Obama on nuclear energy
Locked
Obama on nuclear energy
 
|
Below is link showing Obama's support for nuclear energy. I was sorry to see it stated so clearly, because I remain believing that we can proceed without nuclear energy (unless it is developing cold fusion, which he does not state in his speech), using wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen. I continue to see no reason this is not possible, and deeply fear, having sat through countless hearings on Capitol Hill about the potential threats of nuclear fission power plants, the inevitable error of human management, and the inability to protect the toxics from leakage over their 500 million year life span. These systems remain of a similar threat today, with toxic wastes still unresolved, and meltdown capabilities remaining. Such solutions therefore should not be part of the equation in my opinion.
But wanted you to see the link, whatever you think on the subject.
Peggy Miller
Highland Winds
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Obama on nuclear energy
|
|
I'm curious why you think our future energy needs can be met without nuclear energy. Do you have any references to forecast energy budgets for the US which define energy usage in coming decades, and the corresponding energy sources and delivery infrastructures for meeting those demands?
It's one thing to say "I don't like nukes," but another thing entirely to claim that US energy requirements can be met without fission nuclear power sources. Some justification for your position, please? --Doug On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:19 AM, peggy miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Obama on nuclear energy
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15friedman.html?_r=1
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Obama on nuclear energy
|
|
http://www.google.com/search?q=NIF+lanl+the+rest+of+the+story&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15friedman.html?_r=1 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by HighlandWindsLLC Miller
peggy miller wrote:
> Below is link showing Obama's support for nuclear energy. I was sorry > to see it stated so clearly, because I remain believing that we can > proceed without nuclear energy (unless it is developing cold fusion, > which he does not state in his speech), using wind, solar, geothermal, > hydrogen. I continue to see no reason this is not possible, and deeply > fear, having sat through countless hearings on Capitol Hill about the I agree with Peggy's comment about "the inevitable error of human management, and the inability to protect the toxics from leakage" I would add that while piracy is (IMHO) indefensible, the Somali piracy problem gathered much steam after the central government collapsed in 1991. The immediate results were predatory overfishing by foreign nations on the Somali coastline and the dumping of radioactive waste by European firms, which prompted fishermen to attempt to defend their waters and prevent the collapse of their fisheries. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article418665.ece http://abandonedheadlines.blogspot.com/2009/04/poor-coverage-of-somali-piracy.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_piracy -Nick -- ---------------------------------------- Nicholas S. Frost 7 Avenida Vista Grande #325 Santa Fe, NM 87508 [hidden email] ---------------------------------------- ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Obama on nuclear energy
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Douglas Roberts wrote:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=NIF+lanl+the+rest+of+the+story&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a > <http://www.google.com/search?q=NIF+lanl+the+rest+of+the+story&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a> > Skimmed over Bodner's article where he talks about them having trouble getting to 0.5x0.5 mm focal spot, but then in Table 2 their data says 250 um focal spot at 1.8 MJ "Demonstrated to date". Seems like a lot of the misrepresentation he's concerned about is now historical? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I am sympathetic with the desire to eliminate "messy" forms of energy
production, storage, transmission and use. England (esp. London) during the early Industrial Revolution understood that Coal was dirty and should not be used in cities... but they already had an appetite for it's utility and continued to make themselves ill for a long time. Even today, the world continues to use it. Internal Combustion Engines seemed to be a great boon. Around 1905, Scientific American claimed a great victory for the automobile in NY City, almost completely eliminating the messy, fly-attracting, etc. "pollution" of horseshit. It took nearly 50 years for the exhaust of automobiles to begin to become a bother, and another 50 (today) for it to become a global threat. As I was leaving college in my mid twenties, I was quite idealistic. I was a vegetarian. I drove a honda Civic that got 40+ mpg (@55mph). I looked at both LLNL and LANL as genuinely positive places to work for many reasons... the Fusion Energy projects at both labs (Magnetic Fusion Energy @ LLNL and Antares Laser Fusion @ LANL) seemed to promise (30 years ago) an unlimited supply of energy to feed our unlimited (oops, did I say that?) appetite. 