Guess who?
"Over the next ten years, I predict, the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbanization, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power."
How about futurist Stewart Brand, one of the original enviros who founded the Whole Earth Catalog and wrote The Clock of the Long Now. Brand makes a strong case in each of these areas, and as usual he comes at these things from an angle that makes him worth listening to by all sides of the political spectrum.
This observation was also particularly acute:
"The success of the environmental movement is driven by two powerful forces—romanticism and science—that are often in opposition. The romantics identify with natural systems; the scientists study natural systems. The romantics are moralistic, rebellious against the perceived dominant power, and combative against any who appear to stray from the true path. They hate to admit mistakes or change direction. The scientists are ethicalistic, rebellious against any perceived dominant paradigm, and combative against each other. For them, admitting mistakes is what science is.
There are a great many more environmental romantics than there are scientists. That’s fortunate, since their inspiration means that most people in developed societies see themselves as environmentalists. But it also means that scientific perceptions are always a minority view, easily ignored, suppressed, or demonized if they don’t fit the consensus story line."
Umm, we've noticed. Then there's this:
"The environmentalist aesthetic is to love villages and despise cities. My mind got changed on the subject a few years ago by an Indian acquaintance who told me that in Indian villages the women obeyed their husbands and family elders, pounded grain, and sang. But, the acquaintance explained, when Indian women immigrated to cities, they got jobs, started businesses, and demanded their children be educated. They became more independent, as they became less fundamentalist in their religious beliefs. Urbanization is the most massive and sudden shift of humanity in its history. Environmentalists will be rewarded if they welcome it and get out in front of it. In every single region in the world, including the U.S., small towns and rural areas are emptying out. The trees and wildlife are returning. Now is the time to put in place permanent protection for those rural environments. Meanwhile, the global population of illegal urban squatters - which Robert Neuwirth’s book Shadow Cities already estimates at a billion - is growing fast. Environmentalists could help ensure that the new dominant human habitat is humane and has a reduced footprint of overall environmental impact."
Interesting view, no? He doesn't quite have me convinced on genetic engineering, but keep reading his takes on genetic engineering and nuclear power, and decide for yourself.
I've always liked Brand because he never cared for political correctness. When he was editing WER it was always pissing off crunchy granola types.
I feel the same way about Ellen Willis.
The problem with this forecast is that "environmentalism" has been overrun with posers and leftist transients who were left hanging after the unexpected conclusion of the Cold War. People who cared about environmental issues before 1990 are probably a dwindling minority.
The poser environmentalists couldn't give a hoot about the contradictory nature of their opposition to nuclear power, or about the negative effects of their views on genetic engineering, population, or third world development. They're only in it for the anti-capitalist and anti-American riffs, and the protests, the colorful costumes and such. And the are reactionary to the core - anything that might be good sounds bad to them.
The global warming scam we narrowly dodged is an example of the watermellons (green outside/red-inside) coming very close to putting a UN socialist aparachk in command of the world economy, a large piece of Agenda 21, that, by the way, demands an 80% forced reduction in the world population BTW.
Why, any more than that isnt "sustainable".
Explain the scary stuff therin, and those that you pass your findings to will be fitting you for a foil hat. but its in there.
The last time they had vinyards in britain was not due to Power Generation and SUV's, the romans had not yet built Hadrans wall, and they was just learning to recover iron using small mounded kilns fueled with charcoal, and the pattern welded sword was yet to be invented the disovery of steel making was a bit far off.
(Not so in Japan, where the layered iron/steel folded metal with the solid iron core and ceramic mask pattern tempering that made up their famous quench curved blade was already highly perfected)
The vinyards in Britain will return, there isnt a damn thing man can do to stop it any more than he was the cause of it the last time.
Too bad science is so perverted by leftist agenda, that the utility to prepare for these changes has so far been cheated from us.
How about the hairs taken from an animal at a zoo, planted in the woods, so that they could be "discovered" so they could get a ruling to shut down another lumber operation ?
Fraud everywhere, untill the left no longer control the universities, you cant trust the scientists any more.
The only science you can trust, is that you can do for yourself.
And beware the datasets, those have been mangled as well.
Science is also perverted by what I call scientism, the approximate science-analog of what Robert M. Pirsig called "philosophology" (he might have been using a term William James used, or he might not). Scientismists tend to appeal to authority and "retreat to commitment" in the direction of "ALL [insert-admirable-qualification] scientists agree that... ...and that settles it".
In a sense, it's another way of playing politics, but it's not inherently L/R. Been there, wore the t-shirt out. Boldness, "righteousness", sounding "right", can be very habit forming. Especially when audiences tune out when you include caveats: "Fooey on your weasel words! Give us the sound byte, give us the money quote!"
It's amazing we poor primates can even do science, the Big Certain is so strongly craved.
To some extent, I think that Brand has set up a couple of "environmentalist" strawmen, in order to knock them down.
Brand seems to have missed the boat on environmentalists views on "urbanization" --- or confusing the fact that urban areas have traditionally been less healthy than rural ones with an opposition to urbanization per se. Most environmentalists I know see the idea of cities as a positive thing, because they make possible the efficient use of natural resources. And there is no question are opposed to suburban sprawl and the McMansion phenomenon. The preference for "villages" that he perceives is really primarily a "suburban" land use issue (i.e. on a given large tract of land, environmentalists prefer high density development with lots of public open spaces to having lots of single family homes on quarter acre to five acre lots...)
As for genetically engineered organisms, the opposition is not general, and where it occurs is based on potential damage to ecosystems that such organisms can accomplish, and the potential health risks involved in consuming such organism. When/if science can ensure that these dangers are not going to happen, environmentalists will stop opposing them (this may take longer than one would expect, because environmentalists have formed an alliance with farmers who use this years crops for next years seeds. The companies producing these genetically modified plants are saying that the farmers can't use those seeds. This policy is opposed by environmentalists, because it is a waste of resources. ) It should be noted that opposition to genetically engineered is a blanket one -- the "oil eating microbes" used when there is a tanker spill is an GEO that meets with environmentalist acceptance.
With "population growth" I don't see any change in the environmentalist position, which is support for "sustainable" populations. Nor do I see support for nuclear energy happening anytime soon unless there are some major scientific breakthroughs that change the overall risk/benefit ratio of nuclear power.
Environmentalism has been taken over by the asylum inmates. There is no other way to see it.
Emotionalism, faith-based reasoning, groupthink, and demonizing heretics. There is no there there. But the MSM embraces the idiots. Yet another reason why intelligent people discard the MSM and turn to more reliable information sources.
Modern day environmentalism is the firm belief that everyone else is screwing up the environmentalist's preferred methods of exploiting resources. Hence the number of Jeep Cherokees you find at environmental rallies.
p.lukasiak... thanks, that was illuminating and really added something to this thread.
Something I wanted to point out here, because it pisses conservatrives like me off when the left always does it... note that we have a number of characterizations of the environmental movement, which are more or less impressions, and then we have p.lukasiak who offers a real view from inside that sounds a lot more reasonable.
It's almost some kind of law that even an opponent attempting to be even handed will never really be as good at capturing a realistic argument as a live member of the species. Which is why without some intellectual diversity, even the best-intentioned places slide into echo chambers.
Now, I'm not denying that the environmental movement has its whackos. Or that many people have substituted their vision of leftism as the top priority, rather than any environmental goals - we've slammed those folks before here. The idea has become, for some, a shamanistic totem rather than science. But then, you could say that for many movements... and if we want to move forward as a society, what we really need to do is engage the intelligent aruments.
