Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Actually, Porritt seems to see the need for a greater emphasis on local-scale power, though to what extent I can't tell (Perhaps this, in addition to nuclear's absolutely atrocious record in terms of safety and compliance and cost, is a factor in his opposition to nuclear.). Whereas Monbiot makes comments which are clearly and unabashedly in favor of the centralized, top-down paradigm; if only because he doesn't believe local-scale power can work. It's not clear to me what Porritt's exact position is, on nuclear, in terms of immediate decommissioning vs. eliminating future nuclear investments, for example. Monbiot, on the other hand, openly advocates for an expansion of nuclear capacity, and investment in GenIV technology. The GenIV stuff is very compelling, though there's a real dearth of detail out there. And I have to agree with Porritt on this; the track record for nuclear, on the part of the power companies and government both, is just so egregious, there's no way i could envision any new power generation without a very clear and detailed explanation of what they're selling, including on the engineering/installation level. In fact, they (or some of them) have already shot themselves in the foot--at least, where my having any confidence is concerned--by mis-portraying their 'product'. A repeat of the 1950s/60s/70s futuristic, space-age-style campaign, will only do us a disservice (I can hear the voice-over now, No-ho-ho [laughing affectionately], it's not magic. It just seems that way! [brightly] Because it's so advanced!) That said, insofar as a 'premature' decommissioning of reactors in the U.S., whether immediately or on an accelerated timeline, I just don't see that happening, short of another disaster 'on our soil'. There's plenty of people who don't like nuclear, but far fewer would define themselves as 'opposed' (opposed to what's already there, at least). There's a whole lot of other factors as well, which make for overcoming a huge amount of inertia. And, as you pointed out, it's not so clear that shutting down nuclear at this time would be the right thing to do. Re Porritt and solar, a little googling turned up nothing as to what his commercial activities are. From the looks of it, he has never wanted for financial means and his commercial involvement(s) could wery well be almost. . .recreational. He's had some pretty high level NGO-type appointments for a long time, which, if he takes them seriously, must demand a considerable amount of his time and energy. Also, he's apparently a big Z-Pop booster. Actually, DePop would be more accurate. On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Keith Addison ke...@journeytoforever.orgwrote: Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Monbiot can't be criticized for pointing out the complicated mess we're in. These are sticky issues indeed. Until we recognize, collectively, that a fundamental restructuring lies at the heart of it, we will forever find ourselves choosing whatever seems the least unpalatable. Agree. Lesser-evilism. Though I think many people do recognise that, more and more of them, and they're active. Enough of them? Wrong question, and doubting it is a lousy reason for not getting involved. It needs a phased approach, coordinated and integrated, a grand strategy, and a dogged focus, with a bit of pragmatism where approprate. Occupy is an interesting model, one of many - no leaders, no manifesto, nothing you can grab hold of or subvert, yet everyone knows what to do and why, it's adaptable and flexible, and it drives the MSM and TPTB suitably nuts. For instance, leave the existing nukes for now, perhaps even allow a few new gas-fired plants, focus all efforts on fighting coal and oil. Just an example, not a proposal. I firmly believe that all of the demos, protests, strikes, general outrage and rejection taking place all round the world are part of the same phenomenon, and it won't stop, we won't take no for an answer, we'll keep going until we've won, and then we'll win the peace too. It's not a sudden uprising, though it might look like it from the outside. It's been building for a long time, it has impetus and momentum, it's implacable. . . .In this case, I'm not so sure that he is wrong. It seems to depend somewhat on what time-scale you're looking at. In the shorter term, he might be right. New nukes are a total no-no, but how to set decommissioning existing nukes against building new coal and gas fired plants to replace them, as in Merkel's case? Japan, with all but two of its nukes shut down, has been doing what amounts to the same thing, with huge increases in fossil fuel imports - indeed China, of all countries, just told Japan to cut its carbon emissions. Is it better or worse to leave existing nukes in place and accept their emissions reductions (which are real, in current-account terms), in a time when any and every reduction is crucially important, as all agree it is,
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Do you have a link for the PASA conference presentation/keynote? On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Chip Mefford c...@well.com wrote: Ooops, Wrong presentation, But it's still directly germane. - Original Message - From: Chip Mefford c...@well.com To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:19:37 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming Good day all: At some point, I meant to transcribe some bits and pieces from this presentation from our annual conference last Feb at PASA (Pennsylvania Assoc for Sustainable Agriculture) due to it's relevance on asking the really tough questions that will stimulate the environment wherein we can start finding real answers. I've listened to this keynote about 6 times, and I've yet to fully 'get it' all yet, and you can hear a few of my hoots during it in places. :) Regardless, for those who are actually interested in the whole thing, here it is: http://vimeo.com/34530550 ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Re: the large scale energy sourcing issue As a proponent of electric vehicles, I end up in this discussion pretty regularly with people working from an energy mythology mindset. My current stance doesn't seem particularly coherent, even to me, but I think its pragmatic as an interim solution. My debating partners tend not to like facts, but rather favour generalizations of what was likely true 2 or 3 decades ago, and in other places. So, I tend to take my facts from relatively current times for either Ontario (preferably) or Canada (when necessary). I tend to favour letting the existing nuclear plants continue to operate, noting that we use the CANDU (unenriched uranium, heavy water, not pressurized) technology here. I know it reasonably well. While it is not flawless, it does not present quite the same risk issues as Chernobyl, Three Mile Islands or Fukushima-Daiichi. I do not favour building new nuclear fission generation under any circumstances. My support of the existing plants comes from the realization that we undertake almost all the costs upfront (financial, land use, risk placement, mining and refining and GHG emissions). Once operational, the