Spiegel: Environmental Guru Lovelock Urges Expansion of Nuclear Energy

[Psephos]

February 02, 2007
AN END TO GREEN ROMANTICISM

James Lovelock is attracting attention again with his provocative ideas. The former hero of the environmental movement has called for an end to "green romanticism." The only way to delay climate catastrophe, says the environmental guru, is through the massive expansion of nuclear energy.

<snip>

"Our situation," Lovelock says, "is similar to that of a boat that suddenly loses engine power shortly before reaching Niagara Falls. What's the point of trying to repair the engine?" To save what it can, Lovelock believes, the world must embark on a completely different path. Most important, it must abandon the notion of "green romanticism."

Lovelock has nothing but ridicule for environmentalists' favorite issues, such as "sustainable development" and "renewable energy," calling them "well-meaning nonsense." He is convinced that wind and solar energy will never be even remotely capable of meeting worldwide energy needs. In China alone, for example, a new large coal power plant is put into operation every five days, imposing additional burdens on the atmosphere. The only solution, according to Lovelock, is the massive expansion of nuclear energy worldwide.

A reliable supply of electricity, says Lovelock, is the key issue when it comes to survival on a warmer planet. He loses no sleep over the risks of nuclear power. "Show me the mass graves of Chernobyl," he demands provocatively.

<snip>

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,463367,00.html

[nofurylike]

1. before listening to that charlatan's idiocy, read the following:

http://www.safecom.org.au/caldicott.htm

Nuclear Power is Not the Answer
to Global Warming or Anything Else
by Helen Caldicott

-snip-

Dr. Caldicott is one of the most articulate and passionate advocates of citizen action to remedy the nuclear and environmental crises -FROM THE CITATION FOR THE 2003 LANNAN CULTURAL FREEDOM PRIZE

-snip-

About the book
In this revealing examination of the costs and consequences of nuclear energy, world-renowned antinuclear spokesperson Helen Caldicott uncovers the facts that belie the nuclear industry propaganda: nuclear power contributes to global warming; the true cost of nuclear power is prohibitive, with taxpayers picking up most of the tab; there's simply not enough uranium in the world to sustain nuclear power over the long term; and the potential for a catastrophic accident or a terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits.

-snip-

***

nukes make more carbon, not less...
among other things


peace

[FarrenH]

5. Lovelock is not a charlatan

He's a very intelligent atmospheric chemist, who probably knows a lot more about the topic than Dr Caldicott. Its very impressive that the good doctor is somehow related to the LANNAN CULTURAL FREEDOM PRIZE but the majority of NOBEL prize winning physicists, chemists and members of related disciplines are on the pro-nuclear team.

The world has enough uranium for many years of power production on a large scale. Whether it can power the whole world is debatable it there is no reason to presume all or nothing. A particular route can be part of the solution without being the whole solution. Over and above this, uranium may currently be the favored fuel of reactors, but other more abundant substances like thorium could eventually be used.

Wind and wave energy are extremely problematic because of their inconsistent output. Germany, which has committed to converting a large part of its energy production to wind energy and, in fact, generates the most wind energy in the world, supplements its variable energy supply by purchasing energy from France. France, of course, is able to sell surplus energy to the Brits and the Germans because they are so enamored to nuclear energy. So "green" Germany is really just an illusion. In effect they've just outsourced their nuclear supply.

I've seen the cost calculations attempting to demonstrate that the mining, extraction and transport of uranium, et al, ultimately causes the same amount of greenhouse gases and quite frankly they're bunk. There is a very significant difference in total environmental cost, in favor of nuclear power.

Despite Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and other unfortunate incidents, the safety record of the nuclear industry in the last century (on a per employee and any other basis) is excellent when compared to other industries. People seem to revert to the fallacy of extraordinary vividness when taking an negative position on nuclear power. Chernobyl and the few other vivid examples simply don't add up to an overall bad record.

In any event fission reactors are only an intermediate solution. Something like 37 nations are investing in the new fusion research center in Europe and the consensus is that economically viable fusion reactors (which will be much safer and cleaner) are between ten and twenty years away. I doubt many of those Lovelock rightly calls "romantics" even grasp the distinction between fission and fusion reactions.

