Original post made
by Sanford Forte, Evergreen Park,
on Nov 15, 2007
I suspect that the health and standard of living is highest where the CO2 emissions are highest.
The presumtion of the value of this info is false..CO2 emissions are a normal part of our earth and always have been, and are not the "cause" of "global warming". Human machines contribute less than 5% of the CO2 to the atmosphere.
Aside from this, though, it is always a good idea to be aware of whatever pollution we contribute and be reasonable about doing what we can to clean it up. Draconian measures, however, with the resultant negative side-effects, are not necessary.
Every nuclear power plant gets a green circle, right Sanford?
Sanford, Thanks for a very good reference tool.
To Greg's point, nuclear power is very clean *producing*, but very dirty in its waste, as well as very high risk when it comes to determining cost/benefit in the long-term.
Greg keeps popping up in these forums, every chance he gets, tp support nuclear power.
I wonder why the investment community doesn't feel the same as Greg. Maybe they know something that Greg doesn't?
Thanks for the link
Looks like we can blame china for a lot of this problem and they are building more polluting power plants every week.
Why would anyone would attend the olympics there, pollution, bird flu Darfur etc
"I suspect that the health and standard of living is highest where the CO2 emissions are highest."
And what about those that are downwind?
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about, when it comes to nuclear power. I think you take your talking points from Amory Lovins (a real fool, when it comes to nuclear power...he is blinded by his own bias).
For a quick review of current renewal requests for licesnses, see the following:
The is TREMENDOUS investment interest (anc commitment) to nuclear energy in this country.
"very dirty in its waste". Really? Please explain. In fact, all that U238 is an enormous asset! Think breeder reactor, Mike. BTW, do you even understand the nuclear fuel cycle?
Greag. if it glows with a half-life in the hundreds of years, most people will not be interested. Count me among them.
You want power capacity? Put your thinking cap on and start inventing disincentives to waste power; incentives to save power; materials that require less power for production, etc. etc.
Nukes are tired, conservation and power source innovation are wired.
"Nukes are tired, conservation and power source innovation are wired."
Mike, is that the best you can do?
Nukes are hot, baby. They glow and glow and make steam that pushes turbine blades...that produce electricity. For all practical purposes, they are are limitless. And they are safe.
Time to grow up, Mike. You and Amory have been in the echo chamber too long.
Lovins and the Sierra Club were major contributors to making energy a luxury for many lower income people. The oil crisis and the energy crisis are direct, forseeable consequences of foolish policies.
Right on Walter!
As a Sierra Club member who married an Exxon executive, I know this to be true. I am a biologist and long time Sierra Club member (since High School), who met an engineer in college. He went to work for Exxon. I went to work for the Ag. Dept. and then into cancer drug development.
In my 20's, I secretly put a bumper sticker on my husband's Honda Civic that said "Stop off shore drilling" - it was a logo of an oil platform inside a circle with the line through it. He drove the car to work for a week and parked it in the Exxon parking lot before noticing it. A year later, we ended up in a Third World Islamic country, where I nearly died from a tropical disease.
After 17 years with Exxon, he finally changed careers, and now works in Palo Alto.
None of those families with Exxon International want to be overseas. The British, Australians, Canadians, and Americans want to go back to their home countries. It is dangerous over there, but the offshore drilling restrictions imposed by California and in the U.S. forced Exxon to find other places to look for oil.
Their operations are clean over there (I would not cover for them).
The corrupt Third World governments have the horrendously messy operations. I have seen them. They have absolutely no regard for the environment whatsoever.
There was not a single incident involving Exxon while we were overseas. I think the foreign governments take most of Exxon's profit, but they are still able to make some profit. The cost is passed to the consumer. It is very expensive to build facilities and operate overseas, and move the managers and families over there.
We were actually overseas when the Valdez accident happened.
It made my friends at Exxon cry. Not just because of the loss or bad press, but because they loved the pristine coast of Alaska and the wildlife too. No kidding. It was horrible for all of us. Every international family was shocked and saddened by what happened.
All oil drilling, transportation, and refining is risky, but Exxon is the cleanest in developing countries.
I have seen their operations first hand, and being the wife of a senior executive, I can attest to it. No cover ups, or anything like that. I would have known. The wives know everything.
Being a biologist and a lifelong Sierra Club member, I would never lie about this.
Exxon has been seriously researching alternative fuels for at least 15 years.
I blame the Valdez accident on the alcoholic who was navigating that ship.
You can see how much damage one alcoholic did.
He hurt the environment, and destroyed the image of an otherwise very good corporation.
We both hate alcohol and drunk drivers.
We sold all our Exxon stock to move back here (my hometown).
Putting a face on people makes the blanket condemnation of those who make up corporations harder. Thank you and your husband for your contribution to our prosperity.
The vast majority of people working for corporations are good people. "WOFEE" (above) is a concerned citizen.
That said, it's a fact that corporate lobbyists - whose behavior is driven by senior-devised corporate strategists - have spent BILLIONS to make sure our nation continues to be dependent on fossil-derived fuels.
The only reason we see alternate guel use researched by companies like Exxon is because they want to be in a position to own the technology as we run out of oil (some decades hence), so that the inefficient (and expensive) transport culture that we have now will continue.
