I believe Amory is wrong. Projections are that world energy needs will increase by over 60% by 2050 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_United_States ). In the late 1960's I worked at Westinghouse Advanced Reactors Division (i.e. nuclear reactors). The engineers and scientists I worked with used to say that people could talk about wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc. as much as they wanted but if nuclear power weren't developed and deployed aggressively there would be energy riots during the next (i.e. this) century. This would (will) be because of shortages of heat, light, food and other essentials--not luxuries. Right now there are 104 nuclear electric power plants in the U.S. which produce about 20% of the Nation's electricity. By comparison, almost 80% of France's electricity is generated by nuclear power. These plants produce virtually no greenhouse gases. China plans to build 32 nuclear power plants by 2020 (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801 051.html ). They have a strong incentive; Stephen will tell you about the air pollution there
According to the above-referenced Wikipedia article, "As of March 9, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received 26 applications for permission to construct new nuclear power reactors [66] with at least another 7 expected.[67] Six of these reactors have actually been ordered.[68] In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority petitioned to restart construction on the first two units at Bellefonte." How is this to be reconciled with Amory's claim that "Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry..."? Frank -----Original Message----- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:00 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama on nuclear energy Peggy is right. I attach a short excerpt from Democracy Now. (Amory is the guru.) AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Well, talk about nuclear power. Why do you feel it's not an option, given the oil crisis? AMORY LOVINS: Well, first of all, electricity and oil have essentially nothing to do with each other, and anybody who thinks the contrary is really ignorant about energy. Less than two percent of our electricity is made from oil. Less than two percent of our oil makes electricity. Those numbers are falling. And essentially, all the oil involved is actually the heavy, gooey bottom of the barrel you can't even make mobility fuels out of anyway. What nuclear would do is displace coal, our most abundant domestic fuel. And this sounds good for climate, but actually, expanding nuclear makes climate change worse, for a very simple reason. Nuclear is incredibly expensive. The costs have just stood up on end lately. Wall Street Journal recently reported that they're about two to four times the cost that the industry was talking about just a year ago. And the result of that is that if you buy more nuclear plants, you're going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you'll get it about twenty to forty times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas, all kinds of central plans, in the marketplace. And those competitors are efficient use of electricity and what's called micropower, which is both renewables, except big hydro, and making electricity and heat together, in fact, recent buildings, which takes about half of the money, fuel and carbon of making them separately, as we normally do. So, nuclear cannot actually deliver the climate or the security benefits claimed for it. It's unrelated to oil. And it's grossly uneconomic, which means the nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually happening. It's a very carefully fabricated illusion. And the reason it isn't happening is there are no buyers. That is, Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies. Nick Frost wrote: > peggy miller wrote: >> Below is link showing Obama's support for nuclear energy. I was sorry >> to see it stated so clearly, because I remain believing that we can >> proceed without nuclear energy (unless it is developing cold fusion, >> which he does not state in his speech), using wind, solar, >> geothermal, hydrogen. I continue to see no reason this is not >> possible, and deeply fear, having sat through countless hearings on >> Capitol Hill about the > I agree with Peggy's comment about "the inevitable error of human > management, and the inability to protect the toxics from leakage" > > I would add that while piracy is (IMHO) indefensible, the Somali > piracy problem gathered much steam after the central government > collapsed in 1991. The immediate results were predatory overfishing by > foreign nations on the Somali coastline and the dumping of radioactive > waste by European firms, which prompted fishermen to attempt to defend > their waters and prevent the collapse of their fisheries. > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article418665.ece > > http://abandonedheadlines.blogspot.com/2009/04/poor-coverage-of-somali-pirac y.html > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_piracy > > -Nick > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
