Slashdot Mirror
Creator of the Gaia Hypothesis Urges Nuclear Power
SteamyMobile writes "Professor James Lovelock, creator the Gaia Hypothesis and long-time intellectual leader of the Green movement, says that global warming is a dire threat, more urgent than was previously realized. He compares the threat of global warming with the threat of the Nazis in 1938, and says that in both cases, the Left was not able to grasp the urgency of the situation and see the necessary solution. What is the necessary solution to stop the global warming problem? He says it's nuclear power. Needless to say, the Greens don't agree with him, and he chides them as having irrational phobias of a safer, cleaner energy sources. Even if the "Left" isn't fully aware of the urgency of the world's energy problems, it seems like Slashdot is."
We just don't have the time to develop those techniques into really usefull ones. Before we can apply them on a large scale and before we are able to get all our energy supplies from such sources we need to have a temporary solutation.
Alan Perlis once said: "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing"
If a guy like him advocates nuclear power as a way to avoid global warming, the risks must be enormous indeed.
Even if global warming is not as bad as predicted, the about face is certainly interesting.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I really like it when people involved in saving the planet and all that are still able to think rationally use see things like nuclear power as useful. And it is useful, even if only for a few generations nuclear power is one of the best options available. That said I want an array of satellites collecting solar energy and sending it down to earth via microwave as soon as is feasible. And then after that I want feasible fusion damnit.
vampirical
The sun? We've been harnesting the sun for thousands of years for our energy, why not keep going? We know we can grow things with the sun, we know the sun's rays can be converted into heat to turn a turbine, we know that the sun's radiation can be converted directly into electrical energy. From that alone, we have enough to power ourselves for quite a while.. Question is, when will everyone be convenced there is a problem, and when they are convenced, how willing will they be to give up their SUV's?
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
These green people are ultimatly interested in saving the human race...not the planet.
Do we really think that we, with a few fossil fuels and other environmental crap we throw into the air and water over the past 150 year, can really change the Earth?
The Earth will shuck us off like a bad case of fleas. 1 million years from now...which is but an eyeblink to the Earth...we'll be long gone. A footnote as it were. The Earth will heal itself.
So please, stop with the "Save the planet" high-horse. The planet isn't going anywhere...WE ARE! So say what you really mean...save the humans.
(paraphrased quite a bit from George Carlin btw)
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Could very well be.
... ... or the SMART initiative guys getting all festery when the "Day After" movies were made (about nuclear war) ... or all the DNA-priests getting all aglow after "GATTACA" ...
Its not like all the missile and space-radar scientists weren't getting all white-paper'y about meteorite attacks when that WhatsItsName Bruce Willis movie was in the theatres
Hollywood. Its propaganda, done right.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Not a great deal more energy than mining fossil fuels.
I tend to agree that nuclear fission is a pretty good interrim solution, particularly when coupled with aggressive conservation measures.
The problem is, it's got a lot of problems that we are simply deferring. Two big ones: risk of disaster, and what to do with the dead fuel rods. The first is controllable, the second is a pain in the ass. Both are suffer from the 'not in my backyard' mentality.
But nuclear power is NOT a long-term solution. There probably isn't even a long-term magic bullet. Some of the things that can save us: high-temperature superconductors (for zero-loss transmission lines), nuclear fusion, alternative energy sources, and reduction of power use.
The latter needs to be taken seriously with the others. If it's too hot to live where you are in the summer, the right answer might be 'don't live there' rather than 'turn up the A/C'. This is easy to manage: simply let the price of power rise to match how much it actually costs to make.. INCLUDING the environmental cleanup costs of the technology you use.
---N
Ok, we all know that the sea levels will rise, the weather will be come (even more) unpredictable, etc,etc. But every documentary I have seen on this subject, seems to use 2 different sources for its data. At first, they use data gained from antarctic ice cores that show that this has happened ("global warming") time and again over a considerable amount of time. Then suddenly, the doomsday scenario is based on the fact that the changes in the global climate have happened in the 400 or so years since records began.
How can you accept both points of view ? It is misleading to suggest that humans are the cause of global warming. I fully agree that we as a race should seek some non-polluting energy source over one that has shown to be bad for us, let alone the planet, but to use misleading information to achieve social indignation is wrong.
Global warming is a catch-phrase, being used to describe potential doom. Even if we all stopped using electricity and cars etc, then the planet would still go through immense environmental changes, as it has done since the beginning. News flash, the sahara used to be green and pleasant, and before that it was under water. Are we as humans responsible for that too ?