30 years ago. It was on the tip of our scientific tongues 30 years ago. And here we are. Maybe it is imminent. In a few years, I could no longer buy a car that got 40+ mpg. I would have thought it was an OPEC or Detroit conspiracy, but instead I discovered that in our haste to improve fuel efficiency we had tweaked out the emission of Nitrous Oxides... and to keep the air safe to breathe, and reduce emissions to (mostly) C02 and H20, we needed to give up a little fuel economy. Nobody knew that C02, for all it's relative benign properties (we breathe it out with every breath, plants suck it up like we suck up oxygen!), would become a problem. Wait... *many* people knew! And only a few listened (I wasn't one of them, I was still seeking the holy grail of "free energy"). I observed Solar and Wind energy projects with great lust. Free energy straight from the environment! Then the Eagles (and probably much less "important" birds) started falling from the sky as they flew into the blades unaware. The big solar farm in Yuma, AZ proved the scalability of solar, but oops! it seems you needed to have a "gradient" to produce power... a high grade (concentrated solar energy) heat source was not enough... you had to have a high grade medium for dumping the "waste" heat. In this case the Colorado River... until they discovered that raising the temperature of the water "a few degrees" completely destroyed the habitat for the creatures living there... oops! It has been idle (and dismantled?) since. Fission Power has been a big player for decades, and an excuse for naming the Department of Energy, not the Department of WMD. It is a very high-grade, compact form of energy production. Too bad, the best processes can also be used to yield weapons grade by-products. Too bad, the low-grade "waste" can only be buried (if you can find someone with a back yard they don't mind burying it in) for hundreds of thousands of years, hoping for the best. So here we are "wishing and hoping" for a "free lunch". Haven't we had our free lunches already? And discovered they all have a price? If there is anything in the current round of "energy solutions" that I am hopeful about, it is "distributed energy". The more we can become responsible (and aware) of the energy we consume, by having to accept the consequences of producing it, the more likely we are to be thoughtful about how wasteful we are. Maybe. Some of us became more responsible after the "recycle craze" because we saw how many bottles and cans we generated each week. Others of us patted ourselves on the back for how "green" we were and consumed twice as much! After all, we were being responsible for our "waste" by "recycling", never realizing that most of the glass and paper and steel was a loss financially (and maybe energy-wise too) to recycle... only Aluminum was a significant net-gain. Meanwhile we all felt pretty smug with our little blue or green containers at the curbside. If we burn firewood, we breathe our own smoke and watch our own woodlots/forests deplete. If we dam our own river, we notice the loss of habitat downstream, and have to negotiate with our neighbors for the meager output of the hydroelectric plant (see Jemez Springs pre-WWII). If we put up a windmill in our backyard, we have to listen to it clatter in the high winds and climb up and oil it now and again, replace a blade or a bearing maybe. And do without power on the still days. If we accept GE's "mini-nuke" into our backyard, we have to explain to our children when they inherit the house from us why they will need to spend their inheritance on "waste disposal" or why it is no longer operating and there is a 10' thick layer of concrete poured over/around it and the house is outfitted with geiger counters. You can say this is a fantasy... that we don't really notice these things, and we destroy our own habitat and environment anyway. I suspect you are right... but if we don't even see it when we live amongst it... if it is the Amazon Rainforest, if it is the ozone at the south pole, if it is the eddies of debris in the oceans, then we have no chance of curbing our appetites. Let the chickens come home to roost, maybe we will take it as a sign or portent. But if we make up a high-tech, high-industry solution that we think "someone else" should put in *their* back yard. That someone else should finance and approve and make "work well", then I'm sad. I don't think that will work out so well. It hasn't so far. We are already complaining about the coal smoke coming from China, a half a world away... did we think they (or was it Europe) didn't find *our* pollution offensive when we were at our peak? I hope Fusion researchers will continue to look for a "better way". I hope Wind and Sun Farmers will seek ways to provide alternatives. I hope Fission researchers will continue to look for "better ways". But maybe we need to change something more fundamental... I think I'll go drive to ABQ and back, in a 4x4 pickup truck, by myself, on the same day, at 80 MPH. Gas is below $2.00 if you shop carefully. - Steve who Rants ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
I believe we'll need nuclear fusion power systems for quite a while.
