant. If instead they changed that light bulb to an LED bulb with the same light output and left it on for the same few hours the burn the light now, that would mean several 1250 MW base load plants that do not have to be built.
It is all part of the gradual change that needs to occur to wean ourselves from fossil power and greenhouse gas production. It is all part of the equation to stop the escallation and turn it around. I am not saying this is where the focus of our efforts should be. I am simply saying it is easy and it is part of the impact each of us can have.
I also think as we look to the future, we have to keep dumping resources into research for solar power and alternative distributed energy production. There have been several breakthroughs in the last few years that can make solar panels much more cost effective, and environmentally benign. In many third world countries, the infrastructure we have in the west is missing. In Kenya and South Africa, for instance, They are unable to install power lines because as fast as they put them up during the day, the poles are cut down for fire wood or scrap metal and the copper wire is stolen and sold on the black market at night. Just a bunch of individuals trying to feed their families one more day…
In spite of the fact that Solar technology as it currently exists is prohibitively expensive, and far from environmentally benign (due to the manufacturing process that have to be used to build our current solar cells), solar power is what is being installed in rural Kenya and South Africa. It can go in without infrastructure and it immediately changes the standard of living for those in that dwelling. This is what rule 9 looks like when the grid has not been installed. Another way of saying this is that the lack of infrastructure has the same kind of inertia that existing infrastructure has, and for the same reasons – putting in a new infrastructure is costly difficult and time consuming. Because there are several billion people in the world that fall into the “no existing infrastructure” category, research into distributed energy technologies still merits consideration.
While I agree with rule two as stated, I do not believe that solar power falls under that rule. The reason is simply that the potential of solar power is astoundingly large. Unlike wind or waves or adding to hydro power installations, solar has the potential to be THE major player. It is worthwhile to continue seeking the breakthroughs required to make solar power a major player. We can not ptu too many eggs in this basket because the breakthroughs have not been made and we don’t know for sure that they can be (rule 7). But the payoff is so big that we would be foolish not to keep a few eggs rolling that direction.
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 11:37 pm
When 6.5 billion people spit, the resulting pool is not negligible!
Quote Comment
January 31st, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Nuclear waste is certainly a problem. Over the last ~50 yrs, The U.S. alone has accumulated over 30,000 tonnes of spend fuel rods and over 380,000 cubic metres of high-level nuclear waste. Where is this stored? The majority of nuclear waste is not stored in a permanent repository but in water basins and dry casks. The Yucca Mountain repository isn’t expected to be completed until 2021 at the earliest and then is far too small to house the waste that has already been created. Reprocessing would certainly help alleviate some issues pertaining to the amount of waste but how cost effective is reprocessing? Reprocessing also has significant political obstacles to overcome. I know, they are mostly unwarranted and as a result of the ignorant association between nuclear power and nuclear weapons but they still exist whether we like them or not.
Transport of nuclear waste has been done so safely for decades yes. Storage canisters are designed to be corrosion resistent and accident resistent but they are not failsafe. No engineering solution is failsafe. Transport, especially acorss international borders or open water is, I would agree, more of a political issue then a technological issue but it is an issue none the less. Transport is still done so with caution for a reason.
I’m sorry Blitz, did I write that nuclear power was worse than coal, oil or gas? No. I said that nuclear is very necessary but it is not the only technology that can be utilised and it shouldn’t be the only technology we use. This is to you too DV8, I said that power generation should be selected on a site-appropriate basis. Where a viable alternative is available then use it. Most alternative power is not viable. That is certainly the case in photovoltaic cells (which are actually good for producing hydrogen btw) and to a lesser degree wind power. Solar especially is very costly not only economically but environmentally. I would not advocate large-scale solar farms. I personally wouldn’t use photovolataic cells for individual households neither unless absolutely necessary but more so because of the use of batteries to store the power. I also made mention that such alternative power sources can not be used as a base-load power supply due to inefficiencies. I only elaborated on the ones that could and I specifically said that their scale would prevent them from being used in some instances. In the case of remote communities, wouldn’t it be far more rational to utilise clean, cheap sources such as tidal power instead of grid electricity that is transmitted vast distances?
Geothermal hot rocks do have the potential to be used for a large-scale base-load power supply. Granitoid bodies can potentially provide vast amounts of clean energy at a cost lower than that of nuclear. Outlay costs generally are high but this is offset by negligible maintenance, fuel and decomissioning costs. Yes, there are environmental issues with geothermal hot rocks also. The potential for water, enriched with uranium to be released into the groundwater system. This is unlikely however as the system is kept under a state of vacuum due to constant pumping.
Power generation does not need to be considered on a grand scale. Yes, when you are dealing with large communities you need to think large-scale but in the case of Australia, you are dealing with smaller communities spread over vast spaces. Supply a base-load power supply using nuclear, coal, hydro, geothermal yes but when possible, suppliment the grid power with alternatives.
Niave and unworkable conservation meesures? They are common sense. No, not everyone will be able to utilise them but some of them don’t need be expensive. What is niave about planting a deciduous tree in your front yard to prevent the full strength of the summer sun hitting your house? How hard is it to put rubber backed curtains in your house? How hard is it to open your house in the early morning to to stimulate cross ventilation and then close it up during the peak of the summer sun? Even an imbecile would be able to understand that such measures are common sense. I am not talkiing about retrofitting. I am talking about fore-sight in future planning. Building your house so that it has eaves to reduce the exposure to the full force of the summer sun. Slab construction. Insulation. If you can afford it then double glazed windows. High ceilings. If you can’t afford it then do what you can. They are certainly not niave or unworkable. They are common sense, practical measures that anyone can employ.
I agree with you about the hypocracy of many who call themselves dark green. It is something that irks me as well. Like I said, live by your beliefs. Those people still deserve some respect for trying to reduce their impact on the environment. I have friends who are dark green and they put alot of effort into their beliefs, more than I would be prepared to. Some of their actions are a bit hypocritical but they try and they are making some difference even if minor. Yes, anything that an individual does is just a spit in the ocean but it is a s*** load better then doing nothing at all. If nothing else, it shows a hell of a lot more character then those who think we are powerless to do anything at all. Those people spitting in the ocean are the ones who are enacting some change in attitudes of others towards the environment. I work as a research scientist in climate variability. I started research with grand ideas that I would make a difference in the world. I soon became disillusioned because I realised that I couldn’t change the world by myself. But, that doesn’t stop me from at least trying to make a difference. If I can add to the pool of scientific knowledge and change people’s perceptions then I have at least achieved something.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Scare tactics are a powerful tool!! I find it unbearable when people talk about nuclear power in the same light as nuclear weapons. It is rediculous but it works. Anyone doing research will tell you the same. When you write a grant application, you have to make your research appear as though it is vitally important for the furtherment of humankind. This is especially evident in climate change currently. The Australian of the year for last year was an out-spoken climate change activist. Anyone working the field cringes at his published work but we can’t deny that he hasn’t been successful. He is awarded large grants consistently and was given the honour of Australian of the year all because he scares the s*** out of people. I do the same when I write grant applications. I have a good laugh at what I write but it is necessary because the money goes to the projects that have the highest level of national significance. What is more significant than saving the world from iminent destruction? ha ha
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:19 am
Dr1980, I am not going to deal with the 380,000 cubic meters of high-level waste since most of that is due to weapons production and belongs in a different discussion. It is the 30,000 tons of spent fuel I was speaking of. Do the calculation. That is less than 0.2 lbs per person in the USA. My only point was that compared to other base load technologies, it is a very small amount of waste. Small enough we can do something about it. What is keeping us from doing soemthing about it is mostly irrational fear.
You can ask France about the economics of reprocessing fuel. Since they do it routinely, they must find it economically beneficial.
I also want to stand in agreement with your stance on conservation measures and living smarter. It is easy and virtually painless to do the things you wrote. Why not do them? And, why not tell your friends? It really is all part of the solution. And, I hope that you continue to add to our pool of scientific knowlege! for what it is worth I, for one, do think you have achieved something good, and that it matters.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:57 am
Thanks Blitz. I agree with you entirely that the amount of waste produced from nuclear power production is minescule comparative to that of other base-load technologies. I didn’t touch upon combustion processes at all. I don’t think that they should be immediately ceased however. They still have a role in our society although their role should be down-scaled through time. The amount of waste can be dealt with yes but it isn’t being dealt with. Yes, the 380,000 cubic metres of high-level waste is largely attributed to weapons testing but that waste is still going to take up space in waste repositories that have yet to be built. Each year we produce upwards of 10,000 tonnes of spent fuel rods world wide. We aren’t dealing with that waste yet. We are producing more and more waste and still don’t have anywhere to put it. What happens when we double, triple… the number of reactors world-wide? How long were geological investigations conducted on Yucca Mountain? 30 years? How long is it going to take for repositories to be built? In the mean time the waste is being housed in temporary facilities, which I think everyone would agree is not ideal.
