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