And I think there's been considerable advance in our ability to make them safe and much, much more efficient in their power output per unit of radioactive fuel used. Recent dual source reactors combine traditional nuclear reactors, run sub-critical, with a second source, generally a linear accelerator beam. This considerably increases safety. These critters also use a stunt of using spent nuclear "waste" as a jacket for the fission chamber, increasing neutron production. This is just one of many improvements in fission plant design, many of which do indeed use prior "waste" materials in innovative ways. I've read that coal plants actually produce more radioactive byproducts than nuclear plants do. Yet we hear little concern about their radioactivity, only their pollution. Politics also play a part. Breeder reactors are considered dangerous due to producing waste that can be used in bombs. So we decide to be less efficient with more traditional systems in order to be "safer". I'd sure like better science and less emotion in the matter. If I were told I had to have a power plant next door, I'd prefer a nuke. -- Owen On Apr 15, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > I'm curious why you think our future energy needs can be met without > nuclear energy. Do you have any references to forecast energy > budgets for the US which define energy usage in coming decades, and > the corresponding energy sources and delivery infrastructures for > meeting those demands? > > It's one thing to say "I don't like nukes," but another thing > entirely to claim that US energy requirements can be met without > fission nuclear power sources. Some justification for your > position, please? > > --Doug > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:19 AM, peggy miller > <[hidden email]> wrote: > Below is link showing Obama's support for nuclear energy. I was > sorry to see it stated so clearly, because I remain believing that > we can proceed without nuclear energy (unless it is developing cold > fusion, which he does not state in his speech), using wind, solar, > geothermal, hydrogen. I continue to see no reason this is not > possible, and deeply fear, having sat through countless hearings on > Capitol Hill about the potential threats of nuclear fission power > plants, the inevitable error of human management, and the inability > to protect the toxics from leakage over their 500 million year life > span. These systems remain of a similar threat today, with toxic > wastes still unresolved, and meltdown capabilities remaining. Such > solutions therefore should not be part of the equation in my opinion. > > But wanted you to see the link, whatever you think on the subject. > > Peggy Miller > Highland Winds > > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/05/obama-prague-speech-on-nu_n_183219.html?gclid=COmjvfGV85kCFQ6jagod1lm-Qw > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
Excellent rant!
On Apr 15, 2009, at 1:14 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
"To measure the abundance of positrons in cosmic rays, the team used data from the instrument PAMELA (Payload for Antimatter Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics), which launched aboard a Russian satellite in June 2006. Unlike previous antimatter-hunting instruments, PAMELA can pinpoint not just the type of incoming particle but also its energy." WIRED Science ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Frost
Peggy is right. I attach a short excerpt from Democracy Now. (Amory is
the guru.) AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, talk about nuclear power. Why do you feel it’s not an option, given the oil crisis? AMORY LOVINS: Well, first of all, electricity and oil have essentially nothing to do with each other, and anybody who thinks the contrary is really ignorant about energy. Less than two percent of our electricity is made from oil. Less than two percent of our oil makes electricity. Those numbers are falling. And essentially, all the oil involved is actually the heavy, gooey bottom of the barrel you can’t even make mobility fuels out of anyway. What nuclear would do is displace coal, our most abundant domestic fuel. And this sounds good for climate, but actually, expanding nuclear makes climate change worse, for a very simple reason. Nuclear is incredibly expensive. The costs have just stood up on end lately. Wall Street Journal recently reported that they’re about two to four times the cost that the industry was talking about just a year ago. And the result of that is that if you buy more nuclear plants, you’re going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you’ll get it about twenty to forty times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas, all kinds of central plans, in the marketplace. And those competitors are efficient use of electricity and what’s called micropower, which is both renewables, except big hydro, and making electricity and heat together, in fact, recent buildings, which takes about half of the money, fuel and carbon of making them separately, as we normally do. So, nuclear cannot actually deliver the climate or the security benefits claimed for it. It’s unrelated to oil. And it’s grossly uneconomic, which means the nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually happening. It’s a