Ethanol is a perfect example of how big money can force inefficient and expensive fuel choices, while wreaking havoc with cultures and individual lives.
WOFEE and her husband are probably very good people, but that doesn't excuse the rapacious bahvior of certain organizations (including the gutless and gutted mainstream media); nor does it excuse out lax and largely visionless poiltical leaders on this issue; nor does it excuse the responsibility that most citizens (I, among them) have let slip as they watch the environment ruined for their convenience. We live lives of large convenience (that's not a bad thing), blinded to the pain that our convenience can cause to others.
A much more important question, Mike, is: What is the cost to the poor people of the world of denying them access to fuels and technologies that could improve their lives?
So-called 'soft energy' approaches advocated by Lovins and yourself are dangerous, becasue they are also so cool and PC. They lull the populations of the highly developed countries into thinking that so-called 'hard energy' approaches are no longer necessay. Even though the soft approach does have legs (and a future), it should not condemn billions of people to poverty.
Ironically, the real answer, as we indeed do transition to soft energy, is to build nucler power plants. Clean, abundant and nearly limitless electrical supplies will benefit the planet in huge ways. Indeed, it will pave the way for the softer energies, becasue it will prevent massive revolutions and wars and destruction. Talk to Stewart Brand about it.
Mike, have you done your homework on the nuclear fuel cycle, yet? If so, perhaps you can explain why 'spent' nuclear fuels rods are such a valuable resource. You might also be able to understand why there is such a strong interest in investing in new nukes in this country and others.
Greg: "So-called 'soft energy' approaches advocated by Lovins and yourself are dangerous, becasue they are also so cool and PC. They lull the populations of the highly developed countries into thinking that so-called 'hard energy' approaches are no longer necessay. Even though the soft approach does have legs (and a future), it should not condemn billions of people to poverty."
The problem with nuclear proponents is that they preach and project from their own ideas about what material class culture means.
The further problem is that these ideas come from their own experience.
Frankly, I don't want to see developing nations enage the same kinds or levels of consumerist waste that we have, because THAT will cause suffering and environmental degradation that far exceeds what more "appropriate" solutions can be coinjured by OTHER cultures.
What's ironic about this is that you and yours are far more in line what central command economies are doing with power, to satisfy the higher up, oligochicial greed of dicatators - as they prance their way to wealth on the backs fo their own people, with disasterous consequences for our planet.
To say, as above, that this is an irony, is a gross understatement.
There really is a lack of vision in those who propose a dangerous power source, with massive long-term disposal and short-term pollution problems, simply to help other nations pursue a consumption dream that, in itself, is most harmful to our environment.
There's nothing wrong with wealth, or buying "stuff", but when that becomes the be-and-end-all driving policy, there's something wrong.
So, and thus, the seduction by nuclear shills of those who don't have the facility to see shohrt term, or to ask deeper questions about where the culture of this planet is headed.
As for private investment, the weight of private investment (VC, ,and otherwise, including government investment) in nuclear is FAR overshadowed by investment in other alternate (non-fossil-based) energy technologies.
Just saying things doesn't make them true.
We may very well see some nukes built, her and there, but we will NEVER see them built here in Silicon Valley. Get used to that idea, because the direction this Valley is headed is toward incentives and alternate fuel sources that don't include nukes.
I am not a social engineer like you, although I do aprreciate what actual engineers can offer us, for instance infrastructure and machines that enormously enhance our lives. These actual engineers make modern life happen, and modern people who have plenty, do not have an appetite for war. Poor people, on the other hand, listen to the crazies that tell them about revolution and war.
Consigning the poor people in Africa, for example, to a soft energy approach, is like consigning slaves to the white masters in the Old South. On what possible moral basis do you declare that black folk in Africa should not have the opportunities that white folk in Europe and America have had ("consumerist waste") ?
Solar cells and 'appropriate technology' are a prescription for dedicated and perpetual semi-poverty for Afriacn peoples. They need major electrical production, steel production and many other industrial productions. Nuclear power allows them to skip the coal-fired industrial apporach. This means that they can jump from the third world into the first world, without a stop in the second world. The only hope for African wildlife is to allow the African peoples to have a stake in a middle class future, one where they worry about how to pay to send their two kids to college. If all Lovins and you offer them is a slightly improved marginal poverty, they will, logically, have ten kids and demand enough arable land to feed them.
With the current interest in carbon gases, and offsets, nuclear is an ideal answer. Nuclear is safe, there is no real waste disposal issue, there is major private investment (new licenses are being approved as I speak). Nukes offer real hope to Africa and to America, and everybody in between.
Mike, you lack vision. Plug into nukes, and you might get it.
We're all social engineers, so please move away from attempts to denigrate the debate with personal attack.
That said, it's hard to believe that any serious suuporter of nuclear power technology would suggest putting this technology into Africa - especially given the massive embedded corruption and political instability present on that continent. There is simply no government in Africa trustworthy enough, or with sufficient public infrastructure, to permit nuclear deployment.
Technologies appropriate to Africa's current and future needs are being deployed all over the continent.