Reprocessing costs ~15% more than disposal alone. Out of 40 countries, only Britain, Japan and France reprocess nuclear waste.
Capital outlay for nuclear fission is relatively high. Does anyone know if fission technology can be utilised for fusion when it hopefully becomes available? Is it cost effective to invest heavily in nuclear fission now when the technology could become obsolete in the not too distant future?
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 6:27 am
Well there are solutions to the waste problem. Finland is building a final repository, sweden is about to, america already has one for military TRU waste, the WIPP, and there is no reason(except offcourse politicalt) it couldnt be expanded for civilian waste aswell. We have all the knoweledge and technology needed to build incredibly safe repositories. If just the greens would stop opposing them. As usual politics stands in the way for solid and reliable engineering solutions.
I dont se a problem with letting the waste stay in the pools however, not when we can beging to utilize 97% of the waste to make more energy within the coming 20 years. Burrying the current spent fuel is a horrible waste of a precious resource.
I cant imagine fusion making fission obsolete in this century.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 8:01 am
At present all of the ideas for fusion have a markedly different reactor design than fission facilities. I don’t think we would see anyone try to use an existing fission power plant to retrofit a fusion reactor. There are dozens of partially completed fission power plants that got halted when the rapid rise in power consumption abruptly leveled off in the late 70s and early 80s. In every case that I know of, studies showed that it was cheaper to start from scratch building a new fission power plant than to complete the units started 20 years ago. And, that is going from fission to fission with the same manufacturer. Much of the reason for that is regulatory. But, the point is, as smart as retrofitting seems on the face of things, it rarely pans out economically.
I agree with the assessment that the current storage of spent nuclear fuel is not the best way to go. Even if, we can not find the political will to build a permanent repository. We would be much better off storing the fuel in a monitored, retrievable (easily guardable) underground facility(ies) than to leave it in target shaped dry casks exposed and open to the world of suicide minded terrorists we currently live with. We could put a reasonable lifetime on such repositories – something our current technology can easily handle. Say 100 or 200 years. In that time, the political climate will cool even more than it has in the last 30.
Also, I think when we compare the cost of reprossessing spent nuclear fuel to the cost of managing it as waste, we are making the wrong comparison. At the end of reprossessing you have a new bundle of fuel which would otherwise have had to be mined and processed from scratch. This is quite a valuable and useful commodity! At the end of waste disposal you got nothing but a hot hole in the ground.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 8:24 am
I appreciate the discussion this has spawned and that there is a need to understand the disagreements that some people have. There are different perspectives and everyone is allowed to have them. Environmental groups welcome those who would like to point out other solutions which may not have been thought of and to offer constructive criticism.
I think your posting of this article has served this purpose but it is now best if it is removed such that it does not cause confusion to those who really care. Thank you for bringing up this discussion. Now the best thing you can do is remove this and we can continue to consider all sides. Please do so.
Thank you,
Vincent
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 8:30 am
I think I agree with about 95% of what you wrote. For something on the internet this makes far too much sense. Nice work.
However, I think it is important to point out that 1. can be reversed:
Sacrificing the needs of an environment for the economy will destroy both.
And I think that both “economists” and “environmentalists” miss that it is a two way street. Fortunately, there are some that see the big picture; sadly though, I suspect that the amount of people that do see this and can influence people are too few to avoid some highly non-trivial problems in the near future.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
Malph, I agree that environmentalism and economics do not need to be completely opposed to eachother. However, there are some political groups which seem to think that it’s desirable to have an enviornmental policy which involves economic sacrifices which are extreme to the point where they can impact the overall society and general growth. These will always fail. As too will those which are based on a wholesale reduction in consumption.
Economics do not need to prevent good enviornmental policy, but the idea that the best way to help the environment is reduction in production or consumerism or generally shifting to a society which does not promote economic growth is a very flawed plan. The “Green Party” in both Germany and New Zealand seems to miss this. As too do some of the most fundamentalist groups.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 9:23 am
“I think your posting of this article has served this purpose but it is now best if it is removed such that it does not cause confusion to those who really care. Thank you for bringing up this discussion. Now the best thing you can do is remove this and we can continue to consider all sides. Please do so.”
Confusion? Are you sure that was the word you were looking for? Perhaps the word you’re looking for is ‘clarity’.
If you want to consider all sides, surely the post should stay. Unless, of course, you find it so fundamentally threatening that you just want it to go away.
drbuzz0, given the occasional polite request here to take the article down, I reckon it’s hitting its mark with great effect. I encourage you to spread it far and wide, and bring it to the attention of as many environmentalists as possible.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 9:30 am
Ecofriend-
Why do you get to be the arbiter of what is and isn’t allowed to be posted on the internet? Why should you be the one to tell any site that it should be taken down? Don’t you think it’s a bit arrogant of you to claim to be the sole dictator of truth? You’re going to have to come to accept that people disagree with you and that this article isn’t going to be taken down.
The more I read from the environmentalist movement, the more I’m realizing that it’s a religion for a lot of them. A religion whose which teaches that technology and progress are inherently sinful – it’s really not so much a pro-environment movement as a puritan, anti-human movement. I think we’re already starting to see a split between the more rational environmentalists who realize that technology can help mankind and the environment both, and the doctrinal anti-humanist environmentalists.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 9:44 am
First Ecofriend its clear this list is a threat to you and your fellow-travelers as this is the third time you have asked it to be taken down. Consequently I promise you that I will make it a project to see that it get disseminated as widely as possible on the internet, and I will be talking to Doc privately later today about how this can be done.
Nuclear waste is not a technical issue. There are several paths that exist right now to deal with it, from vitrification to combined fuel cycles using heavy water reactors to reprocessing. All of these are proven; all of these are in use. Nuclear waste is a political issue in the United States not the rest of the world. On top of that there are reactor designs that make the problem moot, like Molten Salt Reactors, which have had running examples as far back as the early 1950’s. The issue is a red-herring used by antinuclear supporters and nothing else.
“When 6.5 billion people spit, the resulting pool is not negligible” No, the problem is getting everyone to spit. Look we haven’t been able to get population growth under control even when the economic, environmental, AND social benefits are something everybody agrees on. On top of which it IS something all 6.5 billion CAN do something about. How can you possibly think that individual conservation efforts are going to work?
Malph Says: 1.(on the list) can be reversed. No Malp it can’t as Sovietologist has pointed out up thread the Communists tried to do that for 80 years and failed miserably. It didn’t work for them and it won’t work for us.
The whole point of the list, of this thread is that we need to focus on practical solutions and those are inherently large-scale. Wanting to evangelize the world to change the laws of economics to something ‘better’ given the track-record of these initiatives is really showing a lack of foresight and an ignorance of history. It just won’t work
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 9:54 am
I am posting this for Rod Adams of Atomic Insights Blog
I want to thank a friend for pointing to this well considered post and the generally civil and thought provoking discussion.
There are a couple of aspects of the discussion that have not yet been introduced.
It might surprise and seriously shake the belief structure of both Environmentalists and those who oppose the movement to know that at least some of the dogma in the Environmental religion were introduced or encouraged by people who LIKE to sell lots of fossil fuel at as high a price as possible. In other words, these dogma are selfish impositions by some rich and powerful people.
As many who know the history of The Sierra Club know, one of its first really successful efforts was a campaign against hydroelectric dam construction. This was a natural for the organization, which had been started by some true conservationists who loved the beauty of the great outdoors, including the wild and undeveloped rivers and canyons in the Sierra Nevada. They were primed to work hard to protect those canyons from being turned into lakes. The money for the campaign, however came largely from well heeled Californians who just happened to work for or lead companies like Standard Oil, Gulf, and Chevron.
You see, California had a tremendous resource of oil and as a byproduct of drilling for that oil it had a serious waste product called methane that needed to be flared away to protect the installations from explosions. Of course, being smart fellows, the oil company knew that this waste product contained useful heat that could produce electricity as long as someone invested the capital to collect it and pipe it to a steam plant. The economic case for that activity could not be made unless the price of the finished product was high enough to support the return necessary to attract the capital.