To P.L., thanks for giving us that opportunity here.
In deference to Joe, who is quite right, as well as p-luk, who did have an interesting post, I would like to say a few things about energy policy.
We all know in our hearts that we are going to have to develop a radically new energy policy in this country in coming years. There are many schools of thought, most of them unrealistic at the end of the day. We arent going to continue finding fossil fuels forever, nor will buzz words like hydrogen cells and electric cars change the equation dramatically. On the other hand wind and solar power and the like simply are nowhere remotely close to being robust enough to make a decisive difference, although they certainly have a place in small scale applications.
I happen to believe technology will solve this problem in due course. Solar farms in space sending electricity either wirelessly or down space elevators is science fact, and just the money and technology is waiting on it. Doubtlessly we cant wait the decades it will take to impliment this and other unforseen technologies.
We need nuclear power now. Despite the boogey man reputation it has, nuclear power is easily the cleanest, safest alternative to our problems. We need to recognize we are coming up on 30 years from 3 mile island. And not a whimper since. Our technology has improved immeasurably. Moreover our old plants are coming to the end of their life cycles. Like it or not, we have 2 choices. Go almost completely to oil and coal, or build one more generation of nuclear plants, as the French have wisely and productively done. This is a stop gap solution, not producing endless piles of radioactive slag. I think that both sides need to get used to the idea, because there are no other realistic alternatives. We need to do this in a framework of counting on being 'old technology' energy independant by the end of the century.
The romanticist/scientist dichotomy is little different than the relationship between the grass roots and the elites within a political party system. The elites have their own agenda, but they rely upon the passion and money of the grass roots, that have their own values. In that context, the scientist publicly contradicts romanticist orthodoxy at his or her own peril. The potential contradictions are resolved by virtue of the fact that the scientist is often a specialist and can avoid commenting on some of the larger more controversial topics.
For instance, by eschewing nuclear power, you guarantee a continuing reliance on coal. In the Midwest that means strip-mining, which means the destruction of soil productivity, creating a need for chemicals and genetic engineering. It also destroys wildlife habitats, including some for endangered species. In other parts of the country it means mountaintop removal and planned subsidence under people's homes. Coal means acid runoff into the waters and acid rain in the air.
Perhaps nuclear energy might be a better alternative. Perhaps not. Will the environmental community publicly engage in that debate? Or will the anti-nuke people fight their battle in one corner and the anti-coal people fight their battle in the other corner?
Patrick
Stewart has been an on-and-off acquaintance of mine for nearly two decades. I can attest that he is one of the Pranksters who escaped with brain cells and integrity intact. He is intellectually ruthless, and doesn't give a spit for political correctness.
Given his position in the Bay Area intellectual stew, he is qualified to assess the gestalt of at least the portion of the environmental movement that has its spiritual headquarters here. As suggested at a couple of points in the article, he also has 'access' - through GBN and other activities - to plenty of otherwise inclined movers and shakers.
In short, I take him very seriously as a futurist, though sometimes quibble over the pace of change.
The problem with going nuclear are Irans. You can't say on one hand Yes to nuclear power and on the other hand deny Iran to develop its own nuclear power industry. I do also find it weird that there is no Carter bassing on this subject. His administration was the one who secretly supported most of European anti nuclear power groups
p.lukasiak wrote on April 15, 2005 12:46 PM
You may be right when it comes to the feelings of mainstream DeepEeks, but they are quite incorrect in their assessment of the cost/benefit ratio of nuclear power now, and they will become even more incorrect as technology improves, and demand for energy increases.
Nuclear power involves no emissions (CO2, sulfuric compounds, radioactive compounds, organics) as do fossil fuels. Nuclear power contains its waste at the power plant.
Nulcear power and its associated mining and transportation disrupts less acerage than coal mining / oil drilling per unit of energy.
Nuclear energy would be cheaper than fossil fuels except for the legal burden largely enforced by punative lawsuits from the DeepEek groups. Cheaper energy means more resources for creating and maintaining parks and other worthy causes.
While there are costs and risks associated with nuclear power, just like any activity, these costs and risks are lower than the alternative fossil fuel risks and costs. It is unwise for us to bear the greater burden of fossil fuel risks and costs when nuclear power could bear some of the load.
France and Japan provide two examples of industrialized countries that make heavy use of nuclear power. Their nuclear industries provide a experience-based dataset indicating that nuclear power can be employed with a minimal, acceptable level of risk and cost. Of course, we should mention the old Soviet Union as an example of how NOT to operate a nuclear industry.
What is the rational arguement against nuclear power and in favor of what alternative?
"Despite the boogey man reputation it has, nuclear power is easily the cleanest, safest alternative to our problems."
"What is the rational arguement against nuclear power and in favor of what alternative?"
Starting with the second question, I am suprized that anyone on a conservative website even has to ask it. Nuclear power has been extremely non-competitive in the marketplace. Nuclear power is always associated with massive government subsidies and special regulatory favors (supposedly anathema to conservatives). For example, in the US nuclear power benefits from the Price-Anderson act which limits liability from nuclear plants. Why can't the nuclear industry either purchase insurance at market rates or self-insure, so that investors bear the full risk instead of taxpayers? France and Japan have massive, near total government ownership/control of nuclear power.
Nuclear waste disposal is also a massive government-funded boondoggle/clusterf**k everywhere it is even attempted. Nuclear plant decommisioning has not been successfully completed anywhere and estimates are that decommisioning alone could cost more than 10 cents a kilowatthr (while wind power can be purchased for 3 cents a kwhr).
The first statement would be recognized as incorrect by any trained energy engineer (Both my BSME and MSCE focused on energy studies). Conservation/energy efficiency are cleaner, safer, and cheaper "alternatives to our problems". Not just analysis but real market experience supports this. Putting more insulation in your attic, buying a setback thermostat, installing a high-efficiency furnace, replacing incandescent lights with compact flourescents, etc.,etc. are all cleaner, safer, and cheaper than new nuke plants. The return-on-investment (ROI) is several times better than putting the same dollars into nuke plants.
Comments that "Environmentalism has been taken over by the asylum inmates" are emotionalism replacing analysis. Go over to the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council websites and see what they have to say. The vast majority of enviro positions are backed by citations from peer-reviewed scientists (more than I can say for GWB's politically-driven Lysenkoism).
As an active enviro(20 year Sierra Club member, etc.) the majority of enviros I know are well-educated well-intentioned people doing their best to live in accordance with their beliefs. At any local Sierra Club meeting you will see more bicycles, pedestrians, transit users, and Prius drivers than Jeep Cherokee owners. In Colorado, I would make the opposite correlation, that Bush/Cheney/anti-enviro bumperstickers all correlate directly with GVW. I see big SUVs everyday and I have never seen a single large SUV with an enviro bumpersticker, but I can look out at the parking lot tright now and see plenty of Bush/Cheney stickers on big SUVs and pickup trucks which transport overweight office workers from suburban home to suburban office.
Stewart Brand has an honorable record as an independent thinker, but his record as a prognosticator is not so good. Both Brand and the early commentors are attacking positions which no-one holds. The Sierra Club website has a nice calculator showing the environmental and financial benefits of increased urban density, so one of Brand's predictions has already occurred (in about 1997). I guess predicting past occurrances is one way to not make mistakes.