ongoing fuel costs, other operating costs and additional GHG emissions are relatively trivial. The potential of an accident releasing radioactive material outside of planned containment does continue. Decommissioning and disposal of spent fuel were already part of the package the instant we turned on the generating switch. Then we get into the messy business of comparing the consequences of using different energy sources (valuable, but confusing and time-consuming). We are making progress on cleaning up our electrical generation industry. In 2011, just 3% of generation came from coal (Ontario), down considerably from 20%+ a few years ago. We remain on track to stop coal-fired generation completely by 2014. Contrary to media opinion, the gap is not being made up primarily from natural gas, but rather by wind power. We have the advantage of considerable hydro reservoirs and generating capacity (used primarily as 'spinning reserve' in case one of the nuke plants suddenly goes off-line unexpectedly), but which can also be used to time-shift potential energy by letting the reservoirs fill overnight when wind tends to produce more and generating from hydro during the day when demand is higher. Our FIT (feed-in tariff) and microFIT (supports small projects that tend to be closer to point of use, such as rooftop photovoltaic systems up to 10 kilowatts) are also making inroads. Further, even our token efforts at conservation and efficiency seem to bearing fruit as per capita and even gross electric energy consumption in the province continue to trend down year over year (and have done so for about a decade now). Sufficiently so that 2 operational nuclear generators are currently kept off-line as there is not enough baseline demand to justify their operation. Even with those sidelined, we still have to pay other jurisdictions to take power off our grid several times a year, as, even after shutting down all other generation in the province, ramping down the nukes to minimum operating power level, running Niagara Falls backwards (pumped storage) and putting juice into resistor banks, supply exceeds demand and this is cheaper than shutting down a nuke or two and having to restart. Seems like a great opportunity to recharge a fleet of electric vehicles (EV), when the power is going to waste anyway, or being sent off to other jurisdictions along with cash. We're making real progress on cleaning up (and knocking down) the smokestacks, so it is time to start cleaning up and eliminating the tailpipes. Right now, we do have a grant for those buying OEM plug-in hybrids and EVs, with a defined 'sunset' based on the number sold. (Nothing for DIY conversions though, which would have additional advantages, e.g., recycling existing cars.) No significant incentives for biofuels either (although E5 and B2 are the national fuel standards, and E10, E85 and B20 are available in a few retail locations). We have one local B100 brewer who will sell to others, and a couple of 2-tank WVO vehicles I know of locally. I got an e-mail recently from a former colleague that my messaging finally got through and he is now running homemade biodiesel in both his vehicles (B100 summer and B50 winter I gather). We are also shifting some of our thermal generation to biofuel (mostly waste from the forestry sector, not much in the way of 'grow-to-burn' cropping, if any). We have options for consumers to source their electricity from green sources (Bullfrog Power, green tags). We are using tiered time of use pricing to discourage consumption at peak times (which tend to use more fossil fuels). We have had recent citizen protests against the construction of cheap natural gas peaker plants in a couple of
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Good day all: At some point, I meant to transcribe some bits and pieces from this presentation from our annual conference last Feb at PASA (Pennsylvania Assoc for Sustainable Agriculture) due to it's relevance on asking the really tough questions that will stimulate the environment wherein we can start finding real answers. I've listened to this keynote about 6 times, and I've yet to fully 'get it' all yet, and you can hear a few of my hoots during it in places. :) Regardless, for those who are actually interested in the whole thing, here it is: http://vimeo.com/34530550 ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Ooops, Wrong presentation, But it's still directly germane. - Original Message - From: Chip Mefford c...@well.com To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 9:19:37 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming Good day all: At some point, I meant to transcribe some bits and pieces from this presentation from our annual conference last Feb at PASA (Pennsylvania Assoc for Sustainable Agriculture) due to it's relevance on asking the really tough questions that will stimulate the environment wherein we can start finding real answers. I've listened to this keynote about 6 times, and I've yet to fully 'get it' all yet, and you can hear a few of my hoots during it in places. :) Regardless, for those who are actually interested in the whole thing, here it is: http://vimeo.com/34530550 ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Monbiot can't be criticized for pointing out the complicated mess we're in. These are sticky issues indeed. Until we recognize, collectively, that a fundamental restructuring lies at the heart of it, we will forever find ourselves choosing whatever seems the least unpalatable. Agree. Lesser-evilism. Though I think many people do recognise that, more and more of them, and they're active. Enough of them? Wrong question, and doubting it is a lousy reason for not getting involved. It needs a phased approach, coordinated and integrated, a grand strategy, and a dogged focus, with a bit of pragmatism where approprate. Occupy is an interesting model, one of many - no leaders, no manifesto, nothing you can grab hold of or subvert, yet everyone knows what to do and why, it's adaptable and flexible, and it drives the MSM and TPTB suitably nuts. For instance, leave the existing nukes for now, perhaps even allow a few new gas-fired plants, focus all efforts on fighting coal and oil. Just an example, not a proposal. I firmly believe that all of the demos, protests, strikes, general outrage and rejection taking place all round the world are part of the same phenomenon, and it won't stop, we won't take no for an answer, we'll keep going until we've won, and then we'll win the peace too. It's not a sudden uprising, though it might look like it from the outside. It's been building for a long time, it has impetus and momentum, it's implacable. . . .In this case, I'm not so sure that he is wrong. It seems to depend somewhat on what time-scale you're looking at. In the shorter term, he might be right. New nukes are a total no-no, but how to set decommissioning existing nukes against building new coal and gas fired plants to replace them, as in Merkel's case? Japan, with all but two of its nukes shut down, has been doing what amounts to the same thing, with huge increases in fossil fuel imports - indeed China, of all countries, just told Japan to cut its carbon emissions. Is