As a keen lay student of physics and environmentalist of many years I've certainly encountered a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding among those who are passionately opposed to nuclear power and seen ample evidence of it in the press, too. For instance, recently Earthlife Africa accused a local nuclear facility of just dumping nuclear waste in public space without even containment. On investigation, the papers discovered that

a) while the property was unfenced (its in a rural area), it was on clearly marked private property and
b) the so-called "nuclear waste" were isotopes emitting tiny amounts of harmless radiation (and yes, there is such a thing), encased in concrete blocks...
c) deliberately, so that medical instruments could be calibrated against the radiation.

I offer this anecdote by way of evidence of the often hysterical and counterfactual manner in which the debate about nuclear energy is conducted by green romantics.

Sadly, I've seen so much of it that, despite being passionate about environmental issues and a vegetarian of many years, I find myself entirely alienated from the bunny-hugging green-loving science-hating wing of the environmental movement that starts with a conclusion (nuclear energy is baaaaaaaad) and coalesces all facts and their interpretation around that, rather than starting with the facts and working towards the conclusion.

I'm sorry if I pissed anyone off with this post, but it had to be said. James Lovelock is right. Nuclear power is not just an option, its the best immediate environmental choice for energy production.

postscript: None of this, of course, detracts from the very obvious fact that we should all be reducing energy consumption rather than just bickering about production :)

[Nihil]

7. Exactly right!

And welcome to DU for such an accurate informative post!
:hi:

[Odin2005]

14. Mark me down as another enviromentalists that hates the anti-science cranks.

Unfortunately those cranks are the same people who abuse Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis by turning into mystical woo woo.

[jpak]

23. Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis was thoroughly trashed by biogeochemists,

paleoclimatologists and microbial ecologists.

He has little credibility among real working scientists in the field and continues to make incredulous statements about Gaia, nuclear power and global warming.

...and the RW media crowned him an "environmental guru" - not the environmental advocacy community.

[depakid]

27. The people you cite are reductionalists not systems scientists

Reductionalists often have difficulties dealing with the larger level systems and interactions- which is what Gaia is all about.

It's not some metaphysical concept but is a larger level whole, based on transdisciplinary science science as applied to the earth's regulatory processes as a whole.

[jpak]

28. Oh please

Global biogeochemical cycles are reductionist???

Geological time scales are reductionist???

You've got a lot to learn kiddo...

[depakid]

29. When you're looking at larger systems and dynamics they certainly are

Kenneth Boulding once wrote about how the various disciplines become so specialized that they're unable to talk to one another- instead the mumble together like hermits in a cave, unable to see how larger and more general principles (e.g. isomorphisms) apply across their disciplines.

One area of systems science that Lovelock talks about in Gaia is cybernetics- which involves sets of cross disciplinary principles that describe how systems regulate or "steer" themselves (of course, he discusses other processes as well).

Admittedly, Lovelock's work was based on what we understood in the 1970's, but the basic concept of the earth as a self regulating "organism" or "biological unit" is still quite valid.

It's related to what Mario Bunge called "a level III" or "generic semi-interpreted" theory.

I'm fear it may be you my friend, who has much to learn.

You can find more recent material here:

http://www.santafe.edu/

[jpak]

31. The American Geophysical Union hosted *two* Chapman conferences on Gaia

and Gaia got trashed - big time - on every aspect discussed.

There are no systems or theoretical ecologists that adhere to it.

none

The Earth is NOT a sentient homeostatic superorganism...

get over it

[depakid]

34. Who said anything about "sentient?"

All that Gaia is about is the process at work in the larger abstract- as a whole which is very similar to processes we see going on in other "whole" yet smaller scale systems.

The biosphere is under a dynamic equilibrium that tends to compensate one way or another. It's a larger structure that's kept in a "range of balance" and recovers from "shocks" and disruptions by what Ilya Prigogene calls " dissipative systems," or a I would posit "sets of dissipative systems."

Indeed, the whole earth may be viewed as a dissipative structure, as it's an open system in terms of energy and for practical purposes, a closed system in terms of material. The laws of thermodynamics work to create "order" and complexity (i.e. life forms) where one would intuitively expect entropy to move "things" toward disorder.