Except, nuclear energy is not a temporary solution, more like an eternal problem and a very high short term risk. As long as people drive around in 10+ l/100km (25miles/gallon) cars, there's absolutely no rational reason for nuclear energy. You can buy less wasteful cars _right_now_. You can build homes with excellent efficiency _right_now_.
Don't get me wrong -- the Nazis were bad, bad men. But raising the "Nazi bogeyman" at every turn is really the sign of intellectual laziness.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
I don't know very much about three mile island, but as I recall, the Soviet reactor designs were all quite unreliable. At the time, I guess what the Soviet Government really cared about was the electricity plutonium that the reactor produced. I think Chernobyl melted down around 82? In the 80s I think. I'm only 14, so I don't remember the Soviets, but being towards the end of the Cold War, the Soviet economic situation would have been quite poor, and they could not have afforded maintenence, etc. as well as we can now.
Since technology has improved, I would have thought that today's reactors would be safer and more efficient than designs from 20 years ago. I'm from Australia where we don't have nuclear rectors (except for Lucas Heights, near Sydney, but that is used for research, producing isotopes for radio-medicine, and producing more pure silicon (neutron bombardment doping, i think) by using neutrons to turn 1 in a billon silicon atoms into phosphorus, producing N-Type silicon. Lucas Heights has 15% of the world market, and I would like to see how well a processor made of this would overclock).
Nuclear power will be the way of the future, but Australia will take time to adopt it, with a supply of coal to last hundreds of years.
For those who doubt the effects of global warming, I recommend taking up SCUBA. Not only is it a great sport, you'll get to see first-hand the effects of global warming, and it WILL scare you.
The Seychelles reefs are just about gone. What was once arguably the best reef to dive in the world outside the Great Barrier is now a graveyard.
And this knowledge isn't from reading an alarmist's evaluation of the situation, it is from seeing it with my own eyes on dives I did last year on Mahe, Praslin and La Digue. A conservative estimate would be that 90% of the reefs are dead. Probably closer to 95%, but as I didn't dive every square inch, I can't say there aren't some pristine patches somewhere. There very well may be, I just didn't see them.
As for the Florida and Great Barrier reefs, I can also attest to their ailing health. I live just above the Keys and dive them regularly, and I dove the GB Reef about 10 weeks ago. The destruction is real.
Don't take anyone's word for it. Go strap on a set of tanks and see it for yourself. It's a wake-up call.
Tal
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
Get a Clue: Building and running a nuclear plant requires LESS energy than it takes to build and maintain a solar or wind farm of the same capacity. The energy payback time for building a nuclear plant is less than a month. The energy payback time for building a wind farm is 2 months to 2 years and 2 to 7 years for solar.
Also, what is not frequently mentioned is the difference between baseload and peaking power plants. Nuclear, coal, hydro are baseload power stations that provide constant energy throughout the day. Natural gas and renewables are peaking plants that cover periods of peak demand - though renewables are less reliable even here. Therefore, renewables are not an attractive option for a large fraction of our energy use since they cannot compete for the baseload market.
current situation:
we use oil for energy. Problem, oil is a finite resource, it WILL run out. Alternatives are needed. Okay, we agree so far.
What about using the most obvious Nuclear Energy..The Sun?
No viable alternatives exist yet. To quote verbatim:
Direct conversion of sunlight to electricity by solar cells is a promising technology, and already locally useful, but the amount of electricity which can be generated by that method is not great compared with demand. Because it is a low grade energy, with a low conversion efficiency (about 15%) capturing solar energy in quantity requires huge installations--many square miles. About 8 percent of the cells must be replaced each year. But the big problem is how to store significant amounts of electricity when the Sun is not available to produce it (Trainer, 1995), for example, at night. The problem remains unsolved. Because of this, solar energy cannot be used as a dependable base load. And, the immediate end product is electricity, a very limited replacement for oil. Also, adding in all the energy costs of the production and maintenance of PV (photovoltaic) installations, the net energy recovery is low (Trainer, 1995).
If you can think of a way to store this energy, fantastic, please share. Otherwise, back to the drawing board.
Do you need a website upgrade?
Even 22-27mpg is bad to a European. I get 40mpg in my fairly sporty car, the everyday version of it gets about 60mpg.
I'm not aware of any "normal" 2WD vehicle on sale in the UK which would get 22mpg, even given the 1US gallon = 0.8 UK gallons conversion.