Based on my trip last summer, using France as any kind of example is risky. Electricity rates in France were about 3 times as high as at home in Colorado. So the conclusion is that government run nuclear power can be "successful" if customers can accept a 3X cost increase.
'a', I understand what you are saying. This consideration caused me to turn against nuclear power for some time after 9/11. I have since reversed again for several reasons:
- Kitty is out of the bag with respect to nuclear power at least, and more than we would like with respect to nuclear weapons. (Thanks a load, AQ Khan.) Knowledge proliferation is a largely negated issue.
- A credible threat of diverting demand at the margin from petroleum energy in the medium run is useful now, in terms of the correlation of forces in the Islamist war.
- A long term alternative to petroleum energy in specific and carbon sources in general is a necessity, due to strategic issues, growing energy demand from developing countries, depletion, and global warming concerns. Granted that nukes don't get you there alone, but a credible move in this direction moves the stress point along to hydrogen and other storage and intermediary forms. (From my VC's perspective, it makes them more investable, as one market development risk is mitigated.)
- And here's the one you'll likely have the problem with: I simply don't recognize any moral equivalence between the Iranian regime and ourselves or even Russia. Why should a government that has more or less openly promised to use nukes on another people be within months of a nuclear breakout? Yes, I very much can say 'no' to the mullahs having that capability, while saying yes to ourselves, Japan, and France. And any international 'laws' or other framework that cannot encompass that difference isn't anything I feel bound to respect, or that we should rely on in the least for security, in either the defense or energy senses.
Nuclear power involves no emissions (CO2, sulfuric compounds, radioactive compounds, organics) as do fossil fuels. Nuclear power contains its waste at the power plant.
nuclear power plants do emit "thermal pollution", significantly increasing the temperature of the fresh water sources (rivers, mostly) that they need to cool the power plants themselves.
But in general, nuclear power is not as much an "environmental" issue as it is a public safety issue. The odds of a serious nuclear accident (let alone a "dirty bomb" terrorist act or sabotague) increase with each new power plant. I'd don't want the "smoking gun" on nuclear power plant safety to be a mushroom cloud, do you?
I also think that Brand missed something that environmentalists do need to rethink --- their slavish devotion to the endangered species act. Not building a hydroelectric plant because we will wind up killing off all the snail darters doesn't really make a lot of sense at this point.
I also take issue with the idea that fossil fuels are the only alternatives to nuclear power for the forseeable future. The technology exists today for homeowners to significantly reduce their dependence on electricity provided through the utility company with solar panels. Geothermal energy/heat exchangers can significantly reduce fossil fuel dependence for heating and cooling. And wind farms are a "low environmental impact" means of generating electricity. (I was really pissed off when I saw some northeastern elitist community--I think it was Martha's Vineyard-- objecting to a wind farm off the coast based on "environmental" considerations. The reality is that these people in their million dollar mansions didn't want to look out on the ocean and see a wind farm.)
(We should also be using tax policies to discourage waste of energy. IMHO, people who drive SUVs and other low mileage vehicles should pay a hefty tax surcharge for doing so. The same goes for people who live in huge mansions --- the amount of energy required to heat and cool these homes is ridiculous, and their energy costs per kilowatt hour should be much higher than people who live in modest homes (like myself)
freddo411, Japan is not a good example. They are way to corrupt to deal with nuclear power sensible
- A credible threat of diverting demand at the margin from petroleum energy in the medium run is useful now, in terms of the correlation of forces in the Islamist war.
Except that oil is hardly used for electricity generation and that they have the cheapest sources of production. Paradoxicly the less oil is used the more power the Middle East will have in the future
I simply don't recognize any moral equivalence between the Iranian regime and ourselves or even Russia
There are more countries like but not as extreme as Iran. Can name all the countries which i wouldn't like to see having nuclear power (read nukes) but it is easier to say everybody except EU + Canada. And i'm generous on Canada and most of the EU. But if you really want an example. Malaysia
Nuclear power is always associated with massive government subsidies and special regulatory favors (supposedly anathema to conservatives).
I don't know if I can go toe to toe on who gets the most subsidies, but the coal industry gets its fair share of subsidies and special regulatory favors. In my home state, coal mines are exempt from the water quality standards applicable to all other industries. Every year, the state legislature doles out grants to try to keep the mines running, including paying for on-site infrastructure and tax breaks for onsite coal-burning plants. Mining waste are exempt from most landfill and hazardous waste laws.
Perhaps if we could tally them all up, nuclear waste might still get more subsidies, but we can't pretend that our energy decisions are actually being made in a free market.
Patrick
While there are benefits to city life and mega structures that serve thousands of people (no heating required) there remains a large part of the population that refuses to be herded like cattle.
Agreed. Replacing my thermostat paid for itself in savings on electric bills within a 3 month period. As far as insulation goes one must also recognize the fact that there must be allowances for houses to breath. In this sense there is a limitation to this approach as a total solution.
Agreed. The wheel still needs to be oiled. Depending on appliance and use the types and amounts oil as well as maintenance schedules vary.
After seeing the sheer size and expanse of wind farms employed in California I can understand why the opposition.
This is one area I don't agree with. Are we going to force large families to own 2 or more cars versus a van or SUV for family transportation. I really don't see a trade off here as much as I see a penalty. The same could be said for larger houses required by larger families. I don't see a reason to penalize a single person that doesn't live in a pill box either.
Tom Volckhausen wrote on April 15, 2005 07:28 PM
.bq "What is the rational arguement against nuclear power and in favor of what alternative?" Starting with the second question, I am suprized that anyone on a conservative website even has to ask it. Nuclear power has been extremely non-competitive in the marketplace.
Which is a greater factor, the subsidies of which you speak or the regulations which drive up the price of nuclear energy? I don't know. Clearly, nuclear energy needs to be closely regulated for security and environmental reasons so this cost has to be factored in. If, as you claim, the costs of nuclear power are far in excess of the alternatives then I would advocate taking the lower hanging fruit first, if that fruit also met our foreign policy and environmental goals as well.
Your point about conservation having a greater ROI is well taken, but I dont' see it as an apples to apple comparision, as the producers who are making the investment decisions on where to allocate $$ for new capacity can't put very many $$ into conservation efforts as they only yield so many equivalent BTUs/Watts. At some point some real Watts need to be made -- at that point we are back to deciding what ratio of fossil/nuclear/renewable to invest in.
Gov't subsidies, to each of the energy catagories, are a fact of life. I would argue that the gov't should increase subsidies and decrease regulation costs of nuclear energy in order to meet foreign policy and environmental goals. Equivalently, we should also lightly subsidies renewables, and reduce our subsidies for fossil fuels.
Generally, I don't favor the gov't "picking winnners", however, we have national interests to advance that apply benefits and reduce long term costs for all of us.
p.lukasiak wrote on April 15, 2005 07:46 PM
I guess that's true, although this effect is highly localized. So much so I say it is a red herring issue. The manatees in Fla love the nuclear sauna.
Nuclear safety is obviously quite important. So is airline safety -- insufficient attention to that cost us 3000 people and 100s of billions on 9/11. But I don't think it is rational to stop manned flight ... nor do I, by extension, think we should stop producing nuclear power. We should do so quite carefully.