There's nothing mystical or sentient about it- unless perhaps you're a pantheist.

As a footnote, I might add that Georgescu-Rogen advanced a systems concept called "material entropy," which I suspect we'll also be seeing some of in the following decades.

Unfortunately, most people in the various disciplines have never studied systems science, and so tend to see things through myopic lenses- much like Boulding's hermits, they inhabit information silos and miss the widescreen view.

[Tangledog]

45. Dunno if it was the right wingers

They tend not to do well with stuff like the Gaia hypothesis. I don't know who bought all those copies of his book, but whenever I've seen it it's been in the possession of leftover hippies, not your average Wall Street Journal types. So I assume the bunny-huggers (thanks, FarrenH!) bought enough copies to give this guy some cred as an environmentalist, whether he is one or not.

I have no reason to doubt that much of the environmental advocacy community thinks Lovelock is a wackdome, as you state.

I worked in a nuclear plant for a couple of years, as a temp (low-level administrative stuff). One hidden problem that I can see is that the places don't have any windows and they're secured sites, so you're going to have people who don't see a lot of sunlight working there. It takes some particular personality types.

The other problem is that these things have to be run according to the public utility model or something similar, and absolutely not beholden to a bunch of stockholders 2,000 miles away who don't give a shit about "minor safety mishaps" as long as they're saving money by firing a few security guards. Nukes are pretty labor-intensive and require constant care. If they're done right, they're a pretty safe industry.

[daleo]

36. I would say fusion is 30 years away

That's the standard figure to use - always has been, probably always will be. I expect fusion reactors will eventually provide the power for the factories that will manufacture the cancer cure pills.

[struggle4progress]

40. Perhaps he's losing his mind. He also claims now he invented the microwave oven

Lovelock is in his late 80s, and it sounds like he really has lost some sense of history:

Welcome to the personal website of James Lovelock, .. inventor .. of the microwave oven ...
http://www.jameslovelock.org/

And he's been telling other people that story, too

Posted: Aug 11, 2006 ...
Did anyone see an interview with Professor James Lovelock on BBC Four a few months back? I'd never heard of him, either, but he apparently invented the microwave oven by accident ...
http://www.morrisminoroc.co.uk/index.php/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=115981&sid=a5b57da50f2ccab22b87e07b1834a424

But his first publication on microwaves seems to be in 1955, when he described chilling mice to nearly the freezing point of water and then warming them with microwaves

... Andjus, R.K. and Lovelock, J.E. 1955. Reanimation of rats from body temperatures between 0 and 1 C by microwave diathermy. J. Physiol., 128, 541 ...
http://www.jameslovelock.org/page4.html

Raytheon patented the microwave oven nearly a decade before that and microwave ovens were commercially available in 1947

... By late 1946, the Raytheon Company had filed a patent proposing that microwaves be used to cook food. An oven that heated food using microwave energy was then placed in a Boston restaurant for testing. At last, in 1947, the first commercial microwave oven hit the market ...
http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/history.html

[nofurylike]

46. well then, i see you didn't read it. i suggest you do, but your

prerogative, of course.
suffice it to say, you are mis-/disinformed.

[rdmccur]

49. You're more right-on, though

I didn't notice mention in your reply of breeder reactors. These use reprocessed fuel (so that there is substantial 'recycling' so to speak). France is a leader in this industry. I am also aware of technology under development that may combine fission with fusion reactors (hybrids).
I am a scientist with fair amount of background in the nuclear industry. There's a lot of paranoia and misinformation promulgated within and toward the general public regarding nuclear energy.

[Odin2005]

13. Anyone who calls Lovelock a charlatan has no right to call him/herself an enviromentalist.

[nofurylike]

48. okay then, not a charlatan. nuclearists' whore. eom

[lvx35]

2. "Even a nuclear war," says Lovelock, "would not lead to the level of devastation worldwide...

"Even a nuclear war," says Lovelock, "would not lead to the level of devastation worldwide that global overheating will cause."

1 Billion people on earth by 2100. that's a population decrease of like 50 million a year until then if the population curve decreased today...Massive deaths. And these are the world's foremost scientists saying this?

