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.com>wrote:
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 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...