I got to agree here. (only slightly off topic) there is a good article on so-called invasive species
While wildlife is nice to have, it is really the hight of arrogance for a human, or group of humans to assert that one species is "native" and another "invasive". Such catagories imply a valuation that nature simply does not have.
To bring it back to the snail darter; if we do cause the demise of one species it would be analogous to the dinos demise; another in a long list of species that no longer live here. Much if not all of the genetic information is stored in related species that do live on. The ecological niches are filled with other species. Life goes on.
I also agree. Sorry if my reply misled. Renewables have a strong supporting role currently, and they will continue to play a strong supporting role in the near future. Wind, hydro, solar, tidal are all in play. Also bio fuels, which just a few years ago seemed highly impractical may be quite viable. See this: Thermal depolymerization
Lots of good discussions here - actually informed, rather than ranting.
I am a World Changing environmentalist, not a romantic environmentalist. So I pretty much agree with the criticisms of the romantic type of environmentalist. I don't think it's a useful place to be.
Like Paul, I like to believe that the "romantic" environmentalist is actually less populated than the pragmatic and forward thinking environmentalists. One of my best friends in the Bay Area runs a small eco foundation, and his wife works for another foundation - and both of these organizations (in the Bay Area mind you!) do a LOT of concentration on pragmatism, rather than ideology - ie both are forward thinking, and so are the organizations.
As is my wont, I will mention what Joe strategically doesn't - and that is that the Bush administration "energy solutions" are a joke - and the current administration won't let a little thing like scientific inquiry interfere with preferred policies.
For nuclear power, well, I don't know - if solar, fuel cells, other alternatives got the same type of windfall and subsidies that nuclear has received over the last 50 years, how would it do? (Not to mention the deep deep, corrupting secrecy of the NRC and the nuclear companies in general, are very disturbing.)
Again, I agree with the basic thrust of the post - the romanticism involved with environmentalism can be unhelpful. If this leads to reversing some long-cherished environmental policies by the environmental movement, fine by me - but where should the PRIORITY be? I would say everyone screaming at the top of thier lungs for Bush to stop politizing science, would be first. Then you can turn attention to goring environmental chestnuts.
"While there are benefits to city life and mega structures that serve thousands of people (no heating required) there remains a large part of the population that refuses to be herded like cattle."
Certainly I am all for choice in how and where people live, but the actions of government have hugely accelerated urban sprawl and suburban development. Developers of mixed-use, dense urban infill have found a ready market for their product, after they hacked their way thru the bureacracy (not everybody needs to buy it, just enuf to pay back the investors).
However, regulations such as minimum parking requirements, minimum setbacks, minimum lot sizes, floor area ratios, maximum height limits, single use zoning, along with roadbuilding subsidies, etc.,etc. are major reasons that the US is developing in such a low density fashion. Consumer choice is also relevant, but consumers make their "choice" within a range which is very limited by government action.
As with energy, housing is very far from a "free" market, due to distortions by government subsidy and regulation. I would not argue for eliminating all subsidy and regulation, but merely for more careful targetting to avoid unintended consequences.
Brand's critique has some validity in that local NIMBYs who may consider themselves environmentalists often oppose dense development, even as mainstream environmental groups espouse new-urbanism, smart growth, and other density-friendly strategies.
Agreed that after the most strenuous conservation efforts, watts need to come from somewhere, fossil,nuke, or renewable. However as Amory Lovins has argued, for the nearterm future, the cheapest watts are "negawatts", watts we conserve instead of burn. If your thermostat paid off in 3 months it had an annual return of ~400%, while nuke plant investors would be ecstatic to get 15% ROI.
The problem with nuclear power is that everything must always go right, otherwise you are just seconds from catastrophe. A coal or gas-fired powerplant even if leveled by explosion can be repaired, it won't threaten the lives of millions or make the land around it for perhaps many miles uninhabitable for generations.
Not so with nuclear power, it's too risky, and Chernobyl shows what happens when you don't understand that risk.
As for the environmental attitude towards urban/suburban spaces, it comes from once again the Left's desire to have the elite (or philosopher king) tell the ordinary folk what to do, since they are the enlightened ones and the great unwashed the stupid.
People voluntarily move to cities in Third World countries because they have more economic and personal freedom there. They can have better lives than in their villages. This pattern is replicated by the exodus from small town rural America in the Midwest, to big urban centers by young people. Cities like Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami all offer lots of other young people of the opposite sex, cultural opportunities, and higher paying jobs. They have better lives than out in isolated hamlets in the Plains.
Yet cities don't work for families, there's no possibility of home ownership, safe places for kids to play, a backyard, privacy, and security. People readily trade stimulation and excitement for safety and security when they are middle class families, the failure of the Left and the Environmental movement generally is to castigate people for being human, and expecting everyone to act like a young, wealthy, urbanite on the make. Most families don't want a trendy loft apartment in the city, but the safe/secure home in the suburbs.
If you want to attract families to urban areas, you have to do things that make cities attractive to them rather than forcing them (which is political disaster). Better schools, private houses in the city center, safe parks and streets with zero tolerance for crime, in short making cities as safe and secure as the suburbs. This has real political costs because it entails lots of police, and unpopular moves against the homeless, gang members, and others who have powerful political advocates within the system. It also requires more than just pandering to the young cultural elite.
The same can be said for dams and Hydro electric power. Dams do break and with devastating consequences. As far as hydro electric power goes there is so only much you can get from and transport to. The flow of the major rivers with in the US are of major concern when it comes to availability for drinking water and trade as well. On the whole risks can be mitigated and are to the point I feel comfortable enough to live with a nuclear plant in my back yard.
Not sure I agree with this at all. Regardless of city or urban life each has a set risks unique to the environment. In this realm suburbia may offer convenience on a higher level but there are just as many risks.
This is not to say that suburbia doesn't have the same issues. It may be on a lower scale but your observations concerning risk mitigation work well here.
Talk of "forcing" people to live in cities is just one more strawman. I doubt anyone can find a real life advocate of such a policy.
Actual real life smart-growth advocates are more concerned with removing regulatory barriers to better urban design than "forcing" anyone to do anything. The car-people enforcing their autocentric zoning and building codes are truly "forcing" people to do their bidding. For example, I was "forced" to provide an offstreet parking space for a car that I do not own during a remodel.
Evidence for the impact of modern regulations can be seen in the desireability of neighborhoods built before their existence (Boston's Beacon Hill, DC's Georgetown, Denver's Capitol Hill). None of those neighborhoods could be recreated today without massive code violations. Throughout history and even today in most of the world, families freely chose to live in the cities. To elevate a temporary, culturallly and economically determined preference in US to a blanket statement like "cities don't work for families," is clearly a mistake.
Many of my friends and relatives happily live in cities with their families in the US and Europe, as do I. Cities work for my family. Suburbs are boring and sterile, and their supposed "safety" is based on perception rather than fact. Studies have shown that suburban youth have a higher mortality rate (for a given socioeconomic strata) than urban, because of increased death rates due to automobile accidents which in turn result from increased vehicle miles driven. Residents of less dense suburban developments also display increased obesity with all its' consequent health and morbidity impacts.
The explosion of homelessness in the US under Republican administrations has clearly made urban environments less family friendly, but we can only expect homelessness to increase (note recent cuts in housing aid, Medicaid, and mental health spending and the new bankruptcy "reform" which will impoverish even more of the unlucky unemployed or unhealthy).