Yet people can't just take a bike to the store...They have to drive.

[nofurylike]

3. "Yet people can't just take a bike to the store... " well said. eom

[Jonathan50]

9. Biking to the store

Yet people can't just take a bike to the store...They have to drive.

Your statement makes me wonder where you live?

I'm 56 years old and partially disabled, I can get around inside my house with some effort but I can't get down the steps and outside without help. How am going to "take a bike to the store"?

It's worse than that, the area I live in is extremely hilly, we are two and a half miles from the nearest store and there is no safe place to ride a bike since there are zero sidewalks and some places not even a shoulder to walk on. There are three narrow bridges with no sidewalks between us and the store, there simply isn't room to ride or push a bike without an unacceptable risk of being hit by a car. My wife works sixty hours a week to (barely) support us and commutes another twelve hours a week. By the time she gets home at night it's usually dark.

Unless I buy half a dozen bags of groceries at a time, I'll be going to the store every two or three days, further increasing my risk of being hit by a car. It's not possible to carry half a dozen bags of groceries on a bike.

In my early twenties, for a while I had no car because I couldn't afford one. I biked everywhere and some days did over a hundred miles, so I'm not unfamiliar with the problems of biking.

http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9906/20/stephen.king.accident.02/

June 19, 1999
Web posted at: 11:21 p.m. EDT (0321 GMT)

(CNN) -- Horror author Stephen King was seriously injured when he was struck by a minivan while walking in North Lovell, Maine, Saturday, Maine State Police said.

King, 51, was walking south on the shoulder of a road in North Lovell, where he owns a home, at about 4:30 p.m. when a motorist approaching from behind lost control of his Dodge Caravan, Oxford County Sheriff's deputy Matt Baker said. Baker said a dog in the van distracted the driver.

King was transported to Northern Cumberland Hospital and then flown by helicopter to Central Maine Hospital.

This sort of accident happens all the time, the only reason it made the news is because King is one of the most read authors in the world. Put tens of millions of people out on the roads on bikes and the death and injury rates will skyrocket.

The great majority of places in America are simply not set up to ride a bike, the infrastructure isn't there and won't be there in the foreseeable future. I'm as green as they come but I'm also a realist, the level of risk to ride a bike in the majority of America is simply too high to be acceptable. Whatever we save in energy we will pay for in injuries and deaths.

[nofurylike]

47. if those who could did, it would not be necessary for you to. btw,

the bike reference is symbolic of the many alternatives to one person in one car driving every single block they ever have to travel. it also goes without saying, i presume, that people would have to care enough to fight for quality public transport...

but the point stands in reference to one of the primary causes of our troubles. automobile spoiled...

please know i understand and empathize. i am physically challenged. i know the struggle, every moment of life....


peace

[truthisfreedom]

4. He didn't bother checking how much Uranium there is left.

Not enough. Wrong answer, Lovelock, but thanks for confusing the issue.

Companies like nanosolar.com can solve our problems if they can bring their products to market fast enough. We need solar panels on EVERY ROOFTOP, and electric cars charged up by them. We need windfarms EVERYWHERE there is wind. And we need to curb our appetite for so much energy!

[Nihil]

6. It's not "either/or" but "everything - now!"

Get the nuclear power stations on the books.
AND
Stop the coal-fired power stations being planned.
AND
Get solar thermal on every rooftop.
AND
Get solar PV panels on every shop, factory & office.
AND
Get high mpg / hybrid / electric vehicles in the mass market.
AND
Get the fuel hogs off the road.
AND
Support local producers instead of shipping crap around the world.
AND
...


Stop fighting against an alternative solution as this just
defaults to supporting the existing coal-fired and oil-fired
pollution plans.

[druidity33]

12. agreed...

Though i DO think we should tighten the standards and Quadruple Safety enforcement for Nuke plants. They can become hazards if they are not dealt with properly. Google the Vermont Yankee plant if you want to see how f-ed up stuff can get.

This is definitely an everything NOW type of situation we are in.

[Nihil]

51. Agreed in turn.

> They can become hazards if they are not dealt with properly.

Totally agree with that and at no point would I suggest reducing the
existing safety standards in the nuclear industry (France seems to be
a good role model for doing it effectively & efficiently but still
safely).