very carefully fabricated illusion. And the reason it isn’t happening is there are no buyers. That is, Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies. Nick Frost wrote: > peggy miller wrote: >> Below is link showing Obama's support for nuclear energy. I was sorry >> to see it stated so clearly, because I remain believing that we can >> proceed without nuclear energy (unless it is developing cold fusion, >> which he does not state in his speech), using wind, solar, >> geothermal, hydrogen. I continue to see no reason this is not >> possible, and deeply fear, having sat through countless hearings on >> Capitol Hill about the > I agree with Peggy's comment about "the inevitable error of human > management, and the inability to protect the toxics from leakage" > > I would add that while piracy is (IMHO) indefensible, the Somali > piracy problem gathered much steam after the central government > collapsed in 1991. The immediate results were predatory overfishing by > foreign nations on the Somali coastline and the dumping of radioactive > waste by European firms, which prompted fishermen to attempt to defend > their waters and prevent the collapse of their fisheries. > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article418665.ece > > http://abandonedheadlines.blogspot.com/2009/04/poor-coverage-of-somali-piracy.html > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_piracy > > -Nick > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick...
On 16/04/2009, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote: > Peggy is right. I attach a short excerpt from Democracy Now. (Amory is > the guru.) > > AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us. Well, talk about nuclear > power. Why do you feel it’s not an option, given the oil crisis? > > AMORY LOVINS: Well, first of all, electricity and oil have essentially > nothing to do with each other, and anybody who thinks the contrary is > really ignorant about energy. Less than two percent of our electricity > is made from oil. Less than two percent of our oil makes electricity. > Those numbers are falling. And essentially, all the oil involved is > actually the heavy, gooey bottom of the barrel you can’t even make > mobility fuels out of anyway. > > What nuclear would do is displace coal, our most abundant domestic fuel. > And this sounds good for climate, but actually, expanding nuclear makes > climate change worse, for a very simple reason. Nuclear is incredibly > expensive. The costs have just stood up on end lately. Wall Street > Journal recently reported that they’re about two to four times the cost > that the industry was talking about just a year ago. And the result of > that is that if you buy more nuclear plants, you’re going to get about > two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you’ll get it > about twenty to forty times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, > faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas, all kinds of > central plans, in the marketplace. And those competitors are efficient > use of electricity and what’s called micropower, which is both > renewables, except big hydro, and making electricity and heat together, > in fact, recent buildings, which takes about half of the money, fuel and > carbon of making them separately, as we normally do. > > So, nuclear cannot actually deliver the climate or the security benefits > claimed for it. It’s unrelated to oil. And it’s grossly uneconomic, > which means the nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually > happening. It’s a very carefully fabricated illusion. And the reason it > isn’t happening is there are no buyers. That is, Wall Street is not > putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus > percent subsidies. > > > Nick Frost wrote: >> peggy miller wrote: >>> Below is link showing Obama's support for nuclear energy. I was sorry >>> to see it stated so clearly, because I remain believing that we can >>> proceed without nuclear energy (unless it is developing cold fusion, >>> which he does not state in his speech), using wind, solar, >>> geothermal, hydrogen. I continue to see no reason this is not >>> possible, and deeply fear, having sat through countless hearings on >>> Capitol Hill about the >> I agree with Peggy's comment about "the inevitable error of human >> management, and the inability to protect the toxics from leakage" >> >> I would add that while piracy is (IMHO) indefensible, the Somali >> piracy problem gathered much steam after the central government >> collapsed in 1991. The immediate results were predatory overfishing by >> foreign nations on the Somali coastline and the dumping of radioactive >> waste by European firms, which prompted fishermen to attempt to defend >> their waters and prevent the collapse of their fisheries. >> >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article418665.ece >> >> http://abandonedheadlines.blogspot.com/2009/04/poor-coverage-of-somali-piracy.html >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_piracy >> >> -Nick >> >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > -- Saul Caganoff Enterprise IT Architect LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/scaganoff ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Merle Lefkoff
I believe Amory is wrong. Projections are that world energy needs will