it better or worse to leave existing nukes in place and accept their emissions reductions (which are real, in current-account terms), in a time when any and every reduction is crucially important, as all agree it is, or should we close them all down and focus on replacing the power they generate with renewable sources? That will take time (too much time?) and cost money, always a prickly problem. Renewables aren't that great either, especially considering the complete absence of a local approach, it's all top-down. And we long ago agreed that replacement isn't the answer, nor even an option. Or should we commit much more science to geo-engineering? Or is another Fukushima just waiting to happen anyway, whatever we do? All of this leaving aside the answerless question of spent fuel disposal, since it's going to be left aside anyway. As are the bombs. It's easy to understand what you said about low morale, why people say sod it, let's just just leave the whole stinking mess to our noble leaders, who will surely steer our course unerringly towards an ever-glorious future. As opposed to Dyer, who, as Darryl so aptly expressed it, just came off as being of a 'hard path' mindset. He didn't really have an argument, just conclusions. And accusations. There was at once a scornfulness, and a sort of veiled, McCarthyistic fifth-column hysteria. Not to mention a kind of resentful grumbling. Absolutely. Thuggish. It was this last, i think, which led me to question his intellectual honesty and journalistic ethics (especially the bit about the fall in the uranium market). It's what led me to suspect he's spun. Those aren't even his own opinions, they're just implants, from the opinion manufacturing industry. It's why he doth protest so loudly. Methinks. Ha, that's funny. I actually googled Dyer already. The first sentence pretty much told me what I needed to know: military historian. Not that i think that that defines him, per se (i did read the whole article, his docu film work sounds interesting), but it explains a lot wrt his posture in this editorial. Yes it does, it's a bias, his mindset, as Darryl said. Gwynne Dyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer He looks like he can be a grumpy old fart if he wants to be. Anyway, i haven't yet read monbiot's bits from august last year that you posted, so maybe i'll change my mind about him too, lol. Interested to know what you think. - K LOL. I pretty much tipped my hand on that already. :) I just read his 8 Aug., 2011 Guardian column, and the Porritt column he was responding to; as well as the Broadbent piece cited by both. I haven't done any reading or cross-referencing or otherwise looked into any of the various reports and studies that all three of them cite. That being said, it seems to me that Porritt was the more
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
There's also this, a longer of Monbiot's pro-nuke piece: The Moral Case for Nuclear Power August 8, 2011 http://www.monbiot.com/2011/08/08/the-moral-case-for-nuclear-power/ K Hi Chris Hi, Keith. Thanks much, all. I didn't post this piece because I thought it was a great article. I, for one, certainly did not think that was why you posted it (and I doubt anyone else did, either). Oh. That's a relief. :-) Apologies if it seemed that way. No, no, not at all As Daryl says, one can usually expect better of Dyer. . . Dyer is an unknown to me as this is the first i've seen of him. Not a very auspicious introduction. But between you and Darryl getting his back, so to speak, i'll have to try and withhold judgement. But i will say, it is terribly, terribly, extremely hard to read that piece and not conclude that he was (to put it mildly) not really being above board. I wouldn't argue against that. But then, in his defence, there's the case of George Monbiot, for one: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power Japan's disaster would weigh more heavily if there were less harmful alternatives. Atomic power is part of the mix George Monbiot The Guardian, Monday 21 March 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima One of many list comments: http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org/msg75771.html Others: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40lists.sustainablelists.orgq=Why+Fukushima+made+me+stop+worrying+and+love+nuclear+power And then he did it again: Greens must not prioritise renewables over climate change Abandoning nuclear at a time of escalating emissions is far more dangerous than maintaining it George Monbiot and Chris Goodall Monday 8 August 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/aug/08/greens-renewables-climate-change I don't think any of us thought dear old George is in anybody's pocket though. So IMHO we can't (yet) convict Mr Dyer on any evidence that's beyond reasonable doubt. We can say that either he's an idiot or he's been spun (in other words he's an idiot). Maybe he was spun by George Monbiot. As I said, it's a common argument, and I don't think we're done with it yet. Regards Keith ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Hi Chris Hi, Keith. Thanks much, all. I didn't post this piece because I thought it was a great article. I, for one, certainly did not think that was why you posted it (and I doubt anyone else did, either). Oh. That's a relief. :-) Apologies if it seemed that way. No, no, not at all As Daryl says, one can usually expect better of Dyer. . . Dyer is an unknown to me as this is the first i've seen of him. Not a very auspicious introduction. But between you and Darryl getting his back, so to speak, i'll have to try and withhold judgement. But i will say, it is terribly, terribly, extremely hard to read that piece and not conclude that he was (to put it mildly) not really being above board. I wouldn't argue against that. But then, in his defence, there's the case of George Monbiot, for one: Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power Japan's disaster would weigh more heavily if there were less harmful alternatives. Atomic power is part of the mix George Monbiot The Guardian, Monday 21 March 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima One of many list comments: http://www.mail-archive.com/sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org/msg75771.html Others: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40lists.sustainablelists.orgq=Why+Fukushima+made+me+stop+worrying+and+love+nuclear+power And then he did it again: Greens must not prioritise renewables over climate change Abandoning nuclear at a time of escalating emissions is far more dangerous than maintaining it George Monbiot and Chris Goodall Monday 8 August 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/aug/08/greens-renewables-climate-change I don't think any of us thought dear old George is in anybody's pocket though. So IMHO we can't (yet) convict Mr Dyer on any evidence that's beyond reasonable doubt. We can say that either he's an idiot or he's been spun (in other words he's an idiot). Maybe he was spun by George Monbiot. As I said, it's a common argument, and I don't think we're done with it yet. Regards Keith ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Hi Keith, True