My point was that, in the same way that we don't ban cars due to the
risk of stupidly reckless drivers, we don't ban nuclear plants due
to the risk of penny-pinching incompetent owners.

:hi:

[Odin2005]

15. A-Fucking-MEN

We need a diversity of solutions, ranging from nuclear to renewables to conservation.

[Nihil]

52. And the great thing about this approach ...

... is that it doesn't punish the creativity and innovation in one industry
for political aims paid for by another.

Conservation starts with the individual. Nuclear plants involve governments.
There is a huge spectrum of ways to improve our chances - and our lives at
the same time.

[eppur_se_muova]

17. Thanks for putting that so well. I welcome any reasonable alternative-energy proposal, but ...

I cast a very jaundiced eye on any approach that is touted as *THE* one and only solution. We should apporach GW the same way we approached the Manhattan Project -- we tried every reasonable approach, simultaneously.

[Nihil]

53. Glad it came out the way I meant it.

To be fair, there is a trickle of news each week suggesting that there
is desire out there for such a solution but it is too easy to lose that
when the rich boys of the energy industries wade in.

That, in turn, leads to despair at realising that the ones with the most
influence are the ones to whom life is simply about money & possessions,
the operators of the coal, oil, auto, pharma, agri and, especially,
financial industries.

I agree with NNadir & co about the need for nuclear power but still remain
concerned that the people at the top only view this as a money-making
process, not an Earth-saving one.

I agree with the grass-roots eco movement that we need to change drastically
over a very short space of time but can see nothing but obstacles in our
path strewn by people who simply don't want to change.

This problem really does need people to work alongside each other (if not
actually together) in order to maximise the gains from each approach whilst
minimising the competition driven by profit, ego and dogma.

[redqueen]

18. Great post!

I love your attitude. :hi:

[Nihil]

54. Thanks!

Sometimes it comes out right after all!
:hi:

[TheMadMonk]

8. Plenty of other fuels.

Using a different reactor design there is fuel for the foreseeable future. And as an added bonus the same reactors can "incinerate" nuclear ash.

[Massacure]

16. And what when there is no sun and no wind?

Live in the dark?

[NNadir]

24. Neither did you.

You have no clue, I bet, about how much uranium is left.

You have no clue either, I bet, about how much energy has been produced by solar cells over the last 50 years.

[Jonathan50]

10. Amazingly enough you can build a fusion reactor in your basement

Yes, it sounds utterly loony but it's true.

http://www.brian-mcdermott.com/what_it_takes.htm

What do I need? How much does it cost?
These are some of the most frequently asked questions by newbies to the field of IEC fusion. Quite frankly, there is no definitive answer to either of them. What you need depends upon several factors, and the cost depends upon what you can get on the surplus market, what you already have, and how much you are willing to spend.

An experienced amateur scientist, with good scrounging skills, can probably spend under $200, depending on what equipment he or she already has. An inexperienced newbie, who wants fusion RIGHT NOW, can spend $8000 or more, and then realize that he could have saved a lot of money in retrospect. Most people fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

To make a fusor, you really only need a few things:

A vacuum chamber; preferably made of stainless steel for Fusion models, Pyrex is OK for non-fusion devices.
A vacuum pump capable of reaching pressures of 10-3 Torr (1 micron Hg) or deeper. A 2-stage mechanical pump is usually good enough. Lower pressures require oil diffusion or turbomolecular pumps in addition to a mechanical pump.
A high voltage power supply; this must be a direct current, negatively biased (i.e. positive grounded) power supply. For fusion models, this supply should be rated at 20,000 volts (minimum) and 20 milliamps. A surplus x-ray transformer, with the proper DC rectification, is typically the best option. For non-fusion demo models, you can use a neon sign transformer. If you have the cash, Glassman High Voltage sells amazing power supplies that are perfect for fusor work. I found one on ebay for a tenth of the normal price.
Deuterium gas; This gas is fairly easy to get in small 50 liter lecture bottles for about $250. It has no special regulations and is non-radioactive. You will need a regulator to go with the bottle in order to lower the pressure from 1500psi to about 2psi. *Tritium* is not obtainable by the amateur. Tritium requires a site license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with facilities more secure than most private homes. The Farnsworth team had to submit to weekly medical exams because of its radioactivity. Don't even think about trying to get Tritium. It is dangerous and illegal for the amateur.
A neutron counter; this is how you quantify your fusion results. A brand new, el cheapo neutron counter costs about $2000. Until recently, fusioneers had to wait around on ebay until a neutron counter rolled by. Now, there is a new technology out there know as a "Bubble Neutron Dosimeter." These are small tubes filled with a certain liquid, sensitive only to fast neutrons from fusion. They cost about $100 and have a shelf life of about a year.
Here is an abbreviated parts list of my Fusor, with approximate prices (For a full parts list, go here):