increase by over 60% by 2050 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_United_States ). In the late 1960's I worked at Westinghouse Advanced Reactors Division (i.e. nuclear reactors). The engineers and scientists I worked with used to say that people could talk about wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc. as much as they wanted but if nuclear power weren't developed and deployed aggressively there would be energy riots during the next (i.e. this) century. This would (will) be because of shortages of heat, light, food and other essentials--not luxuries. Right now there are 104 nuclear electric power plants in the U.S. which produce about 20% of the Nation's electricity. By comparison, almost 80% of France's electricity is generated by nuclear power. These plants produce virtually no greenhouse gases. China plans to build 32 nuclear power plants by 2020 (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801 051.html ). They have a strong incentive; Stephen will tell you about the air pollution there According to the above-referenced Wikipedia article, "As of March 9, 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had received 26 applications for permission to construct new nuclear power reactors [66] with at least another 7 expected.[67] Six of these reactors have actually been ordered.[68] In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority petitioned to restart construction on the first two units at Bellefonte." How is this to be reconciled with Amory's claim that "Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry..."? Frank -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:00 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama on nuclear energy Peggy is right. I attach a short excerpt from Democracy Now. (Amory is the guru.) AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Well, talk about nuclear power. Why do you feel it's not an option, given the oil crisis? AMORY LOVINS: Well, first of all, electricity and oil have essentially nothing to do with each other, and anybody who thinks the contrary is really ignorant about energy. Less than two percent of our electricity is made from oil. Less than two percent of our oil makes electricity. Those numbers are falling. And essentially, all the oil involved is actually the heavy, gooey bottom of the barrel you can't even make mobility fuels out of anyway. What nuclear would do is displace coal, our most abundant domestic fuel. And this sounds good for climate, but actually, expanding nuclear makes climate change worse, for a very simple reason. Nuclear is incredibly expensive. The costs have just stood up on end lately. Wall Street Journal recently reported that they're about two to four times the cost that the industry was talking about just a year ago. And the result of that is that if you buy more nuclear plants, you're going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you'll get it about twenty to forty times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas, all kinds of central plans, in the marketplace. And those competitors are efficient use of electricity and what's called micropower, which is both renewables, except big hydro, and making electricity and heat together, in fact, recent buildings, which takes about half of the money, fuel and carbon of making them separately, as we normally do. So, nuclear cannot actually deliver the climate or the security benefits claimed for it. It's unrelated to oil. And it's grossly uneconomic, which means the nuclear revival that we often hear about is not actually happening. It's a very carefully fabricated illusion. And the reason it isn't happening is there are no buyers. That is, Wall Street is not putting a penny of private capital into the industry, despite 100-plus percent subsidies. Nick Frost wrote: > peggy miller wrote: >> Below is link showing Obama's support for nuclear energy. I was sorry >> to see it stated so clearly, because I remain believing that we can >> proceed without nuclear energy (unless it is developing cold fusion, >> which he does not state in his speech), using wind, solar, >> geothermal, hydrogen. I continue to see no reason this is not >> possible, and deeply fear, having sat through countless hearings on >> Capitol Hill about the > I agree with Peggy's comment about "the inevitable error of human > management, and the inability to protect the toxics from leakage" > > I would add that while piracy is (IMHO) indefensible, the Somali > piracy problem gathered much steam after the central government > collapsed in 1991. The immediate results were predatory overfishing by > foreign nations on the Somali coastline and the dumping of radioactive > waste by European firms, which prompted fishermen to attempt to defend > their waters and prevent the collapse of their fisheries. > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article418665.ece > > y.html > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_piracy > > -Nick > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Obama on nuclear energy
|
|
I think that the only way Americans, and by proxy the rest of the world, will learn which claim about whatever approach to satisfying our growing global power demands will succeed is to stumble blindly on, as we always do.