Ewan
There is one prominent natural resource that we still have plenty of....
Unfortunately that resource is coal. And burning coal is some of the nastiest shit we've ever done.
That is a whole 'nother worry about the oil situation: at some point, oil prices will start to go up, and won't ever stop. Maybe that's happening now. We'll have a choice - do we supplant our flagging energy sources with clean, risky, expensive nuclear... or clean, inadequate, expensive wind/solar... or dirty, plentiful, cheap coal?
We as a species have made decisions like this before and it doesn't look promising. Frankly, the problem of dealing with spent rods is a lot more palatable than a resurgence in coal burning....
(Aside: let's not forget, nuclear critics... 'threat of terrorism' is not a good reason to stop doing anything worthwhile)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
You appear to be rebutting the "SUVs get bad mileage" meme by redefining 22-27mpg as good mileage.
The SUV syndrome is mob mentality at its utter finest. "If no-body else is going to stop driving SUV's, why should I stop" is really one of the biggest problems with this issue, a typical Consumerican viewpoint, derived directly from the callous mob mentality currently perpetuated by "consumerist" ideals .
SUV owners are subject to supply and demand just like anyone else. As gas prices go up demand for SUV's will drop. I think I read somewhere that it is already happening. Do we need nuclear energy? Well... define "need". In my opinion "The Great Transition" [away from oil as a primary energy source] might be painful but the predictions of disaster are greatly overblown. Between belt tightening and alternative sources I think we can make it. As for global warming, again, the "new" environment will be different, it will suck in some ways and be better in others. Lastly, in all of this, the simplest and most powerful solution for making a transition is almost never mentioned. Tax oil (BEFORE refining). Try this thought experiment. Tax oil. Consumption goes down (supply/demand etc.). Competing suppliers respond with lower prices barrel prices in an attempt to keep market share. We (as a nation) effectively pay *less* for our oil AND our consumption rate decreases AND new markets are created for energy effiency AND alternative sources of energy become more attractive AND greenhouse gas emmisions decrease.
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
I'm sorry to tell you, but sometimes numbers _do_ matter. It's true, we can get energy from sun, wind, biomass or tides, but it's the order of magnitude that kills you.
I didn't do the math, but try to think: what can you get from sun energy? 5% growing crops? 60% fotocells? Even at 100% it's just not enough. Covering square miles with cheap reliable high-efficiency solar panels would (maybe) get us close, but we don't even have that. From 1 square meter you can maybe boil a glass of water, but you can't heat your house in winter, nor make cars or computers.
There's more energy in the wind and in the tides, but 1. it's still not enough and 2. how much energy goes into melting 1 ton of steel? not to mention processing of ore etc. It takes years for such technology to break even (wind turbines have a lot of steel in them).
The real answer (not counting truly non-conventional approaches) is fusion, but nobody pretends it's closer then 50 years.
What we have left is classic nuclear power, or fission. It has its problems, mainly radioactive waste, but has a big hidden advantage: currently all nuclear power plants use old technologies, sometimes even ancient. Why? because the political climate is against innovation in this field, and sometimes greed: it's expensive to update a power plant that still works.
New plants can be cheaper, more efficient and a lot cleaner then what we have now, _if_ we give them a chance.
And another aspect: we, as a species, will never reduce our energy consumption in the forseeable future. SUVs or not, a lot more power goes into industry then cars and air conditioning. _And_ there's two thirds of the planet that still has to reach the level of cars and air conditioning, and they're not going to care about ecology until they do (nor should they, truth be told).
What's really frustrating about nuclear power is that the Greens are so vehemently opposed to it, and they're exactly the people who should love it and embrace it. They fear it because they think it's bad 'for nature', when in fact it's only bad FOR HUMANS. Humans are uniquely vulnerable to radioactivity. Most(all?) other species are not.
:-)
Consider Bikini Atoll. It was the site for many, many bomb tests, including the first hydrogen bomb. You probably think of it as a blasted desert, but in actual fact, it's a tropical paradise. It is in BETTER shape now, ecologically, then it was when humans lived there! It's even safe to visit, but you wouldn't want to eat the bananas.
In other words, nuclear power is WONDERFUL for the environment; the more radioactivity, the better (within reason at least), because it chases nasty humans out of the area and lets normal plants and animals live in (relative) peace.