enough. Admittedly, my initial rection was unduly harsh. I don't think any of us thought dear old George is in anybody's pocket though. So IMHO we can't (yet) convict Mr Dyer on any evidence that's beyond reasonable doubt. However, i remember the monbiot piece (the one with kubrick-inspired title)--and it seems you've posted other columns by him, though i don't really remember offhand what they were about. I didn't agree with his reasoning or conclusions on the matter, but the difference between that column and the dyer piece, both in the quality of argument as well as tone, was huge IMHO. Not that it necessarilly makes that much difference, in the end. If he's got it wrong, he's got it wrong. But at least Monbiot comes across as a guy who tries to look at these things conscientiously, and who can be reasoned with. As opposed to Dyer, who, as Darryl so aptly expressed it, just came off as being of a 'hard path' mindset. He didn't really have an argument, just conclusions. And accusations. There was at once a scornfulness, and a sort of veiled, McCarthyistic fifth-column hysteria. Not to mention a kind of resentful grumbling. It was this last, i think, which led me to question his intellectual honesty and journalistic ethics (especially the bit about the fall in the uranium market). Anyway, i haven't yet read monbiot's bits from august last year that you posted, so maybe i'll change my mind about him too, lol. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Hi again Chris Hi Keith, True enough. Admittedly, my initial rection was unduly harsh. I don't think it was, I think you're quite right. And fairly polite about it too. I don't think any of us thought dear old George is in anybody's pocket though. So IMHO we can't (yet) convict Mr Dyer on any evidence that's beyond reasonable doubt. However, i remember the monbiot piece (the one with kubrick-inspired title) That's a great movie! --and it seems you've posted other columns by him, though i don't really remember offhand what they were about. Neither do I, but they're often worth a read. He's a good columnist. http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=monbiotl=sustainablelorgbiofuel%40lists.sustainablelists.org 232 matches. Even when he annoyed everyone by saying biodiesel is worse than fossil fuels, at least he excluded the backyarders, though it was kind of backhanded - he said we spend our time splashing around in barrels of filth, IIRC. But most MSM commentators at the time didn't make that distinction, and it's critical. That aside, Monbiot was right - as we know, industrial biodiesel from soy or rapeseed depends on heavy fossil fuel inputs every step of the way, and both soy and palm oil eat up forests. I didn't agree with his reasoning or conclusions on the matter, but the difference between that column and the dyer piece, both in the quality of argument as well as tone, was huge IMHO. Yes, indeed it was. Not that it necessarilly makes that much difference, in the end. If he's got it wrong, he's got it wrong. But at least Monbiot comes across as a guy who tries to look at these things conscientiously, and who can be reasoned with. That's true of him. In this case, I'm not so sure that he is wrong. It seems to depend somewhat on what time-scale you're looking at. In the shorter term, he might be right. New nukes are a total no-no, but how to set decommissioning existing nukes against building new coal and gas fired plants to replace them, as in Merkel's case? Japan, with all but two of its nukes shut down, has been doing what amounts to the same thing, with huge increases in fossil fuel imports - indeed China, of all countries, just told Japan to cut its carbon emissions. Is it better or worse to leave existing nukes in place and accept their emissions reductions (which are real, in current-account terms), in a time when any and every reduction is crucially important, as all agree it is, or should we close them all down and focus on replacing the power they generate with renewable sources? That will take time (too much time?) and cost money, always a prickly problem. Renewables aren't that great either, especially considering the complete absence of a local approach, it's all top-down. And we long ago agreed that replacement isn't the answer, nor even an option. Or should we commit much more science to geo-engineering? Or is another Fukushima just waiting to happen anyway, whatever we do? All of this leaving aside the answerless question of spent fuel disposal, since it's going to be left aside anyway. As are the bombs. It's easy to understand what you said about low morale, why people say sod it, let's just just leave the whole stinking mess to our noble leaders, who will surely steer our course unerringly towards an ever-glorious future. As opposed to Dyer, who, as Darryl so aptly expressed it, just came off as being of a 'hard path' mindset. He didn't really have an argument, just conclusions. And accusations. There was at once a scornfulness, and a sort of veiled, McCarthyistic fifth-column hysteria. Not to mention a kind of resentful grumbling. Absolutely. Thuggish. It was this last, i think, which led me to question his intellectual honesty and journalistic ethics (especially the bit about the fall in the uranium market). It's what led me to suspect he's spun. Those aren't even his own opinions, they're just implants, from the opinion manufacturing industry. It's why he doth protest so loudly. Methinks. Gwynne Dyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer Anyway, i haven't yet read monbiot's bits from august last year that you posted, so maybe i'll change my mind about him too, lol. Interested to know what you think. - K -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Monbiot can't be criticized for pointing out the complicated mess we're in. These are sticky issues indeed. Until we recognize, collectively, that a fundamental restructuring lies at the heart of it, we will forever find ourselves choosing whatever seems the least unpalatable. . . .In this case, I'm not so sure that he is wrong. It seems to depend somewhat on what time-scale you're looking at. In the shorter term, he might be right. New nukes are a total no-no, but how to set decommissioning existing nukes against building new coal and gas fired plants to replace them, as in Merkel's case? Japan, with all but two of its nukes shut down, has been doing what amounts to the same thing, with huge increases in fossil fuel imports - indeed China, of all countries, just told Japan to cut its carbon emissions. Is it better or worse to leave existing nukes in place and accept their emissions reductions (which are real, in current-account terms), in a time when any and every reduction is crucially important, as all agree it is, or should we close them all down and focus on replacing the power they generate with renewable sources? That will take time (too much time?) and cost money, always a prickly problem. Renewables aren't that great either, especially considering the complete absence of a local approach, it's all top-down. And we long ago agreed that replacement isn't the answer, nor even an option. Or should we commit much more science to geo-engineering? Or is another Fukushima