Africa is currently the most challenged continent on earth, with virtually no infrastructure (excepting South Africa), but even S Africa is having trouble with its nuclear plants. For the first time the S Africans are challenging nukes
I think we're going to see nuclear power happening in places where there is little care for the forward negative consequences of nuclear, and where there is a rather juvenile approach to development that attempts to emulate everything we have been doing wrong in the West, and which has led to our current worldwide environmental debacle.
Until nuclear becomes MUCH safer than it currently is, it's off the table in America.
Mike, I am so glad you are running America and can tell all the rest of us that nuclear power is far too dangerous and off the table in America!
Somebody should tell France, running 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, how much better and safer America is.
I know that it's difficult to debate with a master, but in time you will get better. Keep trying. :)
About France: Yes, France has nuclear plants, but can you tell me why most of Europe is working toward closing nuclear plants?
Proof, please, that "most of Europe is working to close nuclear plants"..
"In the countries of the European Union 35% of electricity are generated by nuclear energy in 2005. France holds the top position with a share of 78.5 % followed by Lithuania with 70 %, Belgium and Slovakian Republic with 56 % and Sweden with 46.7 %."
There are currently 197 nuclear plants in all of Europe, and 12 more are currently being constructed.
There is a large anti-nuclear movement in Europe, full of paranoia and lacking in facts, but it will be overcome, as Europe understands how vulnerable it is without nuclear power.
South Africa is a major player in pebble bed nuclear power plants. It will have about ten of these plants, and it will export even more.
"Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Pty. Ltd. (PBMR) in South Africa may be the current technology leader. It is developing a modular pebble-bed reactor. On June 25, 2003, the South African Republic's Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism approved a prototype 110 MW pebble-bed modular reactor for Eskom at Koeberg, South Africa. PBMR also has approval for a pebble-bed fuel production plant in Pelindaba. The uranium is produced locally as a by-product of gold mining"
"An inherently self controlling modular reactor that can provide peaking-power and fresh water would be a genuinely useful addition to the market, and a valuable export item. If the trial is successful, PBMR says it will build up to ten local plants on South Africa's coast. PBMR also wants to export up to 20 plants per year. The estimated export revenue is 8 billion rand (roughly US$ 1.1 billion) per year, and could employ about 57,000 people. The program's total cost is about US$ 1 billion, and the developers estimate that about 30 plants will need to be produced to break even."
China will be an even bigger player:
"China has licensed the German technology and is actively developing a pebble bed reactor for power generation . The 10 megawatt prototype is called the HTR-10. It is a conventional helium-cooled, helium-turbine design. The program is at Tsinghua University in Beijing. The first 200 megawatt production plant is planned for 2007. There are firm plans for thirty such plants by 2020 (6 gigawatts). By 2050, China plans to deploy as much as 300 gigawatts of reactors of which PBMRs will be a major component. If PBMRs are successful, there may be a substantial number of reactors deployed. This may be the largest planned nuclear power deployment in history.
Tsinghua's program for Nuclear and New Energy technology also plans in 2006 to begin developing a system to use the high temperature gas of a pebble bed reactor to crack steam to produce hydrogen. The hydrogen could serve as fuel for vehicles, reducing China's dependence on imported oil. Hydrogen can also be stored, unlike electricity, and distribution by pipelines may be more efficient than conventional power lines."
Nuclear energy can be provided in a variety of different engineering desgins, appropriate to the circumstances. For example, the pebble bed approach has practically no potential as a nuclear bomb proliferation modality, since it takes a very sophisticated engineering methodology to enrich/recycle the spent pebbles.
Nuclear is both here and now and it has an enormous future. The luddite mentalities will not be able to stop it...in Africa or anywhere else. We should be focusing on how to end coal-fired power plants by displacing them with nuclear plants.
Mike makes the mistake, like the French strikers, of believing that "loud minority" overcomes a majority vote.
Not any more here, or I will bet, in France. Watch Sarkozy..this will be fun.
Nuclear proponents sound so logical, until you look at the end result of their faulty logic
You dug deep for that one! Wendall Ford retired in 1999! This is just pre-warmed Amory Lovins stuff.
There is a huge interest and investment in nuclear power. It is moving forward, despite the luddite opposition from Amory and you. Nuclear is safe, it is efficient, it is nearly limitless, it is clean (no CO2), it has the capacitity to completely get the U.S. (and others) off foreign oil.
It is an economic tragedy that we listened to you luddites. Instead of 20% of current electrical supply being provided by nuclear, it should be about 60% at this point. I wonder how much unnecessary CO2 is in the atmosphere becasue of you guys?
It is time to move to the future with nuclear power. Palo Alto should sign as many contracts for nuclear electricity as possible, as soon as possible...before the cost of electricity soars out of sight. Wind farms and solar are fine, but they simply cannot provide base demand. If Palo Alto wants to be green, only nuclear can drive it in this direction in a major way.
More evidence of nuclear proponents fautly logic. This stuff is all over the Internet, you should read some of it.
Helen Caldicott? Are you basing your arguments on her ravings? She is even more off the shelf than Lovins.
Gotta do better than that, Mike. You are dated.