As $2.30/gallon gas morphs into $5 gallon/gas over the next few years, the cost/benefit ratio for suburban/exurban development will change radically. Similarly, increasing energy costs will make McMansions with acres of envelope area prohibitively expensive to heat and cool.
"The technology exists today for homeowners to significantly reduce their dependence on electricity provided through the utility company with solar panels."
I guess if you hate your local electric supplier enough you might want to consider solar panels. Penn State has 3 installed with estimated payback times of 48 to 147 years. At taxpayers expense NY has installed panels, at about $22,000 a piece for a 2KW system, in a number of schools. Actual system performance for schools PV systems can be seen here. I did a quick, and very optimistic, calculation based on the local school system being fully operational for 8 months (Aug - March). They will be lucky to generate 2000 KWh's a year. EIA gives the average cost of a kWh in 2003 of 8.70 cents for residential. At 10 cents a kWh it will only take about 110 years to recover the cost of the solar array.
"And wind farms are a "low environmental impact" means of generating electricity."
It all sounds good but the devil is in the details. Whenever you see a news article about some new windmill project that will generate x MW's of power, multiply that number by 0.15 to get a real life estimate of what it will really generate. A report by E.ON Netz GmbH ,one of the largest wind energy companies (maybe the largest) in Europe, is not so optimistic. The report points out some of those nasty details that make wind power quite expensive. A brief summary of the report can be found here.
"The scientists are ethicalistic, rebellious against any perceived dominant paradigm, and combative against each other. For them, admitting mistakes is what science is".
LOL … well I would suggest that is more myth than reality. Scientist are just as human as the rest of us as the late Thomas Gold use to like to point out.
"If a large proportion of the scientific community in one field is guided by the herd instinct, then they cannot adopt another viewpoint since they cannot imagine that the whole herd will swing around at the same time. It is merely the logistics of the situation. Even if everybody were willing to change course, nobody individually will be sure that he will not be outside the herd when he does so. Perhaps if they could do it as neatly as a flock of starlings, they would. So this inertia-producing effect is a very serious one.
It is not just the herd instinct in the individuals that you have to worry about, but you have to worry about how it is augmented by the way in which science is handled. If support from peers, if moral and financial consequences are at stake, then on the whole staying with the herd is the successful policy for the individual who is depending on these, but it is not the successful policy for the pursuit of science."
I agree and with city living comes certain expenses that those willing to live in the city must bear. These expenses should not be supported by taxes from US coffers they should be supported by taxes from the citizens of the city. If the city does it right it will attract more people which will improve conservation and create the greater yield of economic resources that are touted.
Don't agree with that one bit at all. Walk the streets of Chicago, New York or Washington D.C. (BTW Chicago is one city I wouldn't mind living in.)
Blame all of America for not wanting to pay for the homeless (housing aid), Medicaid, mental health and bankruptcy. These issues in and of themselves are created by bureaucratic agencies regardless of taxes and government handouts. As was stated zoning laws, city ordinances and regulations have forced the costs of living up. Reduce these costs and you reduce some of the issues that have been created. Digging into my pocket to continually pay for someone else's welfare does not solve the problem.
I agree and with city living comes certain expenses that those willing to live in the city must bear. These expenses should not be supported by taxes from US coffers they should be supported by taxes from the citizens of the city.
I'm afraid that this is really unfair to people who live in the cities. The fact is that the cities did not (by and large) cause their own problems --- national (and state) policies played a very large role.
Cities did not choose to build interstate highways, making it possible for companies to move out of the cities and build factories and warehouses on cheap land that was readily accessible to the urban markets. Cities did not create federal and state tax policies that favored new construction over renovation of existing facilities. Cities did not create the policy of "red-lining" neighborhoods where blacks lived, making it virtually impossible for prospective homeowners to get mortgages in those areas. Cities did not demand that business and suburban real estate agents engage in discrimintory practices, denying african americans access to the jobs and homes that were being created as companies moved out of the cities.
The two biggest reasons for the decline of the cities were federal and state policies that encouraged suburban growth and racial discrimination that denied african americans access to the economic opportunities being created in the suburbs in the post-WWII era.
Cities declined because their tax base shrunk at the same time as demand for social services increased as economic opportunities decreased. Demand for services for those without economic opportunities lead to tax increases accompanied by declines in services provided to the urban working class and middle class.
One of my favorite fantasies involves cities putting its poorest and most problematic citizens on buses to the suburbs with one way tickets---and a note saying "here is your share of this nation's problems. Now you deal with it!"
"For nuclear power, well, I don't know - if solar, fuel cells, other alternatives got the same type of windfall and subsidies that nuclear has received over the last 50 years, how would it do?"
Not so well I suspect. Listed are the source and percentage of electricity generated from the EIA.
Coal - 51%
Nuclear - 20%
Gas - 17%
Oil - 3%
Hydro - 7%
Other - 3%
And the breakdown on Federal subsidies :
Fossil fuels - 58%
Nuclear - 29%
Total = 87%
Fossil fuels and nuclear produce ~ 91% of the electricity and receive 87% of the subsidies. Nuclear gets more per unit of energy produced then does the fossil fuels but I suspect nuclear regulatory costs are significantly higher too. That means that hydro and other (wind solar ect.) which produce 9~10% get 13% of the subsidies. Add to that the state subsidies that are provided for "alternate" energy sources, which I am sure don’t exist for nuclear, and I don’t think you have much of an argument. There are fundamental problems with the alternative sources that are not present in the more traditional sources. If the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow your SOL. IOW, if you can’t control the process no amount of money is going to fix it.
There are fundamental problems with the alternative sources that are not present in the more traditional sources. If the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow your SOL.
This is a false argument. No one is suggesting that we rely solely on sources like solar and wind power at this point. What is being suggested is that we make the effort to convert to these "clean" sources of energy to the extent possible while maintaining a "backup" capacity based on "traditional" forms of energy production.
(one of the things I don't understand is why there aren't more combined wind/solar farms. Wind farms require far more area in the sky than they do on the ground --- and although there are lots of days with no wind OR no sun, there are far fewer such days in which neither is available.)
As to your point with regard to federal subsidies, one of the problems that I have with your conclusions is that it does not take into consideration economies of scale and the possibilities thereof. For instance, if the government offered to subsidize the installation of solar panels for everyone on my street if they are installed at the same time (rather than giving me a tax break for buying a solar panel) significant economies could be achieved.
I also doubt that the "fossil fuel" subsidy is accurate, in that "intangible" costs such as what we pay to the military to ensure that vital oil "choke points" remain open, the costs to our economy of the balance of payments deficit, and other difficult to quantify costs are included.
"This is a false argument. No one is suggesting that we rely solely on sources like solar and wind power at this point.
I don't believe I was making that argument. If wind power starts supplying around 10% of of the power it starts creating stability problems on the grid due to it's intermittency (see graphs in EON paper). 10% would be hardly considered "solely". Also from the EON link provided above:
"The weather determines the wind level Both cold wintry periods and periods of summer heat are attributable to stable high-pressure weather systems. Low wind levels are meteorologically symptomatic of such high-pressure weather systems. This means that in these periods, the contribution made by wind energy plants to covering electricity consumption is correspondingly low."
IOW, when you really need the power the wind doesn't blow. Add in spin reserve (conventional power plants up and running but not online) and the 15% utilization gets smaller.