That required price could not be supported in a state where you could produce most of the power that you needed by damning some rivers and depending on the hydroelectric cycle for fuel, especially if the damn construction was initially supported by the federal government. Of course, fighting damns for economic reasons is far more challenging than making it a “religious” activity supported by high minded “Environmentalists”. That is especially true since the customers for the cheap hydro power were also pretty smart and well connected and would have dismissed their friends at the local golf club.
Suddenly, the rather small and poor Sierra Club found itself getting lots of very large donations to support its efforts to halt damn construction. At the same time, the oil companies made the necessary investments to collect the methane – they even got some subsidies for doing so since the flares were considered to be a nuisance – and began making a profit by selling the gas to the power companies. Of course, as the demand grew faster than the supply, the price of gas got better and better – from the seller’s point of view.
In essence, that is how California came to depend on natural gas (a fine marketing term for methane) for its electricity with the help of Sierra Club.
My references for this story are too numerous to list here, and most do not have links – they need to be found in dusty places fully of dead trees called libraries. One book that provides part of the story, however is titled In the Thick of It: My Life in the Sierra Club. It talks about how Sierra started taking large donations from people associated with “dirty” industries, but does not really connect the dots in the way that my interpretation above did. To fill in that piece you need to do a bit of analytical work on the Energy Information Agency web site plus dig through corporate annual reports.
Anyway – do a bit of critical thinking. Who benefits when we have an energy supply situation where the balance between supply and demand forces the prices higher and where the suppliers can sell every bit of the product that they can possibly produce? Who wins when oil, gas and coal companies can paint themselves as heroic by talking about how hard they are working to find more product to sell? Who wins when windmills are subsidized? Who is supplying the “biofuel” market with heat, transporting the biofuels to market, and selling the diesel and fertilizer necessary to grow the crops?
If you are also a strong anti-communist, think about the tight relationship between natural resources like oil and gas and the Soviet and Putin governments.
Someday when I have more time, I will talk about how Nader is an Arab and how E. F. Schumacher made his living as a member of Britain’s National Coal Board with the duty of working to sustain the coal mining industry.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:11 am
Turns out I spoke before i did the calculation. 6.5 billion people can spit and you will fill two olympic size swimming pools. If you dump those in the ocean it will not make a difference that we can measure with any current technology.
Also, eliminating the need for one 1250 MW power plant does not make a dent in the problem. The point is that the cost for many of these ideas is nearly zero. So, by rule number 10 the benefit/cost ratio is very high (you may want to change rule 1 so that the numerator and denominator are in the right place – or change the wording to shoot for the lowest cost / benefit ratio). If we focus a lot of resources on these ideas, then the equation changes and we waste our resources. Thus, the statement, simply do it and tell your friends.
At the same time lets use these rules to try to get people to focus combined national and global resourses where they count the most.
EcoFriend, if you really have pull with organizations that have some clout – why would you not want use that clout where it counts the most? Why wouldn’t you want other similar organizations to do the same? I find it very strange that you want this discussion removed. (and, you do seem to be getting yourself confused with God… it is not your place to say what can and cannot be here.)
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am
Trying to convince an old-school environmentalist that nuclear is good for the environment a bit like convincing a fundamentalist christian that abstinence-only education actually increases teen pregnancy and STD rates. Even when you show them the numbers, their minds reject it as being contrary to their core values, and decide
that since you disagree with them you must actually be trying to lure teens into immoral ways, or destroy the environment, or whatever. You can’t argue people out of ideology.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:35 am
I do not claim to be the only voice on the internet or to be the only one who speaks for environmentalists or FOE. However, I am an active member of that organization which is a very good one and I am a committed person who cares a great deal about the environment. I cannot tell you what should and should not be posted with any authority other than being committed and caring for earth.
I will state as someone who cares very much and who is very experienced that this is taking the discussion in the wrong direction. I do not think it is worthwhile for environmentalists to change their successful tactics and move toward things which are hateful and ethically wrong. It would be best if this were taken down, yes I can assure you that it would be for the greater good.
You know this is a bad science blog and it has information on mad medicine and bad education and science studies which is a good thing. The blog’s author is involved in bad science but is not an enviornmental person. Please stick to what you understand and what you are good at. We will continue to fight our fight and you will fight yours.
It would be best if you could remove this so that your website could focus on other issues important to you and avoid hurting efforts to aid the environment.
Thank you,
Vincent
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am
How astonishingly arrogant to assume that you are the only ones who care about the environment, and that you are the only one who can speak for how to help protect it.
I support the idea of reproducing this article widely. I’ve already linked to it from my blog and encourage others to do so.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:55 am
Let me point out why groups like FOE can’t understand math:
Aviation makes less than 1% of co2 produced by humans. Aircraft are already very effecient because fuel is a huge part of the expense, so all reasonable efforts to reduce fuel usage and therefore CO2 are already being done. You cannot power an aircraft on electricity. You might be able to on hydrogen, but the tanks would be huge and the range reduced. There is no way you could tackle the aircraft problem that does not cost a lot and cause great sacrifices for a very minimal return. Thus, the best policy is to accept the emissions from aircraft as small and tolerable and go elsewhere.
Coal fires are a huge source of co2 much more than aircraft. They serve no purpose and benifit nonone. The amount of money necessary to fix them is likely low and the only risk is that there will turn out to be more difficult to fight then many think (steam, slurry, paving and other means).
Small risk, small cost huge benefit. versus huge cost for very little benefit.
FOE has a campaign to bring notice for aircraft pollution and zero effort on coal fires. I have looked at their pages and I see NOTHING.
There is no logical justification for such lopsided policy that I can think of, but feel free to defend it.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
Ecofiend, it is precisely because of your ignorant, head-in-the-sand, unscientific, dogmatic, counterproductive attitude that you and your fellow-travellers, and, more importantly, those you seek to influence, should be exposed to this article fully and at every available oportunity. For a start, it would be good for people to learn of the high-handed, dictatorial, thugish attitude of your kind to open debate and discussion.
Any more of your Pontifical Decrees, and I shall be tempted to tell you what I really think of you.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
THE EARTH SHOULD BE AT THE VERY TOP OF THE , “LIST OF CONCERNS”, FOR LIFE AND PEACE ON EARTH. IT’S ALL VERY WELL TO GIVE OPPINIONS AND DONATE WHAT WE CAN TO HELP THOSE WHO SUFFER FROM SO MANY DIFFERENT CONFLICTS, BUT THE ONE THING WE SHOULD ALL BE DEVOTING OUR TIME AND EFFORTS ON IS , THE EARTH”.
FOR WITH OUT HER WE ARE NOTHING. AO THE NEXT TIME YOU FEEL GENEROUS AND DEVOTE YOUR, TIME, MONEY AND EFFORT TO THE , “LESS FORTUNATE”, STOP AND ASK YOUR SELF, AM I PUTTING THE EARTHS NEEDS FIRST? YOUR NOT!
I HAVE TO KUDOS THOSE WHO ACTUALLY DO AND THERE ARE MORE AND MORE EVERYDAY, SO THANK YOU ALL, WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP?
WHILE RICH CELEBS ADOPT CHILDREN FROM ORPHANGE’S OR RESCUE THEM FROM PERIL, (DON’T GET ME WRONG I THINK IT’S GREAT), BUT WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO HELP THE EARTH? WITH NO EARTH WE’RE ALL IN PERIL. USE YOUR MONEYS TO BETTER THE EARTH BEFORE YOU TRY TO BETTER A LIFE, I’D GIVE MY LIFE TO HELP THIS EARTH WOULD YOU?
INSTEAD OF SPENDING SOOO MUCH MONEY ON LUXURY LIVING AND TRAVEL USE IT TO BUILD 1 ECO FRIENDLY HOME. GRANTED NOT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW, SO TO THOSE OF YOU WHO CAN, WHY IN GOD’S NAME ARE YOU NOT? YOU WANT TO BE A HERO, HELP THE EARTH FIRST. WITH OUT HER THERE’S NO CHILD TO RESCUE.
