Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Unrenewed Debate Over Renewable Energy
Little interest in safer, cleaner, even cheaper alternatives to nuclear power
When the March 11 earthquake and tsunami shut down cooling systems at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, U.S. government and nuclear industry spin control kicked in, asserting that a similar disaster couldn’t happen here, and that atomic power is here to stay. Corporate news outlets typically got caught up in this spin, relaying distorted and/or incomplete information about our energy options from a recycled cohort of pro-nuclear sources.
An option hardly mentioned: renewable energy, such as wind, solar and geothermal power.* The topic of energy efficiency and conservation—sure-fire ways to reduce demand for energy in the first place—didn’t even surface. In this way, most of these media missed a chance to use the Japan crisis to truly examine and debate U.S. nuclear policy, or how we might build a safer, cost-effective, low-carbon energy future.
The United States is the world’s largest producer of nuclear energy, getting some 20 percent of its electrical power from 104 nuclear plants (23 of which share Fukushima’s GE Mark 1 design). Nuclear plants aren’t cheap—the world’s first new-generation model, under construction in Finland, is priced at $7.2 billion (Wall Street Journal, 12/1/10)—so keeping older reactors online as long as possible has been considered imperative, along with visions of building a modern array of plants. Indeed, President Obama recently asked for $36 billion in new loan guarantees to offset banks’ and Wall Street’s long-held trepidation about such investments.
One might imagine that the Fukushima disaster would prompt a more critical look at domestic nuclear power ambitions; instead, U.S. corporate media seemed largely to sympathize with the industry. Insensitive headlines blared: “Nuclear Push May Be in Peril” (New York Times, 3/14/11), “Japan Crisis May Derail Nuclear Renaissance: Damage to Reactors May Already Have Doomed Push for New Atomic Power Plants” (L.A. Times, 3/14/11); “Shaken Industry: Tremors from Japan Disaster Rattle Future of U.S. Nuclear Power” (Houston Chronicle, 3/18/11). CNN’s Gloria Borger (3/17/11) commented that nuclear power “just suffered a really bad blow by this, given what happened in Japan.”
These and other pieces in the aftermath of Fukushima relied heavily on establishment pro-nuke figures such as Energy Secretary Steven Chu, his deputy Dan Poneman and Nuclear Regultory Commission chair Greg-ory Jaczko (whose job descriptions include promoting as well as regulating nuclear power), along with the Nuclear Energy Institute trade organization and nuclear plant owners such as GE and Exelon.
Meanwhile, the voices of environmentalists or nuclear opponents were seldom heard. (One exception, Rep. Ed Markey, who supports a moratorium on new plant construction, did appear multiple times.) When they were, the discussion tended to be in the “he said/she said” format, pitting opinion against opinion without much context or additional facts.
For example, there was a debate about atomic power on NPR’s Talk of the Nation (3/15/11) between Greenpeace analyst Jim Riccio and nuclear convert Gwyneth Cravens (who raised the lethal specter of falling wind turbine blades, and at one point claimed that all the spent nuclear fuel in America “could all fit in one Best Buy or one Walmart”). Fox News’ Special Report (3/14/11) pitted an activist advocating funds for research and development on renewables against correspondent Doug McKelway’s ominous observation that for people living “without electricity…many believe the threat posed by nuclear plants may seem tame by comparison.”
But media generally seemed to deny that nuclear power had very many critics at all, even among the environmental movement. Calling nukes “relatively benign,” New York Times reporter John Broder (3/14/11) noted “a growing impetus in the environmental community to support nuclear power as part of a broad bargain on energy and climate policy.” USA Today (3/16/11) echoed that “many environmentalists have embraced the idea of building new plants.”
But as documented by Journal editor Jason Mark (Fall/07), “There is a striking amount of unanimity among the leading environmental organizations that nuclear power is not a smart way to address climate change.” Rather, as anyone following the “green” press knows, they advocate renewables, energy efficiency and conservation.
With actual environmental critics sidelined, the story that emerged accordingly presented nuclear energy as a path with no real alternatives. CNN business correspondent Alison Kosik (3/17/11) asked rhetorically: “What do you replace it with? Coal…is really tough on the environment. Natural gas is expensive.… So, you know, pick your poison with that.” Many outlets made this assessment after providing grisly lists of pollution, illness and mortality from fossil fuels.
Headlines like “Nuclear Power Still Vital for U.S.” (editorial, Lancaster, Pa., Intelligencer Journal, 3/17/11) and “Nuclear Plants ‘Must Be Part of the Mix’” (Newark Star Ledger, 3/15/11) made clear the media position. So did a USA Today editorial (3/16/11): “The United States doesn’t have the option to walk away from nuclear power…which offers huge amounts of 24/7 power with virtually no carbon emissions.” A Chicago Tribune editorial (3/15/11) was more blunt: “Nuclear accidents are scary. But not as scary as a world starved for electricity.” Investors Business Daily (3/16/11) warned, “Those who would shut nuclear power down due to a once-in-a-lifetime, planet-shifting earthquake” are “even more dangerous than Fukushima.”
Advocates in these pieces framed nukes as necessary for U.S. energy independence. However, nuclear plants produce electricity, while petroleum is used mainly for transportation; only 1 percent of U.S. electrical generation comes from burning oil. Nevertheless, CNN’s Gloria Borger (3/17/11) remarked: “Well, if we’re not going to depend on Middle East oil, what are we going to do? And nuclear is just one of those options.” The Houston Chronicle (3/18/11) observed, “Fukushima is casting a long shadow over efforts to jump start U.S. nuclear power plant building as an alternative to dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels.”
Renewables meet the criteria for clean, safe, low-carbon, non-imported energy with the potential to be cost-effective and widespread—but such options were seldom brought up, and quickly dismissed. Cost and time were frequently cited deal-breakers: “Renewable energy sources…hold great future promise. But scaling them up to power cities and factories is a costly prospect,” the Chicago Tribune (3/14/11) editorialized. “I’m a big advocate of renewable,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) told the Star Ledger (3/15/11), “but that’s going to take a while. In the meantime, you need nuclear as part of the mix.” The Orange County Register (3/14/11) called “‘alternative’ energy…a very small percentage of current production and unlikely to rise higher without expensive tax subsidies.”
These claims simply don’t stand up to scrutiny. According to the finance website Alt Energy Stocks (3/24/11), “While it takes 10 years or more to permit and build a nuclear reactor, utility scale wind and solar farms are typically built in three to 18 months.” Because of their risks, the cost of insuring nuclear plants against catastrophe is underwritten by taxpayers under the Price-Anderson Act. Even the CEO of Exelon, the largest nuclear plant operator in the U.S., told the Washington Post (3/17/11) that “new nuclear plants are more expensive than any other energy source except photovoltaic cells.”