"Operational experience over the past few years has shown that reserve capacities in the order of magnitude of up to 60 % of the installed wind power capacity must be kept for wind balancing in years when wind levels are normal. The need for reserve capacity and the resulting costs will therefore continue to rise in future parallel to the further expansion of wind power."
That reserve has to be fossil fuel, nuclear doesn't have the transient response necessary to compensate for the winds huge swings in output from the wind mills. So you "clean" power is not as clean as you seem to think nor are the environmental effects as benign.
"As to your point with regard to federal subsidies, one of the problems that I have with your conclusions is that it does not take into consideration economies of scale and the possibilities thereof."
First, the part about subsidies was to point out that the they exist in sizable amounts in the alternative energy market. For solar panels in your economy of scales argument you have to take into consideration that the solar panels you get now use waist silicon from the semiconductor industry. If demand went up significantly the solar panel industry would have to start refining their own silicon. The costs would go up, not down. Include in your equation the increased demand for silver (needed for the electrical contacts) and the predictable market increase in its cost.
"I also doubt that the "fossil fuel" subsidy is accurate...
At least I put up some numbers, do you think maybe you could come up with some to support what you believe?
Good grief, Jim Rockford, surely you don't think anybody here (or anywhere else, for that matter) is proposing completely obsolete Chernobyl-style designs when we mention nuclear power, do you? That's a straw reactor if I ever saw one!
Tom --
Amory Lovins and his various acolytes DO want to force people of the suburbs into "sustainable" city living. Indeed your "soul-less" language shows a bias against suburbs. Cities like NYC, or even medium sized cities like Dallas, Atlanta, etc. have serious crime problems, which mandate against families. Not to mention the big one, affordability. People in the US want their own homes, not renting. I suspect Europeans want the same, which accounts for the growth of suburbs there as well. The suburbs give advantages (privacy, your own backyard, safety for kids playing outside) that simply cannot be matched by any city unless it's a millionaire's exclusive neighborhood like New Orleans' gated Audobon Park (home to Harry Connick Jr).
It's EASY to live well in cities if you are rich and can afford Beacon Hill, or Hancock Park in LA, etc. For the rest of us, not blessed by great wealth, we are stuck in marginal areas with gangs, drugs, rapes, muggings, etc far more prevalent than the suburbs. The cost to a family being mugged moving groceries into their home from their car after shopping is easy to calculate and direct. Nobody wants to live with bars on their windows.
Democrats are rapidly positioning themselves as "we want to take your house away and move you into tenement rental conditions in the city." Celebrating high gas prices and the lack of choice and personal mobility. Democrat's McMansions is the average family's 1500 sq foot house they worked hard all their life to purchase. The party messes with that dream at it's peril.
Cities are a mess, basically since the post-War era, largely because of crime. Just like crime and corruption destroys efforts to build economies in the third world, the same effect happens in US cities. The people of Harlem aren't stupid, they are as entrepreneurial as anyone else, yet African-American owned facilities in the area can be counted on the fingers of two hands. This is largely due to the crime penalty that makes owning property in that area unprofitable and risky.
As far as Chernobyl, the reactor had several design flaws, but had a number of experienced people on board. EVERYTHING had to go right otherwise the tragic meltdown was inevitable. A dam can fail yet the land will be inhabitable within a year. That's not the case in Chernobyl. Americans just IMHO are not ready to assume the risk of a nuclear power plant near where they live. Not to mention of where to put the waste (there is no real solution for that).
Wind farms kill raptors and migratory birds. You might as well call them Eagle puree-ing devices. Solar is inefficient, doesn't pay off unless basic Kwh rates are out of sight. We've pretty much dammed up every river we can for hydro power. Moreover, none of these work well in peak load time. For that you need something that can generate steadily, not catch as catch can. Natural Gas or Clean Coal (expensive but still cheaper than solar by orders of magnitude).
"Operational experience over the past few years has shown that reserve capacities in the order of magnitude of up to 60 % of the installed wind power capacity must be kept for wind balancing in years when wind levels are normal. The need for reserve capacity and the resulting costs will therefore continue to rise in future parallel to the further expansion of wind power."
Okay, lets say we cut our reliance on fossil fuels to 38% and substitute it with wind power. That means that we will have to maintain the capacity to generate 50% of our electricity from fossil fuels during a worst case scenario "wind crisis".
That doesn't seem like it should be a problem in terms of "reserve costs", because we won't be needing to incur the capital costs necessary to provide that reserve capacity---that capacity already exists. And we can further reduce the need for that "reserve capacity" if that 20% doesn't come exclusively from "wind power", but from a combination of "wind" and "solar" power. The periods when wind power is most likely to be unable to meet its demand (hot, windless, summer days when the sun is beating down) are those days when solar power potential is at its peak.
The bottom line here is that there are no ideal solutions at this point --- every idea has its benefits and its downsides. And its obvious that the best long term solution is sustainable/renewable energy sources. Reliance on fossil fuels is untenable, not merely because of environmental concerns, but because it holds our economy hostage to foreign sources of fossil fuels. Nuclear power has some short term advantages, but the long term problems involved with nuclear power production --- and the slight but undeniable possibility of a major disaster in the short term --- make it inadvisable.
At least I put up some numbers, do you think maybe you could come up with some to support what you believe?
do you really want to see the defense budget?
the reason I raised the point about the "indirect costs" was because I checked the source of the numbers you cited, and they did not appear to be included. As I noted, these costs are somewhat intangible and amorphous --- (unless, of course like me you think that the US-Iraq wars were really "all about oil", which makes it possible to come up with some incomplete numbers).
#9 Mark,
About one nuke equivalent of wind will be installed this year. Next year even more.
Wind is ramping up. Its price is coming down.
Within 3 to 7 years wind will be on par with coal/nukes.
And lest you think I'm some enviro nou let me give you a couple of pieces of my CV:
1. Naval Nuclear Reactor Operator
2. Aircraft electrical system designer/tester
Who is going to build a nuke with 40 year amortization when wind will cost significantly less than nuke/coal power in less than 15 years?
You can derrive about 20% or more of grid power from wind without any significant reliability impact.
Did I mention that wind is already cheaper than natural gas electricity?
================================Fortunately electrical utilities know what you don't. There is a rush to get into wind so as to have operational experience necessary to deal with massive amounts of wind power that will come on line when costs are right.
It is past time that folks get over the energy panics
#13 freddo,
There is no private insurance available for nuclear power.
There is a reason for this.
If a coal plant were to blow up it would not contaminate the entire midwest.
Now I will admit that the risk in the USA is very small. But it is not zero as it is for say a coal or wind plant.
Still it is a risk that can't be insured against. Probability unknown, losses catastrophic.
My point is that this is a huge government subsidy. The cost of nuclear power is artificially low.
#17 from p.lukasiak,
I'm no fan of nuke power, however, no nuclear plant is going to give you a "mushroom cloud". That is pure fear mongering.
I'm no fan of nuke power, however, no nuclear plant is going to give you a "mushroom cloud". That is pure fear mongering.
it wasn't fear mongering....just a little tweak about the Bush regime's use of exaggerated rhetoric in its own fear-mongering.
:)
#28 from Greg F,
Your multiplier of .15 is correct if you only consider baseline loads.
Actual total power is about .30 of rated capacity.
Since wind is such a small factor in the grid at this time the baseline figure need not be considered.
Wind is now cheaper than natural gas electricity and will provide competition for gas electricity, relieving some pressure on gas suplies. In a way it is complimentary with wind.