The primary beneficiaries of nuclear power are also the ones who are hurt most by it, which seems eminently fair. We need to be very careful with nuclear waste for OUR OWN sake, but as far as Nature is concerned, it just doesn't matter all that much. This is exactly backwards to our existing power generation, in which we get all the benefit but pay virtually none of the cost.
Additionally, although many people simply will refuse to hear this, we have made many improvements in nuclear power since we last built plants. We had a tendency to grandiose engineering in the 70s, and we paid for that. There are much cleaner and simpler designs now. Materials science has improved enormously as well. Couple that with our much improved ability to monitor remotely, and we should be able to build plants that are nearly failproof. And if they DO fail, well, it's only humanity that will suffer.
I just don't understand why the Greens aren't all over this.... if they don't embrace this idea, it seems likely to me that their true motivation is less about "loving Nature" and more about "hating humans".
Try this thought experiment. Tax oil. Consumption goes down (supply/demand etc.). Competing suppliers respond with lower prices barrel prices in an attempt to keep market share. We (as a nation) effectively pay *less* for our oil AND our consumption rate decreases AND new markets are created for energy effiency AND alternative sources of energy become more attractive AND greenhouse gas emmisions decrease.
Tax oil. Keep taxing it for several months, maybe years. Lose elections. Stop taxing oil.
And if you weren't an ecoterrorist you would have stopped to read his post. What did you do, search the thread for "supply" and then deliver a prepaid rant? He was responding to the poster ABOVE him, not the story. The grand-post asked what would get people out of SUV's. He delivered a response that was a hell of a lot more reasonable than killing people.
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," said Rep. Billy Tauzin. Gore - 50,999,897 Bush - 50,456,002
Do you honestly think that a few scattered dumps of well-sealed nuclear waste would be enough to keep developers out of the wilderness? These guys don't care. Just bury it and forget it until the foundations of their 30-years-then-tear-'em-down buildings fill up with krypton and radon. Put them under the parking lot. Hell, leave them on the neighbor's doorstep and let him take care of it. This solution neglects to take human shortsightedness and greed into account.
Why should we have to give up our luxuries? Just put enough nuclear plants on-line to generate electricity so cheaply that it gradually displaces oil fired facilities and powers practically everything that doesn't move. That would reduce America's dependence on oil so much that the price of oil would drop enough to provide cheap gasoline for SUV's! ;-)
Note: I don't drive an SUV, and in fact I have a 4 Kw photovoltaic "net-metered" array on the roof that generates about half of the electricity I consume (it uses the power grid as a giant storage battery!); however, I think it's fair to say that the attitude of a typical "greenie" is for everyone to sacrifice and use less. All else being equal, I would much rather increase production and produce more, so that everyone could have as much of everything they want very inexpensively. Sacrifice that is pointless and unnecessary is without virtue.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
Thanks for chiming in! Many Americans seem to forget just how crappy our gas mileage is here when compared to the cars other countries drive.
I drive a sports car with a 350ci engine and get 26 m/g on the highway. In the city, I get anywhere from 18-22, depending on how I drive. Fact is, I live fairly far out, so most of my miles are highway miles. Toss in the fact that most SUV drivers are alone most of the time and generally are NOT getting 22-27 mpg (more like 12-22, and that's on the highway), and I think that's down right shameful. I can at least claim that I often have two or three people in the car with me and I have aerodynamics, by far, in my favor. Anytime you have a brick which you want to push through the air, you're going to require a bigger engine. Bigger engines mean worse mileage. Add in the fact that most Americans typically drive 5-25 over the posted speed limits, especially on the highways, and mileage typically drops through the floor.
People who drive SUV's, IMO, greatly suffer from the heard mentality anyways. So, any logical argument is more than likely going to be completely lost. IMO, owning a SUV is about status and keeping up with the neighbors. None of this will change until car markers stop pushing, "you are what you drive." Sadly, most people see a SUV as a "cool and trendy owner, ready to go anywhere, anytime." The sad thing is, SUV really translates into "PIG".
My favorite excuse that SUV owners give is, "I have to transport the kids". Which translates into, two kids and two adults. Seems like most cars can do that fine. Worse, both parents are driving SUVs. How many times do they need to haul two SUV full of kids around. Typically, not many or simply never. People that give that excuse are either stupid or think that the people they are telling it to are even more stupid than them. I guess that may be the case if people are really buying into that load of crap.