I’M NOT DISSING PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GIVE KIDS A BETTER LIFE, I MYSELF HAVE ADOPTED, BUT FOR ALL THE CELEBS OUT THERE,(DOBT YOUR READING THIS) JUST IN CASE, PLEASE YOU KNOW YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE MORE THAN US ,”AVERAGE jOES”. SO I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THIS, START SOMETHING NEW IN HOLLYWOOD, PERHAPS, “HOLLYWOOD GOES GREEN”?
PUT THE EARTH AT THE TOP OF ALL ISSUES ON HER! WITH OUT HER, THERE ARE NO ISSUES, NO LIFE.
WE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES TO LIVE ON THIS PLANET, YET WE ARE SOELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DESTROYING HER. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF SOME ONE CAME TO YOUR HOME AND STARTED TO DESTROY IT? STARTED KILLING OFF YOUR FAMILY?
WOULD YOU STAND BY? I THINK NOT!
THERE’S LOTS OF IN-EXPENSIVE WAYS TO HELP, MOST FREE, DO SOME HOMEWORK, IF YOUR READING THIS YOU HAVE THE BEST TOOL RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, USE IT, SPREAD THE WORD AND DON’T LET IT GO. THINK OF IT AS IF YOU JUST FOUND OUT YOU HAVE A SERIOUS ILLNESS THAT WOULD KILL YOU IF YOU JUST LEFT IT.
WOULD YOU JUST LEAVE IT OR WOULD YOU MAKE CHANGES THAT WILL SAVE YOU?
INSTINCT WILL KICK IN AND YOU’LL FIGHT FOR YOUR SURVIVIAL, LET YOUR INSTINCT TAKE OVER, FIGHT, TEACH AND PROTECT.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 11:04 am
Must I state again for the record that I really like it here on this planet and I also like good things like clean water and not choking on the art. Also I prefer to have an overall minimal impact on the environment, especially in regards to things which can cause serious damage to the overall global systems.
Also, I should mention that when I see poor people living in poor countries that have a very low standard of living, nutrition that there is nothing more I want then to see more of the third world improve in living standard and see a general reduction of poverty and more education/health care/development/food/clean water.
I swear, that’s really what I’m motivated by…
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 11:07 am
COAL CANT BURN UNDERGROUND IDIOT! YOUR SO STUPID HOW CAN EVERYONE THINK THIS IDIOT HAS ANYTHING TO SAY YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO GO LEARN SOME SCIENCE F*****G DIPS**T MORON
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Coal can’t burn underground? Tell that to the residents of Centralia, PA. That is, the handful who didn’t evacuate when the coal seam under the town ignited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_fire
It’s not just mines either. The coal seam in Burning Mountain in Australia has been burning for about 6000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Mountain
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 11:17 am
marymary and Fillivo: On the left hand of your keyboard you’ll find a button in the middle called Caps Lock. Yours appears to be on. I think this is a good idea. It makes you seem really forceful and committed, and gives people the ability to gauge the value of your posts at a glance. Please continue on in this vein to make a positive contribution to the debate.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
Filivo Read Coal Mine Fires then apologize to everyone here,
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 11:30 am
People who claim that conservation should be mandated seem to forget exactly who is going to mandate this conservation.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 11:31 am
So where is the fire coming from?
Did someone succeed in breaking out of Hell?
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
And what exactly would get people to use less oil, except higher prices?
People will waste what is cheap and conserve what is plentiful.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
You are going against human nature.
Your arguments are like those of Rebecca Hagelin and Janice Shaw-Crouse advocating abstinence-until-marriage as a solution to teenage pregnancy.
Just like young people will stop have sex for fear of pregnancy and disease?
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The Roman Catholic Church, considered by some to be the one true church, has been teaching people to be good for almost one thousand nine hundred seventy-eight years now. Apparently some people have not learned their lesson.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Coal fires are very real and they occur in areas which have both natural and man made paths for oxygen to get into the coal seem. Porous ground combined with fissures and mine tunneling means that massive fires can burn for decades and burn millions of tons of coal. The CO2 released is very appreciable and the effect on local ecology is disastrous.
China has more coal fires than any other country the coal fires in China alone account for more co2 than all the cars and light trucks in North America. Worldwide coal fires account for nearly as much CO2 as all passenger cars combined!
The one majos successful effort to fight a large coal fire occurred in Liuhuanggou China. The massive fired had been burning for more than a century. It was extinguished by an effort to find and plug major sources of oxygen followed by a program to map the fire with infrared measurements and to drill into it and inject water. The effort took four years and cost the US equivalent of 12 million dollars. However, researchers in Europe and US have indicated that they believe new techniques using high pressure steam, CO2 or other means which have more penetrating power and volume than water could CUT THAT TIME DOWN TO A YEAR OR LESS.
Do you know how much 12 million dollars is in terms of energy funding? The US Department of Energy has a 60 billion dollar anaul budget, most of which goes to research of new technologies.
12m is SQUAT and EVERY enviornmental organization should be ALL over this and DEMANDING to have programs to put out coal fires. It would be a bargain at ten times the price!
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Impotent coward.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Agreed Drbuzz0, but why should greenpeace and FOE be demanding that the government put out those fires alone? They could get the ball rolling by doing it themselves. They certainly have enough volteneers. They certainly have the money.
What do you think would happen if they announced “Tomorrow’s protest is canceled. Don’t bring signs, instead bring shovels and hoses. We’ll be meeting at the old mine where there’s a big fire instead. We need everyone who can come to help man the pumps and donate money for the infrared survey and the rental on the pumpes and piping and also the price of all the compressed gas and steam generators. Everyone will be divided and your job is to fill in the cracks and mineshafts with gravel and cement”
Yeah… I bet all the members would show up, right? I mean it would make a big difference. (sorry did that sound sarcastic?)
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
What do you define as our means?
I have a bachelor’s degree in Finance, and living within one’s means is being able to fully finance one’s lifestyle without having to increase debt. Now many people borrow money just to cover expenses (as opposed to borrowing to purchase assets.)
People who live outside their means become bankrupt and are reduced to poverty.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The arguments by some of these green people are very similar to arguments by people promoting abstinence-only sex education.
In fact, I wonder if there is a significant overlap between the two groups.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
FIRST I THINK YOU”RE LYING AND SECOND I DON”T SEE YOU ****S OUT PUTTING OUT COAL FIRES ALL I SEE IS YOU SITTING ON THIS PIECE OF S*** WEBSITE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE SHOULD DESTROY THE WORLD BECAUSE YOUR TOO STUPID F*****G IDIOTS AND I HOPE YOU LEARN OR JUST EAT YOUR OWN S*** AND DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Two things:
1. Honestly, if i had anywhere near the means or following of most enviornmental organizations, I would most certainly tackle coal fires myself (in addition to trying to raise awareness of the problem and more importantly establish protocols for fighting them and bring in people from other areas or countries to learn how to fight them so they could return to their areas and put them out)
2. I am going to have to edit some of the comments here. I assure all that no content or context will be changed, but I’m going to need to censor some of the expletives. They are not desired here because I want to have this site avaliable and not showing up on filters in schools or libraries. I think it’s fair to remove the obscenity and retain the message since it doesn’t really pertain.
If you can’t all be mature I’m going to have to invoke a profanity filter and I do not want to have to do so.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Every choice people make has tradeoffs.
Each choice has its own benefits and costs; some choices have no benefits.
Regarding government intervention, some choices should always be punished because they clearly violate individual rights (running a murder-for-hire business, dumping industrial waste into someone’s backyard.)
But it is not so clear when no individual’s right is being violated, but the costs are borne by society. No specific inidividual has a claim to the ocean or other public waterway. Governments, as proprietors of oceans up to twelve miles off the shoreline, as well as public waterways, have the right to regulate activities in those areas such as fishing or dumping waste. But what if a fishing business provides tax revenue, which also benefits society. A business that generate industrial waste also generates tax revenue, which may offset the costs of disposing waste into an approved site.
These questions do not have one-size-fit-all answers.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Indeed, Michael Ejercito, there is no easy answer to things, however that is the point of the “ten things” it helps evaluate if a solution is viable at all or just unworkable.