just waiting to happen anyway, whatever we do? All of this leaving aside the answerless question of spent fuel disposal, since it's going to be left aside anyway. As are the bombs. It's easy to understand what you said about low morale, why people say sod it, let's just just leave the whole stinking mess to our noble leaders, who will surely steer our course unerringly towards an ever-glorious future. As opposed to Dyer, who, as Darryl so aptly expressed it, just came off as being of a 'hard path' mindset. He didn't really have an argument, just conclusions. And accusations. There was at once a scornfulness, and a sort of veiled, McCarthyistic fifth-column hysteria. Not to mention a kind of resentful grumbling. Absolutely. Thuggish. It was this last, i think, which led me to question his intellectual honesty and journalistic ethics (especially the bit about the fall in the uranium market). It's what led me to suspect he's spun. Those aren't even his own opinions, they're just implants, from the opinion manufacturing industry. It's why he doth protest so loudly. Methinks. Ha, that's funny. I actually googled Dyer already. The first sentence pretty much told me what I needed to know: military historian. Not that i think that that defines him, per se (i did read the whole article, his docu film work sounds interesting), but it explains a lot wrt his posture in this editorial. Gwynne Dyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Gwynne_Dyerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer Anyway, i haven't yet read monbiot's bits from august last year that you posted, so maybe i'll change my mind about him too, lol. Interested to know what you think. - K LOL. I pretty much tipped my hand on that already. :) I just read his 8 Aug., 2011 Guardian column, and the Porritt column he was responding to; as well as the Broadbent piece cited by both. I haven't done any reading or cross-referencing or otherwise looked into any of the various reports and studies that all three of them cite. That being said, it seems to me that Porritt was the more intellectually honest (despite his apparent willingness to put faith in carbon capture). Monbiot misrepresented and distorted Porritt's arguments, and IMHO wildly exaggerated Porritt's highly personal and vicious tone. I don't know if George is simply incapable of taking criticism, or if he's resorting to the victim card because he knows he can't win on the merits. I also find myself wondering if he didn't stage the debate as a way to try and discredit Porritt, anticipating that Porritt would criticize him personally. -- ¡Ay, Pachamamita! ¡Eres la cosa más bonita! ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/eo20121129a3.html Good time to show he deserves the Nobel Prize By RALPH A. COSSA and DAVID SANTORO HONOLULU - At a recent international conference, a colleague asked, somewhat irreverently (but not irrelevantly), Now that Obama has been re-elected, will he finally earn his Nobel Prize? It's a fair question. Hopes were high in the international disarmament community after President Barack Obama's 2009 Prague speech when he pledged to move toward a nuclear weapons-free world. But those who cheered the loudest then are among the most disappointed now, frustrated over the slow progress toward this goal. To be fair, some important steps forward were taken. The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) focused on Reducing the Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons while stating the objective of making deterrence of nuclear attack the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons. While this fell far short of a no first use pledge, it was a significant step in that direction. The NPR also states unequivocally that the United States will not develop new nuclear warheads. Obama also achieved ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia, which reduced both nations' nuclear weapons inventories. The administration's willingness to immediately and aggressively seek ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) proved in vain, as did efforts to conclude a fissile material cut-off treaty. The Obama-initiated Nuclear Security Summit's goal to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials in four years has not materialized; at home the administration stepped back from the spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain without any alternative in sight and the North Korean and Iranian nuclear crises remain unresolved. While it would be unfair to blame Obama for failing to find solutions to all these problems, it is important to reflect on what we can realistically expect him to accomplish over the next four years. In the Asia-Pacific, the major power agenda consists of two sets of relationships: one among the U.S., Russia and China, the other among China, India, and Pakistan. The U.S., Russia, and China essentially deter one another. While Washington (and Moscow) may worry that deeper reductions may tempt Beijing to sprint to parity, China's minimal deterrence strategy already provides strategic stability. China, for its part, worries not only about the U.S. (and Russia?), but also increasingly about India, while Pakistan has been rapidly building up its own arsenal in response to India's military capabilities. Attempts by New Delhi to counter Pakistan's moves would likely drive China to respond, which would in turn impact the U.S. and Russia. The future of this agenda will be determined mainly by decisions made in Beijing, New Delhi and Islamabad. Similarly, America's ability to strengthen deterrence and reassure its Asian allies is increasingly under stress. China's slow but steady military modernization and North Korea's nuclear weapon development are transforming the Asian security environment and raised concerns about the reliability of the U.S. extended deterrent. Despite the U.S. rebalancing toward Asia, regional partners question the role the U.S. intends to play in the region and if it is sustainable in a fiscally constrained environment. Significantly, despite Tokyo and Seoul's proclaimed continued faith in U.S. security assurances, a growing number of voices in both countries (especially South Korea) have argued for the development of independent nuclear weapon capabilities. And while Canberra has continued to stress the centrality of the U.S. alliance (and accepted additional U.S. forces on Australian territory), a growing number of Australians have begun to contemplate a reduced U.S. presence in the region: Some support the U.S. strategic presence but reject the nuclear dimension of that presence; a minority is ambivalent about whether the alliance is good for Australia. Finally, the U.S. ability to combat the proliferation-terrorism nexus has proved limited. Although U.S. endorsement of nuclear disarmament has improved the atmospherics, little tangible progress has been achieved on the nonproliferation and nuclear security fronts. Many Non-Aligned Movement members in Asia (and beyond) continue to argue that the baby steps undertaken thus far do not justify more efforts from them on nonproliferation and nuclear security. This seems remarkably shortsighted since proliferation and especially acts of nuclear terrorism will have a much greater impact on their societies and economies than most seem willing to acknowledge. But the quid pro quo mentality remains nonetheless. Be it to address the major power agenda, to reassure its allies and partners, or to combat nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation, U.S. power and influence to respond to these challenges is much more modest