Wind is already cheaper per kilowatt-hour than nuclear; the National Research Council estimates that by 2020, the cost of geothermal will be comparable to or lower than that of nuclear (10 cents/kwh versus 6–13 cents/kwh). Solar power, which the Council said “could potentially produce many times the current and projected future U.S. electricity consumption,” is projected to cost anywhere from 8–30 cents/kwh.
According to an analysis from Brook-haven National Laboratory, however, concentrating solar power systems “with enough thermal storage to generate electricity 24 hours a day” during most of the year would eventually cost 10 cents/kwh or less (Scientific American, 10/28/08). A Duke University study found that the cost of solar power has not only recently declined by half, but also is poised to become cheaper than nuclear, even in places that aren’t always sunny (Phoenix Sun, 7/26/10).
Still, one of renewables’ main challenges is obtaining the funding to scale up dramatically. But if it’s plausible to ask for $36 billion in tax subsidies for nukes, say advocates, why not for wind, solar and geothermal?
Other outlets argued that renewables simply would never be sufficient or reliable enough. The Intelligencer Journal (3/17/11) counseled, “Skeptics should keep in mind that renewable energy sources …will not satisfy America’s energy needs alone.” And Allison Kosik of CNN (3/17/11) complained, “solar and wind are volatile and literally dependent on the weather.”
Actually, it’s not necessary for renewables, or any power source, to run full bore 24/7 (though geothermal, drawn from the earth’s underground heat, does)—only that energy be available to respond to demand in real time, as the planned digital “smart grid” could help ensure.
As for renewables’ ability to meet U.S. energy needs, “There is no bar except lobbyists, guts and old thinking,” according to nuclear engineer Arjun Makhijani, president of the nonprofit Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and author of its report, “Carbon Free and Nuclear Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy.” Makhijani told Extra! that by his calculations, available wind energy alone, utilizing existing compressed-air energy-storage technology, could supply 10 times the total electricity generated in the United States today, and the nation could transition to 100 percent renewables by midcentury.
Others, including the Earth Policy Institute’s Lester Brown in his recent book World on the Edge, and Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. DeIucchi in their cover story on sustainability in Scientific American (10/28/09), have come to similar conclusions.
As of this writing, workers were still struggling to contain the reactor damage amid dangerously high radioactivity readings at the Fukushima plant. Fortunately, not all power in the region was lost: Wind turbines, which withstood the quake and tsunami (Huffington Post, 3/17/11), are still turning.
*Hydropower and biomass are also renewables, but, due to certain complexities distinct from the others, are not considered here.
31 Comments so far
Show AllWow, all those words for. "Global warming is a hoax; let's do nothing".
And, as far as the technology being "far too expensive" Did you read the article? Why don't you try rebutting the specific points in the article?
Wind turbines continue to pop up everywhere on the old strip mine land of the Allegheny plateau jsut east of here, so someone must be thinking that they are a good investment. But that someone is Iberdrola, SA using equipment designed and manufactured by Siemens GMBH - inferior, cheese (or paella or bratwurst) eating socialistric Europeans (where some countries expect to be 100% renewable by 2030) . What do they know? "Americans" (properly (USAN's) are the best in everything - a god-chosen race!
And your call to NOT develop wind energy, as your beloved rich-man T. Boone Pickens recently announced, and replace it with shale-gas drilling, I take very, very personal - becasue it is you vile Texas retarded thugs who are coming up to my State and my watershed and poisoning my water and land.
Now, PLEASE GO AWAY.
Good response. He never quite mentioned any of the points in the article; he just expects us to believe his contention that "resistance is futile," as the guy in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy said.
Did you just cut and paste from fox and friends? An image of the grand canyon comes to mind when I think of the chasm between energy we want and energy we need. Conservation is not profitable. Alas.
To whatever extent your interest in nuclear plants might be liquable, I suggest you divest. It will soon become difficult to pretend (or believe, as the case may be), that nuclear, coal, or gas are viable alternatives.
I just got a fixed-price quote on a ten year lease on solar equipment to replace my entire electric bill for well under what my neighbors are paying now. Service is included; I would have nothing to do but flip a switch and sign a check. And that check is just what I would pay for my electric bill: I don't need any other money up front.
I can't wait to see whether the wind estimate that should come in next week will be lower.
These things pay for themselves in less time than it takes to construct a single nuclear plant. No nuclear plant has yet paid for itself in a real sense, since none has yet resolved the problems it has created or will continue to create.
Companies have profited, of course, but only because of massive subsidies. Among the largest of these include having taxpayers subsidize risk to themselves and also subsidize storage or disposition of waste.
I suppose most of us know by now, but just in case, much of the radioactive material released in the recent catastrophic accident in Japan was stored waste.
To anticipate a response that usually turns up eventually, the waste was and elsewhere in Japan is stored pretty much the same way it is in many American plants, generally at government and therefore taxpayer expense (since the government promised to store it and has failed to do so, and so the companies sued, since the government had indeed breached its contract). The design and many of the personnel implementing the Japanese plants were American, and Americans are certainly involved in the service contracts at at least some levels (the details will likely be hard to verify, but that would certainly be how a standard contract of this sort would operate in its rough lines).
Just because a mistake has been made in the past does not mean it works or is viable or even understood.
We face an energy crisis. Fossil fuels, and particularly oil are becoming scarcer, of lower quality, more expensive to extract and contribute to global heating. There is absolutely no doubt that renewal forms of energy are our only viable future. But our current energy infrastructure is based upon a complex electric grid and easily portable gasoline. Getting from where we are now to where we need to be will not happen overnight even if we do make a serious commitment to go there. Renew energy does not scale up as neatly as carbon fuels. So the short to mid term energy will have to rely upon conventional sources, including nuclear, until we can build a decentralized energy infrastructure.
The challenge is to juggle the conventional with the renewable. The cost of conventional energy must be increased through carbon caps or taxes that continue to increase the price over time. At the same time, incentives must be provided to encourage development of decentralized production of electricity and bio-fuels for the applications that simply cannot be converted to electric.
But even that will fail if we do not get serious about conservation. The United States is the Saudi Arabia of wasted energy. We need better building codes, more efficient lighting and appliances and machines.
But we also have to be realistic. The renewable future will not be as prosperous as 'the good old days' when oil was cheap and abundant. But done right, it will be the best possible alternative. We need to find ways to convince the skeptics that renewable energy provides the best economic alternative and make the focus a positive one rather than dwelling on the fear of nuclear accidents or oil spills. Mama always said you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.