But then I’d also like to add I have always favored a policy which works by providing clean plentiful energy to encourage people to use it. If you make it inticing to do so people will have no problem leaving other forms of energy.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“Caps off”, There’s alot of talk of ,”reality and Economy” when it comes to the earth’s welfare and there valid points, not that you need me to say so. However when your faced with the reality of , no home, no food, no electricity or water with a Family to provide for and protect, your idea of reality changes and the economy is irrelavent. At least for this moment and who knows how long that will be. I believe that this is inevidable the way we’re going. A little extreme, for many perhaps but I’d rather teach my children and my Community that this is a possibility and we should not only try to avoid it, (obviously) but we should be prepared. For the people in public eyes, whom have a great deal of influence on our youth, You all should be helping to get the word out to our Youth every where on this planet. Make it a new ,”fad”, if you will.
No matter who you are or what you believe in or how much money you have , we all require the same ,”basics”, of life.
Nieve, perhaps but true.
I think anyone who’s lived in a community that has lost power for a lenghty time would agree, to a point anyway. People who good afford it just left but that may not be an option for some in the future, (maybe that’s what ,”and the meak shall inherrit the earth”, really means.
Pardon me for any spelling errors.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
“But it is not so clear when no individual’s right is being violated, but the costs are borne by society. No specific inidividual has a claim to the ocean or other public waterway.”
It could be argued that lack of private ownership of these natural assets is the main factor for lack of concern polluting them. If they could be owned by individuals or corporations, the owners would have a huge interest in preserving and enhancing the value of their property.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
You’re so right Finrod, but that bit of logic is way, way beyond most people to the point where we can’t waste time pushing it for now.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I just want to make note of something: I made a (small) edit to the list. Number ten said “Highest cost/benefit ratio” It struck me that was entirely mathematically incorrect. If it had been “most favorable” then it would be okay, but since the wording implied that it was the highest ratio of cost divided by benefit that would be the opposite of what you want..
Thus I reversed them. I’m just a stickler for mathematics like that.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Clean energy has its benefits.
Coal would be clean energy source if the emissions were trapped in an airtight container.
Which is why water and air pollution are big problems, as private ownership the ocean or the air is impractical.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Thanks for correcting rule 10 and for deleting the expletives. I’d like my son to read through this and appreciate your work. My opinion is that it does not change what they have contributed in any significant way.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
” “Caps off”, There’s alot of talk of ,”reality and Economy” when it comes to the earth’s welfare and there valid points, not that you need me to say so. However when your faced with the reality of , no home, no food, no electricity or water with a Family to provide for and protect, your idea of reality changes and the economy is irrelavent.”
No! Your idea of the enviornment changes. The econemy becomes even more important. When you are cold you burn what you have to burn and care little how it pollutes. When you have no fresh water you demand it be provided even if doing so means daming up a major river or some other extremely enviornmentally damaging activity. If you have no electricity you will not object to a coal power plant being built!
No now the economy becomes more relevant than it ever has before to you. You want food? You will need employment. The economy will not provide you with employment if it is in the hole. You want a higher standard of living with electricity and water and housing? HA! What chances do you think you have of that in an outright recession?
The better the economic situation is the better the chances of upward mobility are and the more funds will be avaliable for social problems.
Now you can make the argument that “protecting the environment is going to be better for the economy in the long run”
There are several problems with this:
1. Only a collective action can have an impact but since every individual can do as they choose and every decision is made by individuals they will tend not to. (This is why it’s hard to get people to vote, especially in electoral districts which have no reasonable possibility of being decisive)
2. You get no tangible benefits from preventing future problems or from stopping things from getting worse. If you stop global warming you don’t improve the world. You only keep it from getting worse. Much less inspiring to the populous.
3. There is no imidate benefit and it’s impossible to know when a noticable benefit is.
You will have a hard time getting people behind things on the grounds that “If we had not instituted this policy there’s a 60% higher chance you’d be suffering from asthma right now”
But that is besides the point.
“I think anyone who’s lived in a community that has lost power for a lenghty time would agree, to a point anyway. People who good afford it just left but that may not be an option for some in the future, (maybe that’s what ,”and the meak shall inherrit the earth”, really means.
Pardon me for any spelling errors.”
No it’s really the opposit. That is actually the point. If your community has lost power for a lengthy time, who will have the power? Those who can afford to move out or to buy a generator. You now have a situation in which energy shortages dramatically effect the poor worse than the rich.
Thus this only proves that energy rationing will cause such problems. Furthermore, the meak do not inherit the earth, because the atmosphere and water is shared. Those who end up surviving are those with the money to keep going even amongst shortages. Hence: You have regressive taxation and disproportional burden on the poorest
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 4:46 pm
We had a coal-fire in the Southland colliery near my place a few years ago. They were able to extinguish the fire relatively quickly by pumping the mine with fire suppression gasses and sealing the mine. I’m not exactly sure how long it too to extinguish the fire but the mine was closed for a total of 3 years.
I’ve been to the Burning Mountain also. It’s in the same region that I live in. It is an interesting place. You can distinctly see the margin of the burning coal seam as you walk up the mountain by the dieback of vegetation. It reminds me very much of an ecotone. The top of the mountain is desolate and sulfur encrusted. Apparently there are 2 other underground naturally burning coal seams in the world.
Has anyone mentioned carbon capture or sequestration? Richard Branson is offering $US25 Million to anyone who can devise a way to remove large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Just to put a few things into perspective. Imagine there were a law for oil companies or refiners that they are allowed to refine out only one gallon of gasoline out of every 149 gallons of oil (0.7%). The other 148 gallons they forced to treat as “waste” and pay for the disposal of it, but are not allowed to put it back into the ground. With oil at $100.- a barrel (42 gallons) that gallon of gasoline would cost more than $300.-. We would sink in a see of waste. Also, oil would have run out early in the 20th century.
Sounds silly, right?
But that is exactly the situation with nuclear power today.
The vehement opposition to fuel reprocessing and against breeder reactors HAS MANDATED this situation. It also FORCES creation of that waste.
In regards to CO2 sequestering from coal plants. Every ton of coal burned creates roughly 3 tons of CO2. 3 tons of CO2 is a VERY large volume. Multiply that with the thousands of tons of coal used every year. Where to put it? There are suggestions of underground caverns and such using high pressure storage. Doesn’t anybody remember the thousands of people that died when a volcano in Africa a few years ago released a relatively small CO2 cloud? Any rupture in one of those underground storage sites (they’re under very high pressure, remember) has the potential to release a suffocating CO2 cloud for many miles around. Killing anything that moves. The probabilities of such an accident are orders of magnitude higher and more deadly than even the worst possible nuclear accident in a western reactor.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I heard about that but as I understand it it applies to removing co2 that is in the atmosphere. Do you know if it would qualify in situations where one prevents it from entering the atmosphere?
If it’s to take it OUT of the atmosphere then one is rather limited. Any idea how much lithium hydroxide $25M can buy? (not that it really does any good because it takes energy to make so..)
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Actually it’s funny that Co2 capture should be mentioned. I actually was working on a graphic to illustrate how you can store CO2 from a single coal fired plant’s annual production. This based on one of the larger (1.5-2 gigawatt) US anthacite fired plants approximate annual co2.
Three options presented:
at maximum theoretical density as a highly compressed ultra-cold dry ice material
(of course this would take more energy to actually do than is produced)
As a highly compressed cryogenic liquid (would take about as much energy as is produced)
As a solid chemical by binding it with a CO2 absorber
Take your pick. BTW: Ever been to Cape Canaveral Florida? Damn that building is HUGE. It’s only like 60 stories or something, but HUGE
http://www.depletedcranium.com/co2sync.jpg
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
What I’m worried about is schemes for carbon capture that involve massive adjustments to other systems like the iron dumping in south polar oceans. Too many unanswered questions.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
In contrast to that, ALL the nuclear waste produced with the hughely forced inefficient method I mentiond of all US nuclear reactors since the first one started to operate 50 years ago still fits into a high-school gym.
Put another way: With new thorium based reactor technology ALL the waste produced by the energy use of a typical 4 people american houshold for 70 years would fit into a coffe cup. And even that would decay to harmlessness in 300 years or so. THAT is what I would call environmentalism and protecting the earth.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Yeah those ones seem to have more credibility although they also scare the bejesus out of me in terms of the overall effect on the ocean chemistry and biology. They get less attention probably because people realize pretty fast that dumping massive amounts of anything in the ocean could be dangerous
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I agree. Sequestration scares me for a number of reasons. One highlighted is the potential release of CO2. I do alot of caving. The biggest danger in most caves are CO2 pockets. I have experienced what it was like to be in a CO2 pocket. I didn’t even realise I was in it. It isn’t just a killer. It is a silent killer.