Cities are a mess, basically since the post-War era, largely because of crime.
This sounds like it came from a Heritage Foundation version of a "Schoolhouse Rock" video on social policy.
Crime is more of a symptom than a cause of urban problems. The real cause is lack of economic (and educational and social) opportunity in urban areas. And that problem was the result of state and federal policies that made it cheaper for businesses to treat existing facilities like a disposable Coke bottle. Tax policies and other decisions (like building the interstate highway system) made it more profitable to simply abandon facilities that had outlived their usefulness and build new ones in the suburbs than it was to "recycle/renovate/adapt" those existing urban-based facilities.
(and we are seeing this phenomenon re-occur in "inner ring" suburbs, as buildings in older suburban "industrial parks" go begging at the same time new facilities are being built in the outer ring suburbs.)
National de facto policies of racial discrimnation -- as well as de jure policies such as "redlining" used in federally subsidized mortgage programs -- also played a major role.
The solution to urban problems is as simple --- pour more money into putting cops on the street, and providing city services that improve the quality of life --- as it is objectionable to right wingers. The cities don't have the money to pour into these solutions, and raising city taxes to raise more money will simply exacerbate the problem.
In a purely environmental context, treating existing buildings (and the accompanying infrastructures) as disposal is incredibly wasteful. One really environmentally smart idea would be to end any possible tax advantages for building on undeveloped land --- no mortgage interest deductions, and no expensing or depreciating of new facilities to reduce business income subject to taxation --- and the cost of providing the infrastructure necessary to support building on undeveloped land must be borne solely by those who want to build.
You'll still be able to build that McMansion on your five acre lot, you'll just have to pay every penny of the costs involved.
As I stated earlier - These issues in and of themselves are created by bureaucratic agencies regardless of taxes and government handouts. Remove the bureaucratic crud and see what happens. Which now begs the question, why was the bureaucratic crud enacted in the first place?
Reduce these costs and you reduce some of the issues that have been created. The federal government as well as states tax the energy resources to maintain the infrastructure. In the case of federal taxes, states are held hostage to government handouts if they don't comply to certain rules and regulations. The same can be said for communities receiving state funds. As an example " The Big Dig" in Boston is one of the biggest problems for the city now and has been for many years. I wonder how many man hours and how much energy resources were used to create the problem. Who created the necessity for "The Big Dig"? The American populace or the citizens of Boston? It would be nice to know what the costs to date are in energy resources simply to maintain what they have now.
It would be interesting to know how much federal money as opposed to state / local / city taxes were used in the revitalization of cities such as NYC, Baltimore and others. As is the case with NYC in some instances the city does well in offering people what they need. Not sure at this point if water in NYC is still free (due to tax collection) to all residents as it was at one time. If it is, it would be interesting to see what the usage is compared to other cities of economical scale. (ie Do they use more or less and economize?) Certainly this kind of analysis can be used to determine if other resources such as free / cheap electricity would be economized.
Now there is an interesting fantasy. Assuming all of the people you mention are willing to get on that bus I wonder if they would migrate back to the cities.
#33 from p.lukasiak,
The reason there aren't more wind/solar farms is that solar occupies area and is not cost effective at this time.
Wind's actual footprint on the ground is quite small (1/2% including access roads) so the wind farm can also be a food farm. Solar would not allow such dual use.
#34 Greg F,
Wind does not cause stability problems until well past 20% (we are no where near 10% so the point is moot at this time). Some EU country's wind electricity goes as high as 50% of the grid without problems.
In any case storage would solve the problem. I have some ideas along that line if you have $$$$.
Wind is complimentary with natural gas (dispatch times) and can put a cap on rising natural gas prices.
I already covered the .15 Utilization Factor (UF). At the current level of wind penetration of wind the UF is generally .30 or better.
#36 Jim Rockford,
The wind turbines that killed birds were in the 25 to 100kw (peak) capacity. The latest multi MW jobs are estimated to kill 1 to 2 birds a year each.
If you really care about birds we need to kill all the cats and take down all tall buildings.
Cats kill 100 million birds a year in America. I'm not up on the building numbers, but they are in the range of cats (10 - 100 million a year).
Cats provide no significant amounts of electricity to the grid.
M. Simon from Rockford
#44 from p.lukasiak,
I'm surprised you didn't mention ending prohibition as a way to reduce crime by 50%. It worked once it can work again.
Wind's actual footprint on the ground is quite small (1/2% including access roads) so the wind farm can also be a food farm. Solar would not allow such dual use.
not all wind farms are located in areas that are suitable for agriculture....the small footprint means that lots of surface area that could be used for solar panels is available. And insofar as the wind farm requires the creation of an electrical infrastructure that is needed to transfer power to a central location, it would be especially cost effective to "piggyback" solar panels onto that infrastructure.
M. Simon: Who is going to build a nuke with 40 year amortization when wind will cost significantly less than nuke/coal power in less than 15 years?
Probably someone who doesn't have thousands of acres of suitable land available. Like solar, wind power is bulky and requires lots of infrastructure. Its decentralized nature means more miles of powerlines and more substations. All of this impacts the environment, limits development, encroaches on wilderness areas, affects property values, and costs money.
Mind you, I'm not down on wind power, I just don't see as much potential as you do. If you drive across the plains states you see lots of great places for wind farms, but the remote locations would make maintenance pretty difficult - and mean even longer power lines. Still, some struggling small towns might find a new future as "wind colonies", keeping all of those towers and those thousands of bearings in operation. Cheaper, stronger, and more environmentally safe materials would help.
The answer to the future energy crunch is in science and engineering, not in "Environmentalism". An honest environmentalism could serve to educate and popularize alternative energy. A politicized pseudo-environmentalism only clouds alternative energy with suspicion.
Responding through #39:
Tom Volckhausen wrote:Nuclear power has also been subject to a large number of very costly government mandates from the executive branch, and expensive blockages from the judicial branch (many of them without merit). That part of the anti-nuclear argument is circular:- Why should nuclear be shut down? It's too expensive!
- Why is nuclear too expensive? Because of the shutdowns.
If you look at the costs in France you may find that much of them are due to uncompetitive bidding, ridiculous labor rates and other graft or near-graft.If you are looking for a way to prevent terrorists from hitting a reactor with anything other than an inside job, the solution is simple: pile dirt on the containment building. Dirt is cheap and we've got plenty of it.
freddo411 has it right. Current coal plants (the competition for nuclear) are allowed to emit levels of radioisotopes which would force a nuke plant to shut down, and that's in addition to the toxic heavy metals. I'm all for cleaning up all the plants where we're still going to burn coal (I'm particularly pleased with the potential of oxygen-blown IGCC) but that doesn't mean that nuclear isn't better in that respect. The only reason I don't plug it heavily on my blog is... politics.
Re #22: Direct heat pollution from powerplants is within about a factor of two regardless of the heat source, but the greenhouse contribution from anything that burns fossil fuels dwarfs the direct heating.
Thermal depolymerization is turning out to be rather expensive, at least when fed with turkey guts; the current plant's product costs about $80/bbl and has a serious odor problem. The process may do better when fed with things which currently go to landfills, like non-recyclable plastics and old tires.
Agree with JC that Bush administration energy policies are a (very sick) joke. The pols had to know that this price spike was likely, yet in the post-9/11 period they promoted big fuel-hungry vehicles like there was no tomorrow. People went on a big gasoline binge "to help the economy". Well, guess what: tomorrow has arrived, and with it the hangover.