We might can get serious R&D for conservation if framed as the quest for increased energy efficiency (the indy 500 races put gas limits on their cars during 70's oil crises. This just made the engineers make more energy efficient AND powerful engines for their cars). This would make it just as "sexy" and exciting as discovering new, exotic technologies through R&D. For example; ennabling a modern house to do what it does now, but on a 20-amp service, instead of a 200-amp service. This is just as all-engrossing as the moon-landing, more world-changing too. If nukes must be relied upon as astop-gap, then serious R&D should be pumped in to Tom Bearden's ideas. He claims a way to accelerate the rate of decay in spent nuke fuel (obiously not at the explosive, "mushroom cloud", rate of "instantaneous") to minutes, instead of centuries. We ought to keep wide-open minds on new-found ways to turn that rotor in the the generator's stator to generate electricity, like Searl's SEG generator, cold fusion, etc....WE don't need to hear those scientists that say "it's impossible". We need to hear & fund those scientists & inventors who actually work on this stuff (afterall, the guy who found TROY is the one who accepted the "fairytale" as being true, NOT the nay-sayers).
You make a lot of good points but two things:
Firstly, any claim to accelerate the rate of decay in spent nuke fuel is absolute snake oil. The decay rate is a fundamental property of an isotope atom. Some isotopes can have their decay rates lengthened (nuclear isomerism), but they aboslutely cannot be shortened. It is as impossible as making water that freezes at anything higher than 0C at 1 atm pressure.
Secondly, efficiency improvements are very necessary, but by themselves they do not reduce consumption, per Jevons paradox, or as I call it, the "Prius effect". In a capitalist market economy, barring governemt regulation, making an energy consuming good more efficient just leads to mure usage of the good. I know of at least one person who bought a Prius, then saw their mileage driven go way up. Another owner I knew moved out to a more distant suburb.
Ok. Just throwing ideas up on the wall to see what sticks. I'm no scientist (I guess that's obvious), but we really have to break the habit of "impossible". I'll be convinced when Tom & co. say "impossible", or if it becomes obvious they are just "grant-farming" for a living (so far, such inventor-types seem to be swimming upstream against the powerful currents of "the conventional view" at great sacrifice of personal fortune & reputation, sometimes life & limb, when some version of "the men in black" come knocking on the door; why??? If it's to "strike it rich", they would have better luck gambling on horse racing). AT LEAST we should rumage around in these overlooked ideas. Find what may be useful, what opens new fields & possibilities for exploring/seeking answers to our problems.
Admittedly a "paradigm shift" in behavior patterns is necessary. That may be in the offing. A "business as usual" attitude will doom us. Bucky Fuller talked about the "emergence-through-emergency" sociological phenomena, and proceeded with his ideas, knowing they wouldn't be tapped until much later, during emergency times.
pjd412 wrote:
'Firstly, any claim to accelerate the rate of decay in spent nuke fuel is absolute snake oil. The decay rate is a fundamental property of an isotope atom. Some isotopes can have their decay rates lengthened (nuclear isomerism), but they aboslutely cannot be shortened. It is as impossible as making water that freezes at anything higher than 0C at 1 atm pressure.'
I agree about the water. But isotopes can be transmuted by neutron (usually thermal) activation. So of Cesium-137 is activated to Cs-138, the half-life changes to 33 minutes from about 30 years. F or Cs-138m, it's 2.9 minutes. Similarly, Iodine-131 changes from about 8 days to 2.3 hours for I-132. And Strontium-90 changes from about 29 years to 9.6 hours for Sr-91.
John
"getting from where we are to where we need to be" Micheal, remaing where we are, and with no commitment in sight, are the cause of untold deaths including our two oily conflicts. Of course we can take our own sweet time while threatening every biological system on Earth. Our children and grandchildren may not have the luxory of procrastination. As for our ability to transition, we have the tech and understand the need; unfortunately the neandrthals (no offense to our noble ancestors) refuse to give up their hold on power.
The renewable future will not be as prosperous as 'the good old days' ...
I think you measure of "prosperity" may be faulty. If by "prosperity" you mean the luxury of spending half of one's free time in a car in a traffic jsm to the suburban shopping mall (or even more comically, the fitness club), then we seriously need to redefine "prosperity".
Europeans have enjoyed a better quality of life and far more access to leisure and recreation than USAns for years now, and they do it with half the energy consumption.
So true, your observation on prosperity. In a healthy community of loving people, there won't be such a demand for the "toys of distraction" to comfort the lonely & isolated.
I certainly agree that 'prosperity' we have seen the past 50 years is often nothing more than status seeking an unnecessary consumption. I really do think that much will be gained if we are compelled by circumstances to rely more upon ourselves, our families and our local communities. That can build the kind of contentment we have not enjoyed for a long time.
But, it you want to reach the skeptic or the uninformed citizen you need to do a very good job of selling your program and that includes a focus not just upon the ultimate goal, a sustainable society, but a transition plan that can help us to get there without too much pain, or at least shared pain.
I would suggest you search your library for "The Fourth Turning", "The Limits to Growth: 30 Year Update" and some of David Korten's recent work, both fiction and non-fiction.
Most Europeans can take advantage of an elaborate and efficient train system. In addition, in general, their countries are relatively small, so they do not routinely travel as far as many Americans feel they have to.
But your comments about "prosperity" are well-founded.
'Likeitornot' you have confidentally contradicted the post, but you haven't addressed the meat of the argument. You may have been influenced by all of those corporate media repeater headlines, because you seem to be repeating them yourself. All I know is that we WILL run out of oil but the sun and wind and heat of the Earth are still going to be here. I admit we're looking at a massive retooling - so shouldn't we get started? The USA spends 6 times as much as China on armaments. What if we cut that to three times as much to fund the switchover?
My intro to nuke power was in March 1979 as an engineering student visiting a ComEd nuke plant under construction. It was the week after the release of the movie 'The China Syndrome'- which the lead project manager / engineer there declared was 'Preposterous- Something like that couldn't happen in a million yrs' - as he tried to wow us w a bunch of tech terminology & stats. Less than 2 weeks later 3Mile Island melted-down. 7 yrs later most of Europe was irradiated [40% of which still has significant radioactivity] when Chernobyl blew-up- which is just a few miles north of Kiev & is on a lake that's connected to a river which flows past Kiev- emptying into the Black Sea. 25yrs later its still dangerous to live any-where near there & 80% of children born in Belarus since 1986 are unhealthy.