Vacuum pump........................................................................$75 on ebay
20,000 Volt, 50mA power supply...........................................$300 on ebay
Stainless Steel Chamber...........................................................$600 total
Neutron Detector.....................................................................$150 on ebay
50L of Deuterium Fuel..............................................................$245 from Advanced Specialty Gases
Various vacuum components and other peripherals.....................$????
Total.......................................................................................~$1500-1800


As you can see, it isn't exactly cheap. But you should realize that these parts were acquired over a period of 18 months, and only after researching as to their necessity in the project. It's the little things like valves and fittings that eat out your wallet. High vacuum equipment is also high precision equipment, making it fairly expensive.

Also note that a non-fusion demo model can be made for far less, perhaps $200 if you get lucky on ebay. Either way, both of these figures are well within the reach of dedicated amateurs and students. Remember, "If you can dream it, you can do it!"

[roamer65]

20. ...and levelling everything 3-5 miles around you...

priceless.:silly:

[struggle4progress]

41. So what? In practical terms, nobody knows how to get more energy out than was put in

[xchrom]

11. nuclear power.

:nuke: there is an accident that WILL happen that will make all other accidents look like play time.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. Yes, it's called "catastrophic climate change" nt

[xchrom]

30. you'll think catastrophic if your downwind from a radioactive cloud.

[Dead_Parrot]

33. What word would you use for 3 billion people starving, then?

Annoying? Inconvenient? Irritating?

[xchrom]

38. first of all lack of nuclear power isn't going to solve or cause

that problem.

that's a problem we will all have to make a commitment too -- and millions die all the time from starvation right now.

a nuclear power accident will cause devastating problems for generations -- poisoning the very soil of vast areas -- what would you call that?

and because humans are inherently imperfect -- there -- through time -- be more than one accident -- the cost in human terms and environmental terms could well be past being able to imagine.

[Dead_Parrot]

39. If we shift the rainfall patterns much futher

Those millions will become billions in a decade or two. We could stop that happening by dumping coal and gas power generation: We could do it in a few years, if we were motivated.

Or, we could sit around listening to people like Caldicott who think a very real, dead planet is somehow preferable to the possibility of a risk of an accident. The same people who think the dozens who died at Chernobyl are somehow more important that the 2 million or so who die every fucking year from burning coal, and that the best solution is to spend the next 50 years building up PV and wind to replace half the coal, and let the generations after us mourn for the loss of millions of species over the entire planet.

Yeah, that's much better than the possibility of a risk.

[xchrom]

42. lol -- possibility?

That's quite a sense of humour you have there.

there will be an accident -- accidents.

and they will be of severe magnitudes.

it is lunacy to replace coal and oil with a plan that could produce disasters that last generations.

poison soil for eons.

you have a romantic sense of nuclear energy at best.

[Dead_Parrot]

43. No, I've got a fairly good understanding of it, and the dangers.

What's lack here is any fucking clue from you about what climate change is. It's the loss of entire countries. It's staple crops failing across most of the globe. It's drinking water for billions of people turning to dust. It's countless species dying out as their habitat vanishes. Christ, the Holocene already rates as one of the biggest extinctions since life began, and you're sitting there cheering it on.

...could produce disasters that last generations

God, that's rich. The CO2 you are happily cheering for will be in the air for hundreds of thousands of years, probably millions: The planet may not return to 'normal' until we've either died out or evolved into something else. How does that rate on you scale of "severe magnitudes"? Another slight annoyance?