Methane is an interesting example. Frozen methane in the deep ocean indicates that storage may be possible but on the other hand, release of methane from those very reserves 55 million yrs ago are thought to be responsible for the extinction of a large proportion of species within the ocean and on earth not to mention climate change…
It is good that you mentioned changes to ocean chemistry and biology drbuzz. CO2 has the potential to increase acidification significantly. My biggest concern however, hasn’t been mentioned. The CO2 that we have emmited into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution (~150 yrs) has been identified as the major driver of global warming and the changes to general circulation that have resulted. What happens to atmospheric circulation if you remove large quanitites of CO2 from the atmosphere at a rapid rate?
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
The worse thing is that iron-fertilization of the sea will only excuse more burning of coal and CO2 is not the only waste product from that sector.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
There is that and there’s something else I was reminded of by your posting, although slightly off topic. Fossil fuel recovery releases MASSIVE amounts of methane. Coal mines, for example, they need to have large fans in the underground ones and even the above ground strip mines have danger of explosion if they have a high methane area. The methane from coal mining is too dilute to economically capture but the amounts are very significant. It is a considerably more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
H2O is even more potent, which brings into question the appropriateness of hydrogen as a fuel source…
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I don’t know that H2O (water vapor) is really a concern with hydrogen. Water vapor is already common in the atmosphere. Burning natural gas makes water as do most fossil fuels and if you made hyrdogen from water then one would assume it would be neutral.
Yes, H2O can trap heat in some circumstances, but that doesn’t seem to be really effected much by humans
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I will try again to get a rise out of both “Environmentalists” and those who believe that environmentalism is all about trying to push people to a low energy, low economy existence.
My theory is that many mainstream environmental groups fight nuclear energy because it is threatening to the profits of the oil, coal and gas industries. People that make a living off of those industries have huge incentives to try to limit the supply of competitive energy sources and make a tremendous amount of money when the balance between supply and demand is shifted in favor of the seller.
Please think about this concept long and hard and then tell me what you think.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I think that may very well be a big part of it. There are a number of factors. Some are doubtless just following what is said blindly.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 8:47 pm
No doubt at all the leadership gets its marching orders from their real clients, the poor sheep in the trenches don’t know ant better.
Ultimately we just have to ask Cui Bono?
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Sulfur oxides are a waste product of burning coal. (Coal contains sulfur as an impurity.)
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
What were the reasons for opposition to fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Well reprocessing could be used as part of a weapons program. With the fuel from most reactors that wouldn’t work too well, but you could in theory use it as a front for weapons grade plutonium recovery.
(Why the hell this matters in countries like the US/Brittan/France which already has plenty of weapons grade plutonium or countries like Canada/Germany/Japan which could totally build a nuke if they really wanted it with or without a reprocessing program… ya got me)
The same with breeders, although you’;d have to modify most of the non-weapons breeders with a faster throughput.
Reprocessing can also be messy if you do it incorrectly and don’t have good controls.. Some of that happened at hanford.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Wow. This post has generated more coments and more traffic in a short time than any previous. Funny, I kinda thought it was too long and wrote it without much thought for it being a “major” posting. I mean sometimes I do four or five in a day but a lot of people have been attracted to this and it’s been posted on several other websites.
NIFTY!
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
These “10 things” are a major contribution to the fight, my friend, and you should be justifiably proud.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:22 pm
As far as stopping reprocessing to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, recent history seems to indicate that countries that want to will make nuclear weapons whether we like it or not.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Everything I see here is about the past “Oh in the 1970’s when the US was in a fuel crisis” “Oh well a long time ago in Germany” “Oh well they tried that in the 1950’s” “Oh well during the second world war they rationed…” “Oh through history they have tried many times to have people…”
As someone who cares about the future I would rather not worry about how things were done in the past. The problem is that in the past they did things wrong and that’s why we are stuck with the pollution we have now. I don’t think we should listen to this because it’s just ancient history. Things are different now and we are learning to live differently with minimal impact and sustainable lives.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Phillip: The historical context is only there to demonstrate what some strategies will yield in the real world and show that it will do the same. These things have been tried many times before. Basic human nature and the way things work does not change. If oil rationing lead to burning motor oil in the 1970’s it will do so today. If people resisted rations in the second world war they will do so today.
This is the same song and dance over and over.
Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Thank you very much for starting this fruitful discussion. I know that many organizations have this sort of thing in mind already and it’s appreciated that another voice has entered the mix. However, as an environmentalist and a fan of science I think that the best policy now would be to remove this. It’s becoming hateful and off track.
I think most here can agree that this was useful and it’s now time to take it down so it can be digested and to help prevent any further confusion for anyone. This is getting off topic so I am sure you’ll realize that the best policy is to remove it.
Thanks a lot. I look forward to other posts in the future on this topic. But this I think has made it’s point.
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Boy this must be getting under their skins!
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 11:14 pm
But more seriously, (and to get the thread back on track) it would be a great idea if we could get rid of subsidies, mandates, preferential pricing and all the other games that politicians play with energy supplies. Basically, direct & indirect energy subsidies are not sustainable over the long term as was pointed out in #3 and worse it distorts the market in such a way that more and more must be poured in to maintain the status quo creating a state of dependency.
Unfortunately this has already happened and dismantling this structure is going to be a slow process, and \I suspect that we will have to live with it for some time to come. For the life of me I can’t think of any way this can be accomplished at this point.
Anyone have a practical solution to this problem?
Quote Comment
February 1st, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I don’t think so, Ray. This is war. In the unlikely event that drbuzz0 does take the article down, I’ll put another one up just like it. This is a passionate battle for the future. You cannot be permitted to win. The results would be horrific.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 am
Michael Ejercito: (apologies to Phillip for the following history lesson)
You asked:
The vocal arguments against recycling nuclear fuel focused on weapons and the concept of nuclear nonproliferation. It was a major topic in the mid 1970s with a large political impact. Part of the stimulus that brought the issue center stage was a test conducted in India. Using plutonium that had been recovered from the used fuel from a heavy water moderated research reactor, Indian scientists and engineers built a device that they called a peaceful nuclear explosive. Though some people cannot conceive of how such a device can be called peaceful, the use of explosives in construction and resource extraction industries is widespread enough that the US had a large program called Plowshares with the goal of using fission based explosives to dig canals, create harbors, and free up “tight” natural gas reservoirs.
In 1974, the Indians tested their device. That upset a whole bunch of people, even though the device tested could never have been delivered by a plane or a missile – it was far too bulky. I spent some time discussing this topic a few days ago with Charles Ferguson a Fellow for Science and Technology for the Council on Foreign Relations. You can hear that conversation on Atomic Show number 80. (http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com)
Though the nonproliferation movement already had some pretty strong legs, it seized on publicity that the event created and used that to scare people into action. Of course, since the movement was focused on gaining a particular action – halting nuclear fuel recycling – they emphasized the fact that the explosive used plutonium from recycled fuel and obscured the technical fact that there is a huge difference in the behavior of plutonium recovered from a heavy water moderated research reactor and the material that can be recovered from a normally operated power reactor.
By 1976, the issue was so important that it was one of the major topics of discussion leading up to the US presidential election. You can tell how important it was by taking a glance through the Statement on Nuclear Policy issued by President Ford on October 28, 1976, about 2 weeks before the election. The statement is no simple political statement, but a lengthy, thoughtful policy statement that recognized the fact that there were legitimate reasons for taking a measured approach to using technology that had the ability to fundamentally change the world’s political balance. You can find a transcript of that statement on Atomic Insights at President Ford: Statement on Nuclear Policy October 28, 1976. If you can think about how busy a president and his staff can be in the run up to an election, you can tell from the depth of the statement that it was a major effort with a high priority.
Encouraging recycling could lead to a large market in plutonium for power reactors and could encourage a rapidly growing industry based on using that material as the seed for breeder and converter reactors. With breeder reactors, you are no longer limited to using the 0.7% of uranium that is U-235, but you can use the 99.3% that is U-238 and you can use the four times greater resource represented by thorium 232. Both of these materials contain vast quantities of potential energy and they will readily fission if they are hit by two neutrons – one to convert them to a fissile material (Pu-239 or U-233 respectively).
There are at least two interpretations to the fear of a plutonium based economy. One is the surface argument. Having more plutonium in the world somehow makes it more likely that someone somewhere will succeed in obtaining enough plutonium to put together a bomb. Anyone who has read Richard Rhodes’s excellent history The Making of the Atomic Bomb and has any understanding of science, engineering and industry will realize just how much more time and effort is required between obtaining the material and making a bomb, particularly one that can be delivered to a target.