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Thanks much, all. I didn't post this piece because I thought it was a great article. It's a common argument, and you've given it a thorough debunking, well done. As Daryl says, one can usually expect better of Dyer, though I recall a previous screw-up in a piece he wrote about India, which the list duly shredded, with the final comment that Mr Dyer doesn't know much about India. It's still too early for Japanese people to start dying because of the Fukushima meltdown, no doubt that'll change (several Tepco workers have already died). The whole disaster, apart from the tsunami itself, is a shining example of official malfeasance, dissembly, obfuscation, cover-ups, and staggering ineptitude (which left schoolkids playing in radioactive playgrounds, etc etc etc). It's the essential sideshow to the upcoming Japanese elections. Some of the political parties don't seem to think so, but the electorate certainly does, with huge cynicism of TPTB and all who sail in her. Loony right-winger Ishihara wants more nukes, including bombs... And there seem to be elements in equally loony Israel who seriously want to use them. And, I think, in the US too, and elsewhere. Gawd. I don't think we have any of Dyer's prattling Greens here, but I can't altogether deny his accusation of superstitious fears. Nukes give me the creeps, I don't want them on the same planet as me, I think the Big Nuke in the Sky that rises in the morning and sets in the evening is a perfectly adequate solution, and anything further is a lot worse than superfluous. Twenty years or so ago I watched a BBC news piece on an ebola outbreak in the Congo, with a WHO team going into a village to investigate. Everybody in the village was dead. The WHO guys were wearing very impressive gear, total protection from the outside environment, but I suddenly got The Fear, as if an ebola virus was somehow going to swoop out of the TV screen into my living-room and get me. Superstitious, yeah. It's just what I feel about nukes, with the one difference that there's a place on the planet for ebola. But not for nukes. It doesn't depend on mere feelings and superstition as Dyer implies. There's ample fact and reason to support it, unless you're thinking risk-assessment rather than precautionary principle. What facts and reason say is that nukes are not an appropriate subject for a risk-assessment approach. Best Keith Dyer was **so*obviously** hacking for the nuke industry on this one. the piece is so riddled with industry distortions and and falsehoods, either he (or the nuke PR guy who wrote it for him) must have been making progressive commission on a per-deviation-from-the-truth basis. Seriously, seriously twisted and slanted. And that's just in dealing with the facts. Never mind the dismissive and derisive tone with which he talks about 'the Greens.' His assertion that 'Greens' fail to understand that nuke plants aren't thermonuclear weapons, is freaking laughable. Someone needs to ask him what is his position on the war on terror and civil liberties, in particular, with respect to dirty bombs.` Anyway, Darryl makes good points re life-cycle emissions. Furthermore, nuclear has a life-cycle ranging from thousands of years to millions of years, depending on the isotope. So not only do we not know how much energy it will take to safely store it, we have already accumulated many thousands of tons of this stuff without even coming to terms with the fact that planning on such a timescale is essentially impossible. In other words, 'safe storage' is a purely theoretical notion, in practice unattainable. But the point is that it isn't, and doesn't have to be, a choice between two negatives. It will be so if we fail to collectively act. And I really do mean We. So far, we've been brought to this point by the decisions of a few. Not so much against our will, strictly speaking (in the U.S., at least), but certainly by being kept in the dark about the alternatives; about the very fact that there were alternatives, even. This is not the case anymore. The information is out there, but unfortunately there are still too many of us who are not engaging, either out of low morale or the idea that professional and/or social standing will be put at risk. This of course is ridiculous, because those are going to be at risk either way. So start with the small easy stuff and go from there. Try reaching out in your community to start a conversation about what can be done. A lot of people may reject the idea, but there are those who won't. Believe me, they're out there. On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.comwrote: Jason, I disagree. I usually expect better of Gwyn Dyer, but I think he missed the mark on this one. Assuming that nuclear generation can only be replaced by fossil fuels in the medium to long term is a relic of a 'hard path' mindset. Shifting to fossil fuels in the short
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Hi, Keith. Thanks much, all. I didn't post this piece because I thought it was a great article. I, for one, certainly did not think that was why you posted it (and I doubt anyone else did, either). Apologies if it seemed that way. As Daryl says, one can usually expect better of Dyer. . . Dyer is an unknown to me as this is the first i've seen of him. Not a very auspicious introduction. But between you and Darryl getting his back, so to speak, i'll have to try and withhold judgement. But i will say, it is terribly, terribly, extremely hard to read that piece and not conclude that he was (to put it mildly) not really being above board. ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Well, Just for fun, I've yet to see any real numbers on how this nuclear renaissance actually addresses anything. There's a lot of rhetoric about how it's cleaner than the fossil fuel alternatives, but that's all, just rhetoric. Very little about actually replacing burning fossil carbon with nukes, but rather, the on-the-ground facts are adding nukes to fossil carbon, additionally, not substituting anything. Further, there is question as to whether there actually are any real net gains given the entire life cycle of a nuclear plant. less hype, more facts. - Original Message - From: Jason Mier boomer2...@hotmail.com To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 2:01:41 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming man... no matter which longview you take the results suck. more nukes mean more radioactive slag piles and brownfield sites, but fewer nukes means more smokestacks. honestly, the idea of multimillion year damages bothers me more than something that has the potential to be remediated in a century or two... but the problem there is how much can we adapt in that timeframe? there won't be any islands left in any ocean, a lot of the known coastlines around the world will be gone, and the weather... well... the sahara's probably going to grow up and take a trip around the world... ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Jason, I disagree. I usually expect better of Gwyn Dyer, but I think he missed the mark on this one. Assuming that nuclear generation can only be replaced by fossil fuels in the medium to long term is a relic of a 'hard path' mindset. Shifting to fossil fuels in the short term is a matter of convenience, familiarity and subsidized fossil fuel pricing. There are better options, starting with negawatts - conservation and increased efficiency. For example, in Canada we have demonstrated Factor Five housing - houses built at a small premium (1-5%) over the cost of a conventional house, but using only 20% the energy for operation (space heating, hot water, cooking, refrigeration, lighting, etc.) California proved we can drop electricity consumption by over 20% - virtually overnight - when Enron and friends gamed the 'deregulated' system for fun and profit. We have more examples. Efficient lighting is a money-saver as well as an energy-saver. Then we can start switching to sustainable energy sources. Low-tech solar thermal for space and water heating can be remarkably inexpensive, if you are prepared to do a little research and hands-on construction work. Large scale wind energy is already less expensive per kWh produced than coal or other fossil fuel generation option. Photovoltaics are less expensive per kWh produced than peak power options from many utilities (coal and natural gas peaker plants). One could even look into things like biofuels or electrically-driven transportation options smile. I can go on (and I have). However, as my parting thought on this topic, question the assumption that nuclear is some kind of GHG panacea. It takes a lot of energy to make the massive amounts of concrete and specialty metals to build a nuclear generating station, and to mine and refine (and frequently enrich) uranium, and a lot of water is used for cooling the plants (which implies a lot of waste heat being produced). A couple of studies a few years back (sorry not close to hand in current household chaos) did look into this. I cited them in my book. Looks like at least one of those has been updated (http://www.stormsmith.nl/np-esecurco2.html). And at this point, we don't even have a credible idea as to how much energy is required to truly dispose of spent fuel waste or fully decommission a nuclear generating station. Nor do we put a real value on the risk posed by events like Chernobyl or Fukushima. If the next question is, what can the individual do to make a difference, well, I wrote this book ... Anyway, suffice it to say there is a lot an individual can do, some quickly, and some that takes a bit of planning. We did not get here in a day, nor should we expect to resolve the issue in a day. However, the sooner we start the journey, the sooner we will get to our destination (saner energy use and production). Darryl On 28/11/2012 2:01 AM, Jason Mier wrote: man... no matter which longview you take the results suck. more nukes mean more radioactive slag piles and brownfield sites, but fewer nukes means more smokestacks. honestly, the idea of multimillion year damages bothers me more than something that has the potential to be remediated in a century or two... but the problem there is how much can we adapt in that timeframe? there won't be any islands left in any ocean, a lot of the known coastlines around the world will be gone, and the weather... well... the sahara's probably going to grow up and take a trip around the world... ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel -- Darryl McMahon Author, The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
Dyer was **so*obviously** hacking for the nuke industry on this one. the piece is so riddled with industry distortions and and falsehoods, either he (or the nuke PR guy who wrote it for him) must have been making progressive commission on a per-deviation-from-the-truth basis. Seriously, seriously twisted and slanted. And that's just in dealing with the facts. Never mind the dismissive and derisive tone with which he talks about 'the Greens.' His assertion that 'Greens' fail to understand that nuke plants aren't thermonuclear weapons, is freaking laughable. Someone needs to ask him what is his position on the war on terror and civil liberties, in particular, with respect to dirty bombs.` Anyway, Darryl makes good points re life-cycle emissions. Furthermore, nuclear has a life-cycle ranging from thousands of years to millions of years, depending on the isotope. So not only do we not know how much energy it will take to safely store it, we have already accumulated many thousands of tons of this stuff without even coming to terms with the fact that planning on such a timescale is essentially impossible. In other words, 'safe storage' is a purely theoretical notion, in practice unattainable. But the point is that it isn't, and doesn't have to be, a choice between two negatives. It will be so if we fail to collectively act. And I really do mean We. So far, we've been brought to this point by the decisions of a few. Not so much against our will, strictly speaking (in the U.S., at least), but certainly by being kept in the dark about the alternatives; about the very fact that there were alternatives, even. This is not the case anymore. The information is out there, but unfortunately there are still too many of us who are not engaging, either out of low morale or the idea that professional and/or social standing will be put at risk. This of course is ridiculous, because those are going to be at risk either way. So start with the small easy stuff and go from there. Try reaching out in your community to start a conversation about what can be done. A lot of people may reject the idea, but there are those who won't. Believe me, they're out there. On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Darryl McMahon dar...@econogics.comwrote: Jason, I disagree. I usually expect better of Gwyn Dyer, but I think he missed the mark on this one. Assuming that nuclear generation can only be replaced by fossil fuels in the medium to long term is a relic of a 'hard path' mindset. Shifting to fossil fuels in the short term is a matter of convenience, familiarity and subsidized fossil fuel pricing. There are better options, starting with negawatts - conservation and increased efficiency. For example, in Canada we have demonstrated Factor Five housing - houses built at a small premium (1-5%) over the cost of a conventional house, but using only 20% the energy for operation (space heating, hot water, cooking, refrigeration, lighting, etc.) California proved we can drop electricity consumption by over 20% - virtually overnight - when Enron and friends gamed the 'deregulated' system for fun and profit. We have more examples. Efficient lighting is a money-saver as well as an energy-saver. Then we can start switching to sustainable energy sources. Low-tech solar thermal for space and water heating can be remarkably inexpensive, if you are prepared to do a little