Posts Tagged by nuclear
Nuclear Industry Buries Self
| January 4, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Nuclear |
Here’s a good article on the nuclear industry, suggesting that 2012 should be the year that we finally “bury it.”
Though I love the guy’s writing, I’m not sure we need the dramatics here. Nuclear is fantastically expensive – more so all the time – and thus I believe it’s buried itself. By the time a nuclear plant could be planned, permitted, built, and put online, a minimum of 8 – 10 years, the costs will be even higher than they are today, and the price of competitive solutions, i.e., renewables, will have fallen. Never mind the danger and the public outcry; no one, not even the fabulously moneyed and powerful nuclear industry, can sell a solution that is fantastically expensive.
So long.
Related posts:
Thanksgiving – An Appropriate Time to Appreciate Mankind’s Benefactors
| November 24, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Fossil Fuels |
Albert Einstein left us a number of gifts, most obviously his landmark breakthroughs in theoretical physics. The other, in my estimation, is the utter truckload of pithy philosophic quotes about mankind’s role in the universe. If you’re looking for something that will keep you out of trouble for a few hours, check this out – there are ten full pages of them.
Perhaps the most often quoted is this:
We can’t solve problems with the same kind of thinking we used to create them.
… which is often invoked by environmentalists to suggest that we’re foolish to count on the fossil fuel and nuclear industries to deal with the pollution and other externalities that come along with their products.
I’m with you all the way, good sir, and suggest that a combination of new modes of thinking are in order here:
1) Environmentalism itself, inspiring more and more people to act responsibly vis-a-vis the natural world
2) Energy conservation per se, making wholesale reductions in consumption, driven by building retrofits, mass transit, electric vehicles, etc.
3) Renewable energy – biting the bullet and making the investment in a clean energy future
Again, thanks to the ultimate man of ideas.
Related posts:
The True Costs of Various Sources of Energy
| June 12, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Nuclear |
A big part of my quest to understand the migration to renewables is wrapping my arms around the issue of costs. I’m headed for San Francisco on Tuesday to conduct two book interviews specifically on this subject; in one, I’ve engaged a true energy techie to walk me through the latest, most detailed reports that compare the costs of various forms of power generation.
Apparently, I’m not the only one struggling to make sense of this. And this subject comes up even more frequently now that nuclear is so prominent in our headlines. I’ve long predicted that, despite the rhetoric, we’d never see another nuclear power plant built in the US, and I based my belief on cost alone. Even if we can magically get a grip on operational safety and waste disposal issues, the costs of nuclear are scary – and unlikely to improve. It strikes me as unlikely that any amount of political and economic power has sufficient strength to sell a solution that – along with all the other things that people find repellant – actually costs more to boot.
Again, it’s not easy to get hard cost estimates, since the bidding for power plants is kept secret, and so most of the figures we have are generated by private institutions – many (all?) of which have their own certain biases.
But here’s an article on the cost of energy generated by various sources that quotes both an agency in the German government and the California Energy Commission, a public agency mandated with the task of periodically examining the costs of various electricity generation technologies that may be used in the state to meet demand. Both suggest that I may be correct.
Related posts:
Derailing the Energy Discussion with Meaningless Facts
| January 10, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
A well-meaning reader quotes some figures from energy industry author Robert Bryce:
Nuclear 300 hp/acre
Nat gas 288 hp/acre
Solar 36 hp/acre
Wind 6.4 hp/acre
Corn ethanol 1/4 hp/acre
From what I’ve seen, Bryce appears to have made his fortune as a well-paid pawn of the traditional energy industry, offering a torrent of spurious reasons that renewables will never work. Here, he talks about a statistic that has virtually no meaning: power/area ratio; it’s certainly not in the top 20 reasons to like or dislike an energy technology. Robert, we have plenty of room, and I have to think that you know that.
So nuclear’s good because you can develop a lot of energy in a small space — by endangering every man, woman and child on Earth for the next 500,000 years — at tremendous cost?
Malicious nonsense.
Related posts:
Making a Change in Energy Policy
| September 3, 2009 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
One hears a great deal about the cyclical rebound in many of the phenomena we come across in our lives – especially political and financial. I’m always amused by the consultants who urge us to invest in blue chip stocks like General Electric and so forth, on the basis that they’ve taken a momentary downturn, but they always come back. Hey, don’t panic, kid — it’s business as usual — it’s feast and famine. But stop and think. Do you know the normal consequence of famine in nature? It’s Death. It’s Extinction.
My point is not to depress you. I don’t think of myself as a cynic; I think of myself as a pragmatist. I’m here to point to what’s real. And that reality is that we are all directly and systematically oppressed. We are all being deliberately lied to and confused by the energy industry.
OK, but what’s new here? Hasn’t the common man been on the receiving end of the deceit of the super-rich pretty much throughout recorded history? As far as I can tell, the answer is yes. But a hundred years ago when we suffered under the exploitation of the great robber barons, the consequences of those lies by the powerful and ruthless people of the day were monopolies and economic depressions. But now, the consequences are the ruination of our oceans, our atmosphere, and the generally hospitable climate on the only planet we have.
So here’s my point. Don’t expect a miracle. In fact, I have a prediction: There will be no miracle. If there is a chance for us, it will come from you and me with our sleeves rolled up, working hard to expose the facts, and make big changes — fast. We live under tyranny – a tyranny of corporatocracy and corruption, where the huge interests of the energy industry are determined to do everything they can to defeat renewables. Why? Why are money and power so alluring to some people who live on the same dying planet with you and me? I don’t know. That’s beyond me. Ask them if you get a chance and let me know. All I’m trying to say that this: if you and I don’t create a huge impact on our way of life right now, we will not get another chance.
Henry Kissinger said not too long ago that if it weren’t for the opposition of the common American to the war in Vietnam, we’d still be there. That’s amazing, isn’t it? An admission of the truth: By the early 1970s, the war had become so unpopular that our leaders in Washington were forced to take a different course.
The situation now is the same. The great oil, coal, and nuclear energy companies and the lobbies that own the congressmen who create the policy at their behest will turn this planet into a wasteland in which only the super rich will have any real quality of life – unless we do something.
Over the coming weeks, you’ll see more functionality here on 2GreenEnergy that will enable us all to become more vocal and more active in making a real change in world energy policy. Let’s hope there’s still time.
Related posts:
Environmental Stewardship – A Note from Belgium
| August 13, 2009 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
Martin van Wunnik of Belgium writes:
….And as for all those guys & gals of the coal, oil, nuclear and auto industries who have been delaying it all for years/decades, I wonder if they can look proudly into the eyes of their innocent kids…
First, thanks for writing, and let me say that I love Belgium. I used to consult to Philips in Eindhoven; I’d fly into Brussels and drive out that incredible road past the fields and beautiful little towns.
This also reminds me to note that we sent “Brass Tack #1″ to people in 22 different countries. My sincere thanks to everyone internationally for their interest.
To your point, as I have written elsewhere, I agree with you 100%. There are thousands of people who will have to explain to Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates that their life’s work consisted to befouling a planet and damaging the health and safety of 6.8 billion innocent people. I’m certainly glad I’m not one of them.