Disregarding nuke industry salesmen & politicians like Obama [who ironically stated a yr ago {as he OKed deep-sea drilling} that 'Major blowouts & spills don't happen any more due to current technology' - less than a month before BP flooded the Gulf w oil - which they now claim has just magically 'disappeared' as they used toxic chems to sink it below the surface {going from 'Drill Baby Drill' to 'Spill Baby Spill']. I'lln focus on so-called 'green environmentalists' who are hyping [fission] nuke power as a so-called 'green' solution to climate-change [IE: George Monbiot]. Monbiot in a recent debate on DemocracyNow! claimed that even in the wake of Fukushima- [fission] nuke reactors [Note: Fusion reactors- especially cold {but even hot} fusion are theoretically much safer as they significantly address the 3 main dangers of fission reactors IE: melt-down & radioactivity release {ala Chernobyl / Fukushima}, weapons proliferation, & highly radioactive waste lasting eons] as the way forward- due to climate change. He then repeated the standard nuke industry line [lie] that 'No one died at 3Mile Island' but even more incredibly 'Only 50 people are known to have died from Chernobyl'.. He totally dissed the new Russian study that 1,000,000 & counting have died from Chernobyl- which may sound a bit hi- but even the IAEA's low ball estimates suggests 4000 to up to 10000. Plus- Reliable data shows that 60,000 - 110,000 'liquidators' have died since 1986 w 170,000+ disabilities - EXCLUDING the General Public! Listening to 'greens' like Monbiot talk you'd think exposure to CO2 [a naturally occurring gas associated w life itself], is more dangerous than exposure to highly radioactive / toxic DU, U235, Pu239 [so dangerous that God in his infinite wisdom only put it here on Earth in minute traces- its only produced by nuclear reactors in conjunction w U238- & is the preferred stuff for thermo-nuke warheads {Thus Obama saying he's against nuke weapons proliferation as he hawks fission nuke power- is double-talk], Cesium, Iodine, etc!!! Plus uranium [like nearly all types of] mining is a very dirty biz, just ask indigenous folks in Niger, Australia, SW tribal areas in the US, etc- whose lands are polluted by mounds of radioactive waste from uranium mining. This is a Hell-Uhv-A way to boil water!
Many dismiss solar & wind as uneconomical, too costly to integrate into the infrastructure, etc. Those arguments are often lacking. First- There are other forms of clean energy besides solar & wind: tidal, bio-gas, geothermal, highly efficient catalyst driven hydrolysis, etc. IE: A prototype of a system called Salter's Duck converted sea waves to mechanical power at potentially up to 90% efficiency & changed that to electrical power at up 90% efficiency [total max efficiency: 81%]. If in practice that falls to 1/2 the max [IE: 40-45% efficiency] that's still on par w most efficient diesel engines! But even though the prototype was tested in the 1980s- this technology has been ignored / suppressed [I wonder why]. Bio-gas [which I have practical knowledge of] has 3 benefits- producing both methane [the cleanest burning hydro-carbon] & organic fertilizer [petro-chem fertilizer & pesticides are made from oil & ultimately destructive & toxic], as well as organic waste processing. But most green energy discourse focuses on solar & wind [usually in context of the grid] & perhaps bio-fuels. The problem w bio-fuels, as currently being rolled-out, is that they incentivize using food crops, fertile lands & even clear-cutting rain-forests [a very counter-productive action] to fuel affluent white folks cars in the US & EU [allowing them to feel good about lowering their so-called 'carbon-footprint']- rather than feeding hungry folks in Africa & the so-called 3rd World. For me this is a non-starter & better approaches to bio-fuel production are needed. But back to solar & wind being too expensive- NOTE: Oil, Coal, Gas & ESPECIALLY Nuclear are all subsidized [all nuke are plants subsidized &/or run by Gov'ts - BAR NONE]- & accurate comparisons can't be made without accounting for this. AND- I remember the color TV, VCR, electronic calculator, PC, CD burner, etc were all very expensive when first marketed- but within a few yrs all of their prices fell substantially as their performance & reliability improved. Plus most people talk in terms of complex solar-arrays & wind-farms [IE: relative to the grid & meter] BUT- a better approach for wind, solar & bio-gas digesters may-be scaling down to house-hold, neighborhood, & community size- leading to greater independence from the power structure. And how about using solar water-heaters & ovens for cooking when & where feasible.
Most of all we need a more efficient, less wasteful / polluting & more cooperative life-style. NOT Only more efficient / less polluting cars but even moving away from: families of 4 - 5 owning 4 - 5 [instead of 1 - 2] cars, Detroit rolling-out 'cosmetically' new model cars every yr [instead of say every 5 - 10 or even 10 - 20 yrs]. AND Increasing gas mileage to say +50mpg & up while in urban areas incentivizing public over private transport [Note: Detroit Car Makers & Big Oil conspired to curtail public transport across the US from the 1930s to 60s- w extra focus on electric buses & trolleys]. This also means more energy efficient homes, buildings, factories, etc. AND We're going to have to look at our SAD meat-centered diet- which is a BAD diet- from both a personal health stand-point & from negative environmental impacts. This includes where & how food is grown, stored & transported. Finally western consumer society has incentivized being wastefully self-centered- So we're all going to have to change our wasteful [generally for 'convenience'] mind-set & life-style.
Fantastic post. Thanks for the wealth of information.
Nice summary of the subject. But one thing: what you say about (hot) fusion is correct, but it is limited to research reactors. They have to get the H atoms to fuse for a second or two for the process to be commercially viable, and they have not done that, either in the Tokamok reactors or the Laser ones.
The problem is an engineering problem, not a scientific one. The process works, but they have not been able to build a commercially viable reactor.
Great post, Nixakliel. I pretty much agree with everything you say, especially since you show that you understand the role of both supply-side (which is what you have mostly focused on) as well demand-side management (which you have also touched on :)
However, I notice that you don't particularly talk about climate change. Also, your entire post (as well as the one below) seems to assume that the rate at which we implement your suggestions is not that critical. In other words, you don't particularly imply that there is any kind of urgency due to the threat of climate change-induced disaster. In particular, I find the following use of words somewhat perplexing, contained as they are in an otherwise knowledgeable post:
>>"Listening to 'greens' like Monbiot talk you'd think exposure to CO2 [a naturally occurring gas associated w life itself], is more dangerous than exposure to highly radioactive / toxic DU, U235, Pu239 ... "<<
and
>>"...allowing them to feel good about lowering their so-called 'carbon-footprint' ...<<
Calling CO2 as "a naturally occurring gas associated w life itself" especially while attacking Monbiot (who was clearly arguing on the basis of what he knows to be the danger due to climate change) is straight out of the oil industry's global warming denial hit job cooked up in the early 1990's. I'm sure some can remember the commercial "CO2: they call it pollution, we call it life". I'm not saying you are a shill for the oil industry, as your posts make it damn clear that you are not one. But in your eagerness to attack the pro-nuke position, you seem to downplay the very real threat due to global warming - perhaps inadvertently, or out of choice.
And the use of "so-called" with "carbon footprint" is also troublesome to me. If one accepts that man-made global warming is primarily due to emission of CO2 and CH4, "carbon footprint" is a VERY critical number that cannot be treated lightly. You are free to criticize the hypocrisy of people's choice of "fuel efficient" cars and especially biofuels, but a blanket dismissal of "carbon footprint" as something "so-called" is not acceptable.