The interpretation that matches my understanding of human behavior – especially that of rich and powerful people – is more cynical. I think that facing the fact that used nuclear fuel is a resource that enables a growing use of fission and not a pure waste product that will constipate the industry scared the hell out of people who profit by feeding the world’s current addiction to coal, oil and natural gas.
Pushers cannot let their customers off the hook so easily and will do everything they can to scare them into further dependence. Using a convenient, but largely false argument – a big lie – would not budge their moral compass.
If you want to learn more, I suggest using Google Books and searching on the term “plutonium economy”. You might want to do it from a library computer so that you can go find the references and do some heavy political science and history reading. It really is a fascinating topic. (I swear.)
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 am
Dismantling subsidies? Oh geez that’s going to be hard. For the time being just not adding new ones would be a step in the right direction. As mentioned, subsidies are okay if they are needed in the short term to get things started or if you get a big return on the investment, but you can’t have them keeping things going so much as “jump starting” an industry that is not starting fast enough.
That’s something some don’t get. They say “We still need solar subsidies” or something because “we’re still working on getting the price to come down on it’s own.” Right. They’ve been saying that since the 1970’s and it still has no end in sight.
Right now, if the politicians could just keep them from growing for now it would be a start. Then some would start to expire and eventually maybe even repeal some. But god, it is a lot harder to get rid of them then it was to create them!
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 am
STFU especially you Finrod. Just STFU!
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 am
I don’t understand why this sort of thing comes as a revelation to our Green friends. Haven’t they been keeping up with how the field of nuclear power, and indeed, nuclear power advocacy, has been developing in recent years? Can this really be the first time they’ve seen a coherent case of this sort put foreward?
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:43 am
“You should look in your heart and you will find the answer. Remove this promptly. It is the right thing to do. I am not here to talk about science or history. Only right and wrong. This is wrong. Please be a good person.”
I have one simple quote to answer you with, friend:
“If I’m serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble.”
— Carl Sagan
“Put another way: With new thorium based reactor technology ALL the waste produced by the energy use of a typical 4 people american houshold for 70 years would fit into a coffe cup. And even that would decay to harmlessness in 300 years or so. THAT is what I would call environmentalism and protecting the earth.”
That’s true – but it’s nothing unique and special about thorium. All modern reactors, especially Generation IV, using uranium or plutonium or whatever fuels you please, if they use that fuel efficienly, and we reprocess and recycle the fuel, and recycle all the actinides, meet those criteria.
DrBuzz0:
“Well reprocessing could be used as part of a weapons program. With the fuel from most reactors that wouldn’t work too well, but you could in theory use it as a front for weapons grade plutonium recovery.”
That’s only true if you seperate plutonium from the fuel using PUREX extraction and reduce it into plutonium metal.
No plutonium seperated, no bombs. At all.
We can reprocess and recycle nuclear fuel without ever seperating plutonium, and therefore, without proliferation risk.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:06 am
drbuzz0 with your permission can I copy and paste your ten points onto the website of the swedish environmentalists for nuclear power? I will offcourse give full credit to you, this list realy needs to be spread everywhere and for everyone to read!
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 am
Absolutely, and credit is appreciated. Thanks for helping out
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 am
Luke, you’re right as is Rod Addams. Simply sepperating the material does not give you a bomb and if you do not extract and concentrate the plutonium then it can’t. Even then, the plutonium from a power reactor is far too Pu-240 rich for a good weapon. In theory it *could* be done but it would be very hard to achieve a usable weapon without the significant danger of a fissile and generally diminished power.
I suppose that the concern might amount to “They’re taking the spent fuel rods behind closed doors and doing some kind of reprocessing which they *say* is not sepperating uranium and plutonium, but how will we ever be 100% certain there is not some dirty business going on or that the fuel is not being separated and then taken somewhere off site for more separation and to make a bomb”
It’s really a strawman though. A clandestine nuclear weapon program can be hidden without a public reprocessing program. There are always inspections and such as well but for some that won’t ever be enough…
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 am
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Your idea is big energy. It’s stupid and it’s been the problem all along. YOU SHOULD SHUT UP YOUR AN IDIOT AND YOU SHOULD GET THE HELL OUT OF THINGS YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF.
SOCIETY IS CHANGING AND YOU CAN JUST TALK ABOUT THE PAST. I HOPE YOU ARE THE FIRST THEY BURN ALIVE WHEN THE REVOLUTION STARTS! THE SAME WITH EVERY OTHER IDIOT HERE! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:11 am
Rod Addams correctly shows that this is a war on two fronts. It’s not just the Greens that oppose moving forward on nuclear, but also an entrenched hydrocarbon sector for who nuclear is more than a ideological threat. It’s also clear that the carbon sector has thoroughly insinuated itself into the leadership of the Green movement and are using them as a fifth column in the fight; a very useful one, as the public is more sympathetic to the Greens that to Big Petrocarbon. Thus by exposing the Greens as impractical, delusional, and irrational, we take away one of the latter’s bigger assets.
The dismantling subsidies IS going to be hard (in fact damned near impossible) thus while it is a valid point and certainly must stay on the list, we must be careful of not letting our opponents turning it against us.
I also want to toss in another point: those that want us to live a low energy lifestyle neglect to mention: they are also asking us to live a minimum water lifestyle as well. Water is the 800 pound gorilla waiting in the wings in any energy debate, and they are at pains not to address it, as ultimately it makes any talk of low energy living moot.
“I don’t understand why this sort of thing comes as a revelation to our Green friends.”
It’s not a revelation to them Finrod, most of them have known it all along, they’re just mad that someone laid in down all in a row. I’m not talking about the morons that we’ve heard from, but more the uber polite ones demanding that the post come down, they know alright, they’re known all along.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
SOCIETY IS CHANGING
Yes, it is. The claims of the Greens are being examined by ordinary people with far greater skepticism than has been the case, especially with nuclear. The lies are being seen for what they are, and patience with green dinasuars is running out.
I HOPE YOU ARE THE FIRST THEY BURN ALIVE WHEN THE REVOLUTION STARTS!
Noted. Let it be forever recorded that when the global warming crisis emerged, the premier environmental organisations of the west stood united in their opposition to the technology which could alleviate it, and individuals in the environmental movement did not hesitate to express extremely violent wishes against those who were genuinely trying to solve the problem. Your memorial will be your perpetual shame.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
You may want to see my latest post as I am being reminded of some similar rhetoric I heard a while back: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=377
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
You have no understanding of the enviornment or compassion. You say “Joe billionaire still gasses up…” and then say poor people should go cold. That’s exactly what environmentalists do not want. What you have to do is stop rich people from using fuel for unnecessary reasons and then you wiuld be fine.
I think most would agree that burning a little oil to keep warm is okay but everything you say here is about how the poor should pay and not the rich. Make the rich pay! You should make yacht fuel expensive and not the fuel you sell to poor people. That’s what is so idiotic.
Also a good economy just means that rich people get richer, at least according to you stupids. The rich don’d deserve to have money when others are suffering and there’s no heat and there’s lots of polution. Stop favoring the rich so much and give the fuel to those who need it and if it’s not needed leave it in the ground.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
EddyB7979-
Once upon a time there was a country that declared war on the rich. Not only did the rich pay for their crimes with their property, but many of them did so with their lives. The founder of this state declared that his goal was “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” He foresaw a future in which everyone would be socially and economically equal, and was willing to use any instrument to create that future. Tyranny, conspiracy, and terror were all used in the name of utopia and equality.
In time, the state’s war on the wealthy was an unqualified success. The old privileged class was liquidated, and a new society was built in which the state allocated resources and planned economic development. But in time, the state stagnated. Nations with “bourgeois” economic systems leapfrogged it in economic development, resulting in far higher standards of living for ordinary people. Meanwhile, state mismanagement resulted in the most severe ecological catastrophes ever caused by man. Ultimately, the people rejected the state and its “egalitarian” economics in order to revert to capitalism.
This country was called the Soviet Union.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“You have no understanding of the enviornment or compassion. You say “Joe billionaire still gasses up…” and then say poor people should go cold.”