Here's a suggestion: They don't have nuclear power in Bangladesh, so why don't move there and buy yourself a nice beach house. You can practice your Canute impressions while burning coal. Take a snorkel.

[xchrom]

50. point out where i advocated for the fossil energy producing

models we have now?

your hair is on fire for no reason re: what i advocate -- what i don't advocate is more nuclear.

and you can enjoy your cancer ridden children who lived downstream, or down wind -- or who were just in the way of a radioactive cloudburst.

[meldroc]

19. I'm for nuclear power, but not with legacy technology.

Nuclear power does have promise, but the problems are very well known. Older reactors, especially the RBMK reactors such as Chernobyl, have the obvious safety problems. Also, there is the issue of what to do with the waste. High level waste such as spent fuel rods containing plutonium must be stored safely for 100,000 years, to prevent idiots from stumbling upon them and killing themselves, or causing environmental contamination, and to prevent the waste from being made into weapons.

Newer technology can address these problems. I'm certainly for researching thorium reactors. Thorium reactors generate far less waste, are cleaner, safer, can be designed in such a way that they're useless for producing weapons, and can even burn the nasty high level waste such as plutonium from spent uranium fuel rods, which is easier to do than figuring out where to put them for 100,000 years where they won't be tampered with or contaminate the environment. It's not 100% clean, but the waste has only a fraction of the radioactivity of uranium/plutonium reactor waste, and that waste only stays dangerously radioactive for a few hundred years. In other words, it still requires management, but its not impossible. Also, thorium is plentiful, and doesn't require enrichment, so mining it can be done without wrecking the environment like uranium mining does.

Though advances in nuclear fusion might make fission obsolete. Recent discoveries make nuclear fusion more feasible, though it will still take decades before the break-even point is reached - where more usable power is generated than is consumed creating and maintaining the reaction, and there's enough power to sell on the power grid. Even nuclear fusion isn't 100% clean - the fusion reaction generates neutrons that will hit the wall of the reaction chamber, causing reactions that will leave the reactor vessel radioactive after enough time.

[roamer65]

22. My parents made a huge cut in their GHG emissions.

They installed a corn burner last year. They've only used about 15 gallons of heating oil this winter so far and they run the house at 78 degrees F. The CO2 they emit will be drawn out by this coming years corn crop.

[NickB79]

25. Sorry to burst your bubble

But industrial farming is horribly fossil-fuel intensive. To grow that corn crop you need to burn diesel and gasoline in the tractors, apply liberal amounts of fertilizers from natural gas, and transport the corn in semi-trailers or trains. My dad goes through over 2,000 gallons of fuel a year on the 120 acres he farms in his trucks and tractors alone. Corn is probably better than natural gas or coal-generated electrical heating, but still contributes to fossil fuel consumption and CO2 increases.

[roamer65]

44. At least its not Saudi Arabian.

The corn does extract CO2 from the atmosphere, unlike the heating oil. Also, it's much less $$$ in that asshole King Abdullah's pocket.

[The Stranger]

26. Similar to those who claim overconsumption should be addressed instead of overpopulation.

There is no way in Hell to get people to stop overconsuming.

[Locrian]

37. wars and all that

>>There is no way in Hell to get people to stop overconsuming.

There is simply no way we can expect to "go back" to a lower level of energy usage - as much as I hate to admit it. The proverbial genii has been out of the bottle too long. I hate the waste, the greed of our society - but I know that a majority will kill to keep it. Yes, that's right they will KILL to keep it just as we are doing in Iraq and soon to be Iran (It really is all about the last grab for easy chemical energy "oil").

It's always has been that way and always will be until we either die out or evolve to a higher level of civilization.

So as someone above said: its about solar AND reduced consumption AND nuclear energy. Its also about being realistic and honest about how "uncivilized" and greedy we really are as a species.

[OKthatsIT]

32. NO, NO, NO...Earth is too unstable as it approaches the GALACTIC PLANE

not a good idea.

[NickB79]

35. What are you talking about?

What does the galactic plane have to do with building nuclear reactors?

[all.of.me]

55. he sounds like my father!

i was called a 'god damned environmentalist' when i opposed the seabrook nuke plant. sheesh.