Again, I repeat: you obviously seem to have a good grasp of the big picture, including the historical role of the auto and oil companies in dismantling the transit services, as well as the mistakes made by the unions (something that I have mentioned in the past). But I am worried about downplaying the urgency due to global warming, even inadvertently. In the US, coal-based power accounts for close to 44% of the total electricity generation and nuclear power for another 20%. While I am opposed to the building of any new nuclear power plant, I feel that the FIRST ones to go should be the coal power plants. I was particularly convinced on this score by James Hansen, even though I disagree with his proposal to add new nuclear power capacity. And I have been arguing for massive reductions in the demand for energy by simply closing down a whole lot of non-essential activities that do not produce anything of value that's required for a decent quality of life, but continue to consume vast amounts of energy.
The atmospheric CO2 level is around 392ppm now, and it needs to be brought below 350ppm urgently. But some countries will increase their CO2 emissions for a few years, due to their developmental needs and due to the fact that historically, some countries have emitted the most CO2 in the last 200 years. Bringing in a sense of urgency changes the decision-making process somewhat and it is not simply a matter of switching to renewable energy. How FAST the overall CO2 concentration is reduced should be the key criterion here.
Global warming may not affect the rich countries as much (although certain recent extreme weather events may be linked to global warming) due to a cruel quirk of geography and the fact that these countries are rich and have the weapons and control international banking that would allow them to round up a large chunk of the oil supplies. But if fairness on a global scale is a factor, then reducing demand for electricity should really TOP the list. Even above adding renewable energy capacity.
Another challenge in this context is that replacing cars with public transportation, if it is electricity-based, will actually ***increase*** the demand for electricity, while decreasing consumption of oil. Considering that already a huge chunk of electricity is coming from coal and nuclear plants, closing down coal+nuclear while at the same time meeting the added demand due to electric trains, buses and cars will be a huge, huge challenge. The only way to face this challenge is by massive reduction in non-essential and non-critical use of electricity. Some kind of war-time rationing may be in order.
P.S. I am glad that you mentioned the role of meat production and the need to take a good, hard look at our lifestyle. I often refer people to this report: "Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options"
www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
I'm all for cleaner energy alternatives as well as greater energy efficiency & conservation & a less wasteful life-style. The current forms of conventional fuel that FIRST Must be phased out are coal [there is no such thing as 'clean coal' that's BS - Coal is very dirty from the mine to the furnace]; deep-sea oil-drilling [BP's Gulf Oil disaster went from 'Drill Baby Drill' to 'Spill Baby Spill' -BUT- Oil Corps have been polluting the the Niger Delta for decades]; & fission nuke power [which can & does go Chernobyl / Fukushima]. But I am far more concerned about pollution- toxic / radio-active waste, petro-chems & GMO pollution - than CO2. I believe that if we attack these & other environmental pollution issues - the CO2 issue will likely resolve itself. And I do stand by my statement about CO2 being a naturally occurring gas associated w life itself- because that's Biology 101. I'm referring to plant life's Photosynthesis process to which CO2 is an ESSENTIAL component; & the fact that people & animals breathe out CO2 w every breath.
My issue w the climate-change debate as too often currently discussed is: 1: The over-demonization of carbon [& CO2] as a WHOLE- even though it is an element essential for life [Bio 101].- leading to the following PHONY solutions...- 2: Fission Nukes Reactors- resurrected in the wake of 3 Mile Island & Chernobyl by the Nuke industry In Collaboration w some so-called 'green' activists [IE: Monbiot] in the name of fighting Climate Change...- 3: The 'free-market' carbon trading via so-called the 'Carbon Offsets' SCAM- being hyped as a 'free-market' solution to Climate Change by the likes of Enron & the Wall St Banksters...- 4: Some folks pushing population control [IE: Eugenics] as a solution to climate change -&- when it comes down to it who are the folks who's got to control their population - Africans & 3rd World Folks - even though they are least responsible for the problem!!! Over-industrialization & commercialization based on the westernized dirty-destructive industry / energy model is the root of the problem - NOT whether Black & Brown folks in Africa & the 3rd World are having 2 - 3 - 4 or more BABIES! I find this troubling because the environmental movement may be in the process of being hijacked toward some other kinds of agendas having little to do w a truly 'green' future & protecting the eco-system.
What I have tried to outline here is path to a greener / more environmentally sustainable future. And we do need to do this as quickly as possible [Note: If Obama had taken that $15 - 45 billion ear-marked for fission nuke reactors & targeted it toward some of those truly greener & SAFER alternatives spoken of here - it would have been a major boost in the right direction].
You're right about CO2 being vital to plant life, which is why we should get serious about reforestation, which means getting serious about water management (I mean WPA/CCC/TVA/NAWAPA serious about water management, spanning four continents; it would be the biggest engineering project ever undertaken by humanity, like WWII big).
Nixakliel, I would like to point out some things:
First of all, George Monbiot is not just a "green activist". He is a kind of an activist, but he is also a writer/journalist, and definitely one of the better ones out there who do their homework on the issues they talk about. If you know anything at all about Monbiot, you would realize that calling him, or even implying that he's a shill for nuclear industry would be just plain absurd. I would really suggest that you read some of his articles and especially his book "Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning". You would see that in "Heat", he takes Britain as a case study and actually crunches some numbers as rough estimates as to how to bring about CO2 emission reduction. He identifies areas for energy conservation and points to some absurd activities - actually they can even be called criminal - that waste so much energy, such as the supermarket freezers left open, British-grown apples sent to South Africa for wax coating and only to be shipped back, and so on. He crunches some numbers for how much energy can be saved by making many of the older houses in Britain more energy efficient. And he also looks at the renewable energy potential and seems to conclude on the inevitability of using nuclear power. Although this is one area where I disagree with him (and the other major disagreement is that he refuses to call for greatly cutting back on meat, although he admits that beef production is by far the most wasteful means of "food" production, and concedes that other forms of meat may be more preferable).
While Monbiot is only a writer/journalist/activist, James Lovelock, the man who put forth the Gaia theory as early as the 1960s is not only convinced of the danger due to climate change, he seems to think we might have already crossed the tipping point. He too seems to think that nuclear power may be inevitable.
And so does James Hansen. You really ought to read Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity", as I'm pretty sure you have NOT read it. Hansen is the one who convinced me that burning coal needs to stop forthwith and all the remaining coal should be left on the ground!
Only the most moronic would call James Lovelock and James Hansen as shills for the nuclear industry. Personally, I respect these people greatly, even as I disagree with them on their stance on nuclear power. What they are, are basically scientific realists with a clearly western outlook, something that seems to prevent them from calling for drastic changes in western lifestyle. If I have to blame these people for anything, including Monbiot, it is for not questioning the western lifestyle enough. By "western", I mean ALL the countries that are proceeding along this insanely destructive path to "development".
I would like you to take a good, hard look at the sources that convinced you that global warming and the role of CO2 are being exaggerated. I have no doubt that they must include some of the conspiracy sites that took their talking points from the climate change denial industry, funded by the fossil fuel industry. (Monbiot's book "Heat" has a chapter called "The Denial Industry" and goes into the ways that doubt was spread among the public on this topic, drawing heavily from tactics used earlier by the tobacco industry).