No EddyB7979, we’re not saying this is what should happen, we’re saying this is what WILL happen under Green policies. Impose the kind of austerity neccessary in the radical reduction of private energy use implied by ’sustainable economics’, and the working and middle classes will be impoverished. Go to a nuclear powered economy, and this need never happen. My side wants wealth and achievement, yours aims for poverty and impotence.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Hi -
Goodness, the bile that the ecologists come up with: illuminating, to put it mildly.
I’ve commented on what really drives the green movement on my blog here:
http://21stcenturyschizoidman.blogspot.com/2008/02/global-warming-reduxand-watermelon.html
which boils it down to one thing: control.
As can be seen here as well: the comments calling for you to remove this list shows how greens desperately want to repress anyone and anything that deigns to call the emperor’s new clothes what they are.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Eddy, it’s a lot more than that. You can’t simply say yachts are illegal becasue you then have to ask who is entitled to a boat. Are fishermen? Are marine scientists? Look above. See how there is an example commented about air conditioners or big cars. When is a person sick enough to be entitled to an air conditioner for health reasons? When is it hot enough to justify air conditioning? How big must a family be to be entitled to a minivan? What occupations are allowed to have a pickup truck?
You would have to decide this each time.
Energy costs are not *regressive* because anyone wants it that way. They are a basic need and are a larger proportion of the lower classes expenses.
Let me make an analogy:
If you fly coach class on a no-frills discount airline and fuel price increases it will have a big impact on ticket price because it’s a large component of the expense of the ticket.
But if Joe Billionaire flies five star executive first class, his ticket is more expensive to begin with, but he is not nearly as hurt by fuel costs increasing. Why? Because much of the price of his ticket is for service, wine, the lobster dinner, the extra-large chair and the inflight entertainment. Thus, a fuel increase may not even go noticed by him because he doesn’t pay nearly as much proportionately and he can afford it easier.
Thus the increase in fuel cost has really not reduced the amount rich people travel to go on vacation. But what it has done is stopped a less fortunate person from being able to travel to see their dying aunt or to go to a family reunion, because the cost increase hits them much harder.
Understand?
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I took the liberty of posting a link to this over on Metafilter
Generated a long thread both pro and con. Check it out
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I appreciate that DV82XL, but geez I think a little part of me died looking at that. I thought *these* comments were bad. Somehow everyone seems to think this means “Don’t do anything” or “We should not even bother”
That’s not the message intended
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Wait you have to pay to join metafilter? Oh forget that!
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“Every little bit does not help” seems to really get people. They go with “Well yeah but if everyone did” yet you cannot expect there to be a consistent motivation for everyone to do so especially outside the developing world. Nor can you expect there to be any kind of strategy if everybody is doing their own thing.
Unless you can come to a consensus with all persons and some binding contract that does not work in a free society. Also people seem to think it’s really really damn important to get noticed with a solar panel as opposed to the fighting something like a coal fire. Of course the PR machine of Greenpeace could certainly get a coal fire noticed
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“Somehow everyone seems to think this means “Don’t do anything” or “We should not even bother””
Some may have genuinely concluded that, others may simply have been told that by people who want them to think that’s what you’re saying. In a propaganda battle, you have to expect dirty tricks. You’ve done well so far. Now isn’t the time to lose your nerve.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Finrod’s right. There are a lot of people who have vested in the Green Dream® who will fight this tooth and claw. It’s a good indication of how dangerous they think this list is. Remember there will be others looking at this thread who will see right through this sort of attack – they’re the ones we need to reach.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I’m not sure how many of those who comment are really doing it from a vested interest. My thought is that most are probably just indoctrinated or every naive about how the world works. Otherwise they’re, to put it bluntly, just stupid.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Someone mentioned the idiotic statement that “the suns solar disk over earth is 175,000 Terawatts” and that heat generated by humans is insignificantly small compared.
That’s like saying “well it’s sunny out so I guess it’s going to be warm” when it’s 0 degrees in the winter in Chicago on a clear day.
There are far more factors in the heat on earth and in the atmosphere than raw energy input, in fact without C02 in the atmosphere this would be frozen barren planet. It is the greenhouse effect that keeps us warm, it traps heat in the infrared and it takes very very llittle C02 to do it (30-70 parts PER MILLION in the atmoshpere, it’s changed over time).
You only need to change a very little bit of C02 to make a very large difference, ie 1/3,000,000th of the atmoshoperes entire volume in C02 is enough to make a 3% increase in the amount of total C02 and a monumental .5-3% increase in heating.
Some of these rules are good, and some of them are really stupid and overgeneralizing things in an extremely ham fisted, ridiculous way. I have a degree in Env Studies and Economics from one of the greatest economics departments in the world, University of Chicago. Some of the things you list above are valuable and some of them need to be rethought.
For example, the subsidy rule is so hypocritical I laughed out loud when i read it. No subsidies? You mean like the 8-10$/gallon subsidy the government provides for big oil companies with our tax dollars so they can get rich selling something at a deceptively low price? If half that money went to subsidize many contemporary “green” energy souces, note only would innovation thrive but you would see some very affordable and clean ways to power things.
I don’t have a problem with Nuclear power per se, but I do have a problem with ill thought out potshot rules for environmentalists who you clearly show your disdain for. Nuclear power plants are EXTREMELY expensive to build run and maintain. It’s a good transition energy, it is not a renewable sustainable permanent replacement for anything.
Typical conservative BS
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Hey, I’m all for ending our government’s ridiculous pro-fossil fuel subsidies- both explicit and de facto. I’m also for using government intervention to create market-based mechanisms for internalizing environmental externalities- like cap & trade. Then the market can shape an ecologically rational energy infrastructure. The problem with subsidies is that the government often subsidizes the wrong technology- a good example of this is the coal-to-liquid boondoggle of the Carter era. This was meant to free America from foreign oil, but in the end just wasted billions of taxpayer dollars for no useful payout. This is why it’s better to punish polluters than to try and pick “winning” technologies and subsidize them- it guarantees that the loser technologies will actually lose.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
The way I see it, much of the disagreement is due to the fact that this list is aimed at protecting the environment while also keeping the current social and economic status quo in place. Drbuzz is writing from the point of view of someone who likes the world as it is, and wants to protect the environment while also keeping the form of human society unchanged. Many of those in the environmental movement want not just to protect the environment, but to overthrow modern capitalist power structures, transform the world into some kind of socialist/anarchist green utopia. These people don’t want to protect the economy and the environment both, because hurting the economy actually helps their goals. Of course those people see nuclear power as the enemy, because it’s a way of fighting for the environment while also keeping current socioeconomic power structures in place. Nuclear power is also dependent on a well-developed technological infrastructure to support it, which they want to see demolished.
The fact that socialist revolutions have been tried, invariably involve massive bloodshed and suffering, and turn out to be horrible for the environment in the end (see the former USSR) doesn’t deter them from thinking that this time they can make it work out well somehow.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Dissenter I’m sure it meant no subsidy for oil ether, so I don’t see how this is hypocritical. It certainly doesn’t say oil subsidies should stay
The statement about the suns energy input was in answer to some poor soul that thought global warming was caused by the heat let off by powerplants
Apparently reading for comprehension wasn’t part of the syllabus for an Env Studies and Economics degree.
Quote Comment
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
“Someone mentioned the idiotic statement that “the suns solar disk over earth is 175,000 Terawatts” and that heat generated by humans is insignificantly small compared.”
Here is what I said:
“Heat produced by power plants, nuclear or otherwise, is not a significant factor in global warming. The disk of the Earth is illuminated by 175,000 Terrawatts of sunlight. This is vastly in excess of our meager contribution. Current global industrial civilisation is simply too feeble to directly heat up the environment to any significant degree. the concerns for global warming spring from subtle alterations in atmospheric chemistry and their ability to rechannel some tiny fraction of the large-scale energy flows of the aforementioned 175,000 TW of sunlight into atmospheric heat.”
It was in response to a previous post, particularly the following:
“Did you know that nuclear power plants need a lot of water or air to take away the heat from them? That does not help global warming one bit because hot water means eventually hot air.”
As you can see, the poster thought that the heat put out by power plants was some kind of global warming factor. The poster probably thought nuclear plants were similar to coal plants in their potential to contribute to global warming. I tried to correct this.
It’s the CO2 coal plants put out that makes them dangerous (as well as a few other things), not the heat from them. The change of atmospheric chemistry (more CO2) redirects more of the enrgy flow from sunlight into heating the atmosphere.
So what’s the problem?