research and hands-on construction work. Large scale wind energy is already less expensive per kWh produced than coal or other fossil fuel generation option. Photovoltaics are less expensive per kWh produced than peak power options from many utilities (coal and natural gas peaker plants). One could even look into things like biofuels or electrically-driven transportation options smile. I can go on (and I have). However, as my parting thought on this topic, question the assumption that nuclear is some kind of GHG panacea. It takes a lot of energy to make the massive amounts of concrete and specialty metals to build a nuclear generating station, and to mine and refine (and frequently enrich) uranium, and a lot of water is used for cooling the plants (which implies a lot of waste heat being produced). A couple of studies a few years back (sorry not close to hand in current household chaos) did look into this. I cited them in my book. Looks like at least one of those has been updated (http://www.stormsmith.nl/np-** esecurco2.html http://www.stormsmith.nl/np-esecurco2.html). And at this point, we don't even have a credible idea as to how much energy is required to truly dispose of spent fuel waste or fully decommission a nuclear generating station. Nor do we put a real value on the risk posed by events like Chernobyl or Fukushima. If the next question is, what can the individual do to make a difference, well, I wrote this book ... Anyway, suffice it to say there is a lot an individual can do, some quickly, and some
Re: [Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
man... no matter which longview you take the results suck. more nukes mean more radioactive slag piles and brownfield sites, but fewer nukes means more smokestacks. honestly, the idea of multimillion year damages bothers me more than something that has the potential to be remediated in a century or two... but the problem there is how much can we adapt in that timeframe? there won't be any islands left in any ocean, a lot of the known coastlines around the world will be gone, and the weather... well... the sahara's probably going to grow up and take a trip around the world... ___ Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
[Biofuel] Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/print/eo20121126gd.html Anti-nuclear madness doesn't jibe with concern about global warming By GWYNNE DYER LONDON - After the loss of 10 million American lives in the Three-Mile Island calamity in 1979, the death of 2 billion in the Chernobyl holocaust in 1986, and now the abandonment of all of northern Japan following the death of millions in last year's Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, it is hardly surprising that the world's biggest users of nuclear power are shutting their plants down. Oh, wait a minute. ... This just in! Nobody died in the Three-Mile Island calamity; 28 plant workers were killed and 15 other people subsequently died of thyroid cancer in the Chernobyl holocaust; and nobody died in the Fukushima catastrophe. In fact, northern Japan has not been evacuated after all. But never mind all that. They really are shutting their nuclear plants down. They have already shut them down in Japan. All of the country's 50 nuclear reactors were closed for safety checks after the tsunami damaged the Fukushima plant, and only two have reopened so far. The government, which was previously planning to increase nuclear's share of the national energy mix to half by 2030, has now promised to close every nuclear power plant in Japan permanently by 2040. In a policy document released last September, the Japanese government declared that one of the pillars of the new strategy is to achieve a society that does not depend on nuclear energy as soon as possible. In the short run, Japan is making up for the lost nuclear energy by running tens of thousands of diesel generators flat out. Oil and gas imports have doubled. In the long run, they'll probably just burn more coal. The new Japanese plan says that the country will replace the missing nuclear energy with an eightfold increase in renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.), and the development of sustainable ways to use fossil fuels. But going from 4 percent to 30 percent renewables in the energy mix will take decades, and nobody has yet found an economically sustainable way to sequester the greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. The truth is that as the Arctic sea ice melts and grain harvests are devastated by heat waves and drought, the world's third-largest user of nuclear energy has decided to go back to emitting lots and lots of carbon dioxide. In Germany, where the Greens have been campaigning against nuclear power for decades, Chancellor Angela Merkel has done a U-turn and promised to close all the country's nuclear reactors by 2022. She also promised to replace them with renewable power sources, of course, but the reality there will also be that the country burns more fossil fuels. Belgium is also shutting down its nuclear plants, and Italy has abandoned its plans to build some. Even France, which has taken 80 percent of its power from nuclear power plants for decades without the slightest problem, is joining the panic. President Francois Hollande's new government has promised to lower the country's dependence on nuclear energy to 50 percent of the national energy mix. But you can see why he and his colleagues had to do it. After all, nuclear energy is a kind of witchcraft, and the public is frightened. The tireless campaign against nuclear energy that the Greens have waged for decades is finally achieving its goal, at least in the developed countries. Their behavior cannot be logically reconciled with their concern for the environment, given that abandoning nuclear will lead to a big rise in fossil fuel use, but they have never managed to make a clear distinction between the nuclear weapons they feared and the peaceful use of nuclear power. The Greens prattle about replacing nuclear power with renewables, which might come to pass in some distant future. But the brutal truth for now is that closing down the nuclear plants will lead to a sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions, in precisely the period when the race to cut emissions and avoid a rise in average global temperature of more than 2 degrees Celsius will be won or lost. Fortunately, their superstitious fears are largely absent in more sophisticated parts of the world. Only four new nuclear reactors are under construction in the European Union, and only one in the United States, but there are 61 being built elsewhere. Over two-thirds of them are being built in the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China), where economies are growing fast and governments are increasingly concerned about both pollution and climate change. But it's not enough to outweigh the closure of so many nuclear plants in the developed world, at least in the short run. India may be aiming at getting 50 percent of its energy from nuclear power by 2050, for example, but the fact is that only 3.7 percent of its electricity is nuclear right now. So the price of nuclear fuel has collapsed in the past four