Your use of the words "The over-demonization of carbon [& CO2] as a WHOLE- even though it is an element essential for life [Bio 101]" seems to indicate that you have spent more time convincing yourself as to why global warming is a hoax than to looking at why scientists think this is a real danger. I would therefore recommend you please check out James Hansen's "Storms of My Grandchildren".
I mention James Lovelock and James Hansen only because they are among the few scientists who have not only done original work studying the Earth's climate over a long period, but have decided to reach out to the public to sound the warning, instead of limiting their writing just to scientific journals.
You might want to know that CO2, far from being "demonized", was actually predicted to cause a warming of the Earth more than 100 years ago. Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, was among the first to wonder about what all that coal being burned would do to the Earth's temperature and he actually wrote about the greenhouse effect, including some estimates for temperature rise. This was in the 1890s. (that's right - 1890s). I believe that at that time, some warming was considered desirable, as people back then obviously had no way of knowing the insanity to follow in the 20th century.
Even before Arrhenius, Joseph Fourier, the French scientist/mathematician had talked about the greenhouse effect (without using that term) and speculated about the impact of human activity on the Earth's climate. And this was in the 1820s!
So, "climate change" is not something that Al Gore cooked up, sorry. :)
It is not a matter of choosing one theory over another. Ignoring and denying the threat of climate change is a DANGEROUS game to be played and a dangerous misinformation to be spread, especially when packaged as part of other reasonable-sounding proposals.
The reasons you have listed - 1,2,3 and 4 are exactly the sort of circumstantial "evidence" used to call climate change as a "hoax" and are peddled both by the denial industry as well as by conspiracy sites such as those of Alex Jones in their attempt to cater to a larger market for conspiracies. Now I too am an avid consumer of conspiracy theories, but over time, I have become a very selective consumer. I think I can spot some clever "package deals" where a lie and a misinformation can be packaged with other more plausible information.
You can oppose (2), (3) and (4) WITHOUT insisting that climate change is a hoax. And your item# (4) is somewhat of a dubious item, but seems to be working as part of the package deal. I have been on many debates here with people who keep raising the "overpopulation" issue out of context. But I have no doubt that human population needs to be reduced, through natural means, and I have no doubt that it's going to take a couple of generations or more. In the meantime, resources need to be shared more equitably and humanity should move to a more ecologically sustainable system.
Like I said before, I agree with just about everything you wrote in your first two posts, but denying that man-made climate change is a real threat has some dangerous implications. That is why I had to write this post.
With all due respect- I never said there was no evidence for climate change. You don't need to have a PhD in Climatology to conclude that if you keep destroying & polluting the environment on a massive industrial scale - eventually you will devastate the eco-system in some form or fashion.
I did say that there appears to be elements using the cover of suspect / phony solutions to climate change to push suspect agendas IE: Fission Nuke Power plants as low carbon energy sources; The Cap & Trade carbon offsets scam [which not only almost certainly won't work but will likely make the problem much worse] - these are widely known & beyond denial. You yourself sited Monbiot & NASA's Jim Hansen advocating fission nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source.
Further I refer you to DemocracyNow! show on April 15 NOTE: [AMY GOODMAN: You wrote an article called "Obama Loves Nukes." There are many, like George Monbiot, a well-known British columnist, who is saying nukes are the answer, still, despite what’s happening in Japan, despite what’s threatened.
MARK HERTSGAARD: Absolutely, and most scientists say the same thing. David King in Britain says that. Jim Hansen, the NASA scientist — I was on a panel with him last night—he supports nukes, as well.
The very first book I wrote was called 'Nuclear Inc'. And the VERY FIRST TIME I heard the phrase "GLOBAL WARMING" was in 1981 from a NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY EXEC, who told me, at a time when all the environmental activists were saying, "Oh, nuclear is dead because of Three Mile Island and no orders." He said, "Oh, no, we’re not dead. YOU JUST WAIT TILL THE TURN OF THE CENTURY [IE: 2000 - 2010], and people are going to realize how bad coal is for them and how bad it is for something called "GLOBAL WARMING" I said, "What is GLOBAL WARMING?" THIS WAS in 1981. And the NUCLEAR INDUSTRY was saying then [in 1981] that GLOBAL WARMING was going to save their bacon [Note: After recently having a few harsh winters in N-America & Europe the term 'Climate Change' is now preferred over 'Global Warming' -BUT- Climate like weather always changes]. It is very ironic to me to see George Monbiot and other environmentalists now bringing that prophecy to bear..."
The reality is, going NUCLEAR WILL MAKE CLIMATE CHANGE WORSE. And not because of safety or proliferation. Look at the economics. It costs so much money to build a plant, it takes so long to build that plant, that by the time you’ve got it online, if you invested that same amount of money in ENERGY EFFICIENCY you would get SEVEN TIMES more GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS... This {nuke energy} is not the answer {= a Phony Solution}.]
If you go to the March 30 DemocracyNow! debate Monbiot had w Dr Helen Caldicott- its clear to me that his position was that of a nuke apologist. And I regard his assertion that only 50 have died thus far as a result of Chernobyl as a Blatant LIE! Further Jim Hansen is from NASA. Lets not forget that NASA is historically & technologically tied to the Military Industrial Complex just as the nuke industry is similarly connected to nuke weapons production. The space-race began in the historical context of the 'cold war' nuclear arms-race & ICBM missile-race between the US & USSR. And most astronauts have been / are US military officers between the rank of Capt to full Col or the analogous ranks of Navy 1st Lt to Navy Capt [this was true for ALL astronauts of the Mercury, Gemini & Apollo progs].
As for so-called Cap & Trade: Many environmentalists criticize it as ineffective [or worse - counter-productive] & that the carbon offsets give-away [to industry] scheme [scam] is a BIG LOOP-HOLE - that can't be effectively verified [thus Enron / Wall St Bankster types could exploit it to the utmost]. Many environmentalists prefer either a direct tax on pollution emissions [which some say is not politically feasible] or at least cap & dividends w Gov't pollution caps auctioned off. But for Obama's Admin in Congress & at Copenhagen the only scheme [scam] up for discussion was/is Cap & Trade w off-sets & give-a-ways [another Phony Solution].
AND- There are some who are pushing population control as a solution to climate change - maybe you aren't of aware of this because it may not be discussed as much & as openly in the US as say the UK & the EU- But It's True [Note: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation#Population & globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24467 - "People Are Not Pollution"].
As I said I am not opposed to bio-fuels in principal -But- Currently the primary source of bio-fuels are corn, soy, palm oil [in Africa & the Tropics] & sugar cane [in Brazil], etc. So how does this logic work: In the name of fighting climate-change - because theoretically it could, in the future, devastate agriculture in Africa & the 3rd World- Thus We incentivize using food crops, fertile lands & clearing rain-forests [the most effective & efficient carbon / CO2 capture system on Earth] in Africa, Brazil & the Tropics to produce bio-fuels [thus taking food out of the mouths of hungry folks in African & 3rd World- RIGHT NOW]- all in the name of fighting climate-change?! That's 'Pretzel Logic' & Double-Talk! Thus we've got to find a better approach to producing bio-fuels.