The "consumption goes down" step corresponds to the "then a miracle occurs" in the famous S. Harris cartoon. You'll see a little blip. Consumption will go down by an insignificant amount for an insignificant length of time and then return to pretty much the former trend. And then the tax disadvantage will be eaten away with a dozen abatements.
People can't afford to junk working vehicles just because fuel prices are spiking. They won't do it. Not for long, anyway. They hold onto older cars *longer* because the money they'd spend on new ones is being swallowed by the gas pump. Once they find a way to bring fuel prices down, the people who were *forced* to accept something smaller than they wanted will go back to bigger models and the manufacturers will be happy to supply their demand for premium merchandise. The only ones left driving small efficient cars will be those of us who prefer small efficient cars.
That's the way things work outside of repressive dictatorships -- people are free to make their own choices according to their own values. You won't make lasting changes in behavior without making lasting changes in values.
We have the technology to make safe, efficient, and clean nuclear plants in the United States. We haven't had an accident. Even Three Mile Island, oft-quoted as a disaster, completely contained the malfunction and it is safe to tour the site today as it was right after the incident.
m l
The only problem with Nuclear power is that the plants take years to build. There is no hope that after investing hundreds of millions of dollars to build a plant that politics will shut it down once it starts up. In effect, no investor will approach it.
The United States needs to start a campaign to educate its citizenry about the benefits and real drawbacks to the nuclear power industry. We need to teach in our schools the facts of nuclear power from where we obtain the raw materials, how they are processed, how much waste is produced, and how efficient it is. If we laid out the facts, including how long the isotopes will last and where we will store them, then maybe we can get some serious private investment and some serious growth in the industry. Perhaps we can totally replace our coal and natural gas burning plants with nuclear ones. Maybe we can retrofit our commercial ships with the safe reactors that our submarines and battleships have.
The bottom line is that there is so much misunderstanding about radiation, nuclear isotopes, and the like. The restrictions placed on background radiation on the Yucca Mountain was more severe than the restrictions placed on granite statues in the capitol building. A smart researcher brought his geiger counter with him and demonstrated that some of the statues we adore are actually more radioactive than the Yucca Mountain would be allowed to be!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,21015,00.ht
I for one am still hoping our 1950's utopian dream about nuclear power will be realized.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Well, the problem is NIMBY. Nevada would have been a good place, I used to live there, I visited the site, and it seemed like it was a good choice for long term storage. I worked at the NSCEE (National Supercomputing Center for Energy and the Environment), and I've seen the simulations of what would happen with a leaky barrel and so forth, and none of it scared me at all... I'd have felt perfectly safe.
The only dangerous part, IMO, would have only been getting the barrels to the facility - but I've also seen the tests they did on the transportation containers - getting hit by a train at full speed and not breaking. IOW, IMO, the most dangerous part is not particularly dangerous.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Um, you realize if we can't get enouch energy from the Sun to support our lifestyle, we're doomed. It's the ONLY source of new (not stored) energy for trillions of miles. Then again, if a 360 trillion terawatt fusion plant in the sky isn't enough for us, maybe we all deserve to die.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
Most people don't seem to be aware of the fact that coal power plants are more radioactive than nuclear power plants.
It is also now possible to design nuclear power plants so that they fail safe, unlike the poorly designed plant at Chernobyl.
Safety-driven memes are difficult to counter, but once we run out of options perhaps we'll do what we must.
You know that oil consumption in China since 1990 has more than doubled Source. India's is growing rapidly too Source. I think it's time we realized that the rapid economic development of 2 countries containing a mere 2 billion+ people has something to do with rising oil prices in the U.S and the increase in Greenhouse gas emmissions. Guess what! The Indian government doesn't care to much about what the European/U.S centric green movement says and the Chinese care even less. That's why they demanded to be exempt from the provisions of the Kyoto treaty.
Environmental issues aside, what are the real costs of nuclear power? In the early days it was sold as the cheapest energy source available -- "practically free." The question is, how cheap is it, really? How much of the cost is actually being carried by the taxpayer?
From research and development to mining and processing uranium to disposing of waste, everything is subsidized by government programs. Since many of these are high security defense programs, we'll never know the true cost. Furthermore, government contractors like Bechtel who do this work also do other government work, obscuring the true cost of the nuclear work. A similar example would be Boeing -- its cost of producing airliners is subsidized by cushy defense contracts, but we'll never really know by how much.
I'm not arguing that government subsidies are wrong. But we must know the true costs if we're going to make fair comparisons, and the true costs of nuclear power are very well hidden.