Bush has never vetoed a bill, not even one of the horrid pork-laden monstrosities that have so frequently gone over his desk. If Congress got some spine and quit adding so many favors for his business partners (like the house of Saud) we might get somewhere. Where would we be today if Reagan had continued the best of the energy programs of the Carter administration? Much better off, I'm certain; all you have to do is look at the best of the products currently on the market and realize that we probably could have had many of them by 1992 (not to mention domestic rather than imported from China). US companies were into things like evacuated-tube solar collectors early on, but we didn't get any government support the way that coal and gas did. The result is the continuation of a host of absurdities: most people in sun-drenched California, Arizona and Texas are heating their DHW with electricity.
This is not to say that the left didn't screw up royally. The romanticists on the California Air Resources Board could have jump-started the plug-in hybrid with the right regulations, but they preferred to demand all-or-nothing from the auto companies. The sad legacy of that bit of stupidity: the last of GM's EV1's just went under the crusher.
Re #25: Chernobyl was due to poor Soviet practices; the results are not inherent to nuclear power. TMI had an accident at least as bad, and hurt nobody.
Re #28: A more realistic capacity factor for a wind plant on a good site is 0.30, about twice your figure. Winter capacity factor in the north would be higher, summer lower.
Re #33: The idea of the combined wind/solar farm would be great, if all was equal. Unfortunately, it's not; areas of best wind and best sun rarely coincide. Farmers can do very well by leasing small pads for towers to wind companies and continuing to farm the rest of their land; solar would put them out of business. Building owners can do well by installing solar on their roofs (eliminates T&D costs) in places where wind isn't feasible.
Re #36: Your claim is contrary to everything I know about Chernobyl, to wit: the reactor had been taken down for an unauthorized test and was being operated outside its normal control envelope with safties disconnected. It takes work (and a big dose of STUPID) to destroy even an RMBK.
Solar PV is already competitive with afternoon peak power rates in some places. If you can also manage to get the demand charge reduced by installing solar, it can be a win even at today's prices. Those prices are coming down steadily, and thin-film cells can make do on very little silicon.
M. Simon asks:That's simple: someone who is expected to meet the base load and isn't willing to pay for the carbon/arsenic/mercury/SOx/NOx emissions of coal.This is not to say that solar and wind don't have tremendous potential, but they have to be integrated into a viable system because they cannot stand alone. For some of my thoughts on this (asking the right question) see my essay Forty-two.
If you look at the costs in France you may find that much of them are due to uncompetitive bidding, ridiculous labor rates and other graft or near-graft.
Nuclear power plants are building projects. Large, quite unique building projects. Have you ever seen such building project without graft?
The amount of graft in such a project can vary immensely; see the joke in the second comment in this thread.
I'm not worried about graft that results in contracts being granted that add costs ---
I'm far more concerned with graft aimed at increasing profits while containing costs through the use of lower quality materials, and looking the other way when "minor" instances of shoddy workmanship would be expensive to redo.
Are you using scare quotes to indicate something which actually constitutes a safety threat?
Regardless, this can probably be dealt with using the "broken windows" philosophy of safety enforcement: inspect carefully, and prosecute and jail people who bypass or falsify inspections.
I wondered how long a post about science and romanticism would attract the Engineer-Poet.
Who is going to build a nuke with 40 year amortization when wind will cost significantly less than nuke/coal power in less than 15 years?
Well, they are getting ready to build a new reactor in nearby Clinton, IL, but that's a new reactor at an existing site originally designed for two reactors. A number of nuclear projects have been announced and early-stage permitting activitiy commenced at several locations. Most of these projects may not get anywhere, though.
Patrick
Regardless, this can probably be dealt with using the "broken windows" philosophy of safety enforcement: inspect carefully, and prosecute and jail people who bypass or falsify inspections.
the point is that graft is what prevents "careful inspections" from taking place --- and we won't find out about the significant incidences of "people who bypass or falsify inspections" until after it is too late.
I mean, this is a great idea in theory --- but Enron, and World Com, and Tyco, and god knows how many other companies have demonstrated that enforcement of even egregious violations of laws doesn't always happen in a timely fashion.
#50 from p.lukasiak,
Our #1 and #2 states for wind are North Dakota and South Dakota.
Lots of farms.
The other problem with solar is the cost.
If it was cost effective there would be a lot more of it.
#51 Glenn,
In an age of terrorism decentralized is good.
#52,
What wind needs to become more than 20% of the mix is storage.
I have a design for that. I am an aerospace engineer. I am Naval Nuke trained. I am not a flake.
I keep asking for $$$ to impliment my design.
So far zero interest.
I'll believe we have a problem when I see the money.
================I worry about plutonium proliferation.
I'll live with local pollution by coal plants until wind/solar takes over.
A nuke terror strike (explosive) would hurt us more than the local pollution from a coal plant.
I'm not looking for a risk free world. Just lower risk.
=================The reason I'm so up on wind is that I can read a learning curve.
The utilities can too. They have been reading them since 1900.
Barring some kind of subsidy not many more nukes are going to get built.
The really cool thing is: at this point of transition we don't need them.
I like the mini reactor made by Toshiba
Most of the problems are self created by making the reactors too damn big.
The small ones such as we ise on Submarines and our aircraft carriers is far more desirable.
The toshiba reactor looks to be a larger than those, but still has the benifits of a small reactor
The large mega project type plants dont make sense to me, is it the construction dollars that tilt in favor of those things ?
These large behemoths are complexity dumbf**kery, anyone who has built anything knows that of you pull back from the extremes inherrent in a mega reactor, and go to the smaller ones that simply dont generate enough energy to melt themselves down even with total cooling loss, are superior
The Toshiba Reactor is being looked at for alaska.
Course, the left dont like it, the envirowacko liliputians hate answers for old problems because it allows capitalism to continue, you cant trust them. but can any of the rest of you see fault in the Toshiba design ?
Just be the nature of how its contructed, it makes sabotage or fuel theft almost impossible, you would almost need a nuke, to get to the nuke, or at least a week with heavy equipment.
Raymond says:
If you look at units around the world, they all seem to be about the same size. This may just be due to the same engineering firms building many of them and the benefit of experience carrying over to the rest, but it may mean that there is a certain natural size for e.g. a PWR that works best. The natural size for a pebble-bed reactor appears to be smaller.Stewart Brand, who is discussed in your May, 2005 blog, has endorsed “Rad Decision,” a techno-thriller novel about the American nuclear power industry. Written by a longtime nuclear engineer, it providea an entertaining and accurate portrait of a nuclear power plant and how an accident might be handled. “Rad Decision” is currently running as a serial at RadDecision.blogspot.com, at no cost to readers.
“I'd like to see RAD DECISION widely read.” - - Stewart Brand.
If you find Rad Decision worthwhile, please pass the word along.
James Aach
At it's heart, The Clock of the Long Now, which reflects the cummulative commitment of not only the author but some other brilliant avant guarde mind including Danny Hillis, Kevin Kelly (WIRED, Out of Control, the Rise of Neo-Biological Civilization), Esther Dyson, Mitch Kapor (Lotus, Electronic Frontier Foundation) and a few others, is about reframing the way people--the entire population of the Earth--think, moving them from the big now toward the Long Here, taking responsibility for acting as it every behavior will impact on the 10,000 year long timeframe.