Another example of dubious terminology used by some advocating CO2 caused climate change is 'Ocean Acidification'. When you hear this term you might think that the oceans are now Acidic. BUT- Back to Chem 101 -By Definition a solution is acidic if its ph factor is less than say 6.8; if its ph is over 7.2 it's alkaline- while ph 7 is defined as neutral- the ph factor of pure distilled water. Current measurements of ocean ph are around ph 8 - 8.2 while previous ph measurements [some decades ago] were around 8.3 - 8.5. Thus while there has been a small but significant drop in ocean ph which needs to be monitored to see if this trend continues -HOWEVER- By Definition a ph of 8 - 8.2 is definitely ALKALINE & thus CANNOT SCIENTIFICALLY be considered ACIDIC... This is not to down-play / excuse the dumping of toxic waste in the ocean [including the 'Dead Zone' at the mouth of the MS River due to so much animal waste being dumped up-stream from CAFO animal factory farms]; the islands of plastic waste accumulating in the ocean; BP's criminally negligent Gulf oil blow-out last yr; or Fukushima's current dumping of highly radio-active water into the sea... This is just a point of scientific accuracy - ph 8 - 8.2 does NOT = Acidity.
I hope that clarifies my position on climate change- but if not - so be it.
Boy, the more I read, the more I notice some serious problems with your logic! :)
It's not that you don't understand science - you most definitely do. But you seem clearly bitten by the conspiracy bug and you are not able to think free of that - or that's how it appears.
The way I understood your posts is thus: there are crooks trying to make a buck out of pushing climate change, and there may be others trying to bring about population reduction by using climate change, and therefore it's NOT a good idea to put climate change or global warming as the PRIMARY factor driving policy and decision-making. This kind of reasoning will play right into the hands of those vested interests who want to avoid, delay and dilute any action to cut down carbon emissions. Instead, it would be better to expose those trying to unduly take advantage of action on climate change. After all, crooks will try to take advantage of any damn thing! That doesn't mean we stop doing certain things or stop talking about certain things because of the crooks' agenda.
I am NOT advocating nuclear power. I only point out that when it comes to choosing between coal and nuclear, coal should go first, and NO ***new*** nuclear power plants should be built. And that too only because during the transition stage to renewable, we're going to need all the electricity we can get.
And just because Monbiot and Hansen advocate nuclear power does NOT negate the threat due to climate change. These are separate factors: one is a real threat, and the other is about what to do about this threat. You keep mixing these two things all along. That is, some people want to push some things in the name of fighting climate change, so let's NOT talk about climate change. Sounds like a convoluted logic to me.
Instead, why not clearly argue as to what is the best, least expensive and fastest ways to bring about CO2 emission reduction? It's easy to show that nuclear power is not the answer with some simple cost estimates, especially if the nuclear industry is forced to buy its own insurance (which they cannot do) and remove ALL subsidies and increase their liabilities in the case of accidents. That is all it would take!
And for God's sake, please read Hansen's book, or at the very least, read ABOUT him! In particular, please read about how the Bush/Cheney administration tried to harass him and shut him up for sounding the alarm about climate change. His field has been Earth and Environmental Sciences for at least 30+ years and even before that, he was trying to study the climate of Venus! Just because his employer happens to be NASA ( very big organization) it does not mean Hansen has anything to do with the Military Industrial Complex. He is with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York. And the focus of GISS is mostly on climate change.
Your argument about ocean acidification shows that you are trying to find all kinds of justifications to support your position. Decrease in pH can be described as acidification. The ocean does NOT have to be acidic, with a pH less than 7. BIG DIFFERENCE. What matters here is the pH that is conducive to ocean life that has adapted to certain conditions over 10's of thousands of years, if not more. And fast changing of this pH is the problem. This is a totally bogus argument, and I would advise that you do NOT make it elsewhere - you will only undermine your own credibility, since you obviously seem to know a lot of other stuff! :)
My Friend- I think we're clashing over semantics here. We agree that the environment is under threat - even eminent threat- & some significant action must be taken soon to reduce, halt or reverse this threat. We basically agree on the steps needed to be implemented to turn things around. Its just that you identify the main threat to the eco-sphere as CO2 caused Climate Change - while I say that Chernobyl / Fukushima style radio-active release & contamination, BP Gulf type Oil spills, massive industrial toxic pollution, whole-sale de-forestation, & GMO contamination of the Bio-sphere is AS BIG IF NOT BIGGER Threats. I don't think we should keep bumping heads over semantics - when we agree on everything else.
PS: After viewing the March 30 DemocracyNow! debate between Monbiot & Dr Caldicott -quite frankly Monbiot's whole conversation & attitude PISSED ME OFF! Thus at this point, as far as I'm concerned he lacks credibility. Perhaps you may want to critique him & other un-questioning fission power nuke advocates [a Phony solution- especially in the shadow of the on-going Fukushima disaster] w the same vigor that you have critiqued me. Peace Out...
Nixakliel, thanks for that response. But I disagree that we're clashing over semantics - mainly because of the implications of downplaying the threat due to climate change. All the other threats you've listed have been there in the news and in books for far longer than man-made climate change has been. That said, if you ask me, "So what would make people act, who didn't act earlier?", I don't have an easy answer.
Let me tell you something about taking each point case by case. You talk about Monbiot's attitude pissing you off? Well, he pisses ME off too with his dismissive attitude towards vegans:
www.monbiot.com/2008/04/15/the-pleasures-of-the-flesh
>>"But I cannot advocate a diet I am incapable of following. I tried it for about 18 months, lost two stone, went as white as bone and felt that I was losing my mind. I know a few healthy-looking vegans and I admire them immensely. But after almost every talk I give, I am pestered by swarms of vegans demanding that I adopt their lifestyle. I cannot help noticing that in most cases their skin has turned a fascinating pearl grey."<<
This chap clearly seems to think that vegans tend to become anemic! **He** may think **he** needs to eat meat, but to imply that vegans would turn anemic is just plain stupid, most likely coming from his British "cultural" baggage with all the myths about beef eating. AND he seems convinced about the need for nuclear power. Once again, I see that as coming from someone who cannot imagine letting go of certain comforts. I point these things out every chance I get. But having read his articles on climate change, and especially his book "Heat", I have no doubt that he has an important role to play in spreading the message. Do I agree with everything he has to say on other things? Of course not.
And James Lovelock is a man that's respected by SO MANY people. And yet, I once got into a spat with someone because I disagreed with some of his choices: his accepting titles from the British government that have "empire" written on it. Instead, I would have preferred him to have taken a principled stand because empires, past and present, have caused great damage to the natural environment. AND Lovelock is not a vegetarian.
www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/13-3
And yet, besides pointing out the inconsistency in putting forth a grand "Gaia hypothesis" while not acting on the implications, I will NOT reject what Lovelock has to say.
Another case in point: Al Gore. I have some major problems with the track record of this man, and I actually wish he weren't so much in the forefront of the climate change talk, because he only gives another reason for deniers to reject the warnings. And yet, there have probably been more people who became aware of this crisis because of his efforts than those who reject AGW because of Al Gore. So what can I do? Take what works, that's all!
Some of these people tend to become too cocky about their intellect (NOT "intelligence" - which is different, as per my understanding), and they carry certain glaring inconsistencies in their personal lives and in their policies. But to reject everything they say would be wrong.
Anyway, it was a good exchange. I will not go after these people because of their stance on nuclear power, because, frankly, I think it would be a distraction from other, more important things. Besides, I think most people are sufficiently aware of the risks now - so I don't think any more nuclear plants can be built without some nasty fight. I also think this debate would be a good chance to point out to people:
You don't want coal? You don't want nuclear? You want renewable energy? Fine. Then cut out some 50 - 60% of your electricity consumption and a lot of your fossil fuel consumption, and we'll talk. Because, frankly, I think a lot of people seem to be living under some grand illusion about the transition to renewable energy. This transition is necessary, but it is not easy. So start with conservation. That's my main argument.
Anyway, peace to you too! :)
Nukes are being pushed as job creators especially for the BIG construction Unions. Lots of steel , concrete etc. will be produced and used to build these dangerous stupid Dinos. But nobody cares right now about the awful down sides to these monsters. JOBS, Profit more short term and by the way they don't pollute! BS!
I'm all for workers rights to organize labor & to collectively bargain vis-a-vis Corps & even Gov't, etc - IN Principle BUT: Sometimes the history of Unions in the US has been that they've been too short-sighted based on narrowly conceived Self{ish} Interests. Case in point the auto-workers UAW union leader-ship's decision to align w GM, Ford & Chrysler & BIG Oil against increased CAFE mileage standards- & duplicity in Detroit's Big 3 rolling-out the SUV craze. Short-sighted self{ish} interest said this is good for our constituents [the auto-workers]- even as the Big Detroit 3 were shipping more jobs over-seas anyway & foreign car makers opened more non-union shops - taking full advantage of the UAW's narrow focus on their traditional constituency - UAW workers of Detroit's Big 3 Car Makers! End Result - UAW workers have now been forced to take a dramatic pay cut [almost in half], take on the whole burden of paying for UAW workers health-care - watch the UAW be demonized for GM & Chrysler going bankrupt, & be forced to acknowledge that the SUV craze was a bad idea in the long run - WHEN GAS WENT TO $4 [heading to maybe $5] / gal! A truly visionary UAW leader-ship would have seen & acknowledge these trends in the 1980s or even the latter 1970s - in the wake of the oil embargo. PLUS Too many unions have been & still are too closely aligned w the Democrat party - even after Slick Willie Clinton sold working people out w NAFTA & Obama's failure to help get working people back to work, his failures on Card-Check & the Health Care's 'Public Option' Legislation, & his announcing a 2yr [or was it 5yr] pay freeze for federal workers. This is not to say go run join the GOP [God forbid] - rather push for a truly progressive movement - independent of the 2 Corp & power Elite Controlled party poly-trickal system.
The UAW & other building & mechanic Unions would benefit more in the long run if they push for turning Detroit into the engine for a 'green jobs' initiative [including pushing for a modern hi-speed rail infrastructure] & environmental retro-fitting- rather than pushing for the same ole SOS - including this so-call nuke renaissance. When will they learn that 'If you keep dancing w the devil you will eventually get burned'??!!
Currently the best approach to integrating renewables into existing infrastructure- would probably be focusing solar & wind at the residential & community level [for now], bio-gas / bio-mass at both the residential, community & agricultural level, & 'natural gas & oil for transport & industry -BUT- Greater energy efficiency retrofitting / energy conservation & roll-out MUST be part of this equation - including modernizing public transport & rolling-out hi-speed passenger rail. EXISTING nuke & coal power - must be targeted for phase-out as development & roll-out of safer cleaner 'dense' energy & storage technology & infrastructure is stepped-up- including tidal, geo-thermal, up-scaled solar arrays & wind-farms; fine-tuned catalyst assisted hydrolysis; NON Food-crop based bio-fuels- grown in non-agricultural & non-forested areas; more environmentally 'friendly' hydro-electrical [NOTE: Though technically a renewable- much / most hydro-power as currently implemented is quiet damaging to eco-systems & too often unduly & forcibly up-roots poorer folk lacking political clout from their lands]; & ultimately even more 'exotic' [less familiar] clean / cleaner power technologies IE: wind &/or water vortex machines, Fusion [cold or even hot], etc.
AND NOTE - That between 1/4 - 1/3 OR MORE of US oil supply fuels the US Military Industrial Complex. Thus - Just curtailing / reigning in the military from imperialistic wars, ventures & bases abroad would go a LONG Way to jump-starting solutions to these as well as several other economic & social problems [I think they call it 'Peace Dividends'].
NOTE: Substantially cutting meat consumption would go a LONG way in not only improving personal & public health, but also deincentivizing eco-damaging CAFO Animal Factory Farms, & reliance on petro-chemical [that's OIL mixed w potentially TOXIC Chems] / GMO based over-industrialized agriculture. AND- Most meat is consumed in urbanized areas -but- can only be raised in basically rural areas- leading to more energy consumed for transport & refrigeration, while food gardens can be grown locally in both urban, suburban & rural areas.
Thus a so-called 'green' econ offers many opportunities for workers [IE: unions] but will require a new vision & political will to implement. Unfortunately too many current Union leader-ship may be too aligned w & trapped in the current power paradigm.
BUT - If we don't start rolling-out this new 'green' energy paradigm- WATCH-OUT. Because - After 3 Mile Island & then Chernobyl it looked like fission nuke power was finished in the US. Then the concept was 'resurrected' & made politically viable under the guise of 'so-called' low / no-carbon clean energy to fight global warming. The on-going Fukushima catastrophe may stop this move in its tracks FOR NOW... BUT- If we fail to begin to seriously develop & roll-out a truly 'green' renewable energy paradigm & infrastructure- within the next 2 - 3 decades - The Shadow of Fission Nukes Will likely Return Again.
...
23 of US nuclear power plants share Fukushima’s GE Mark 1 design.
The nuclear power industry should have 23 effective disaster plans for this type of reactor. America's nuclear power proponents could take any one of these disaster plans to Fukushima, implement it and thereby save Japan (as they seem clueless) and demonstrate to America nuclear disaster can be delt with in theory and practice.