It we run out of power, anarchy will emerge. If the vigorously unsupported claims of the greens are true, and we discover by pure luck that we *can* meet our emerging energy needs with non-fission power sources, then we will declare success ("Heckuva job, Brownie") and stumble on to the next crises. However, now that both sides have claimed that *they are right* about which approach will guarantee that our hair dryers will turn on tomorrow morning, maybe we should just sit back and watch what happens. I didn't expect that either side of this argument would be capable of providing proof that their side was right. This is FRIAM, after all. So. let's just enjoy the next Jihad: The Jihad of the Greenists vs. the Monitarists. Or, perhaps, the Jihad of the Greenists vs. the Realists. On second thought, the former more accurately describes our current Jihad: Truth, Justice, and the American Way vs. CheneyBush era oil interests Oops, sorry, 50's Superman raison d'exister has lately turned into a rather embarrassing non-sequitur. Forget I mentioned it. Moving on, then, what would be a good slogan to describe the primary tension that captures the essence driving today's emergent energy issue? "Coal, it's always worked before!" "Nukes, better living through transuranics!" "Drill, baby, drill!" "Wind! It blows!" "Make more babies. We'll figure the rest out later!" Whatever, please keep those claims of "My way is the best way; your way is the highway" pouring in. Open minds eat that stuff up. --Doug On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote: I believe Amory is wrong. Projections are that world energy needs will -- Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Obama on nuclear energy
|
|
In reply to this post by scaganoff
When it comes to climate control, climate change, global warming,
glacier melting etc., why do we never hear from the elephant in the
room - population and birth control? If the worst things, as we've
been told, for carbon footprint are homes, vehicles and food production
(cows in particular and methane) then the big multiplier is the number
of mouths to feed, house and transport.
Nuclear power in the US is expensive because, I'm told, every power plant is a new design with all its attendant approvals/reviews. Other countries haven't taken that route. There used to be statistics about accident levels of people falling off their roofs checking their solar panels. That and mining accident rates/kwh generated made nuclear power one of the safest and least accident prone methods of power generation. Did that ever get proved wrong? Coal/Natural Gas is bad - CO2 + what to do with the coal waste (toxic and radioactive) Solar is bad - no nighttime generation + people falling off roofs + high distribution costs and losses + impact on rare desert species. Wind is bad - on a still day + impact on bird migration (over blown I'd thought) + spoils the view + high distribution costs and losses. Nuclear (fission) is bad - what to do with the waste + risk of misuse and insecurity Nuclear (fusion) is bad - yet to be demonstrated + looks really expensive + old radio-active reactors will still have waste disposal problems. Along with Solar and Wind, Tidal, Geothermal and Hydroelectric (tapped out) all require the right location and consequent high distribution costs. The only answer is for us to consume less energy, otherwise it's still the choice of the lesser evil! I'll commit to having no more children! There, done my bit. Robert C (not so much a rant as a rambling) Saul Caganoff wrote: tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick... On 16/04/2009, Merle Lefkoff [hidden email] wrote: ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Obama on nuclear energy
|
|
In reply to this post by Owen Densmore
Rather than pumping all the pollution and waste products of a coal-powered
plant into the atmosphere and rivers, imagine if you could just pack it all up at the end of each year into a few cubic meters and store it somewhere. Yet I'm sure some people would still argue the first option over the second. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power Robert Howard -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:43 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama on nuclear energy I believe we'll need nuclear fusion power systems for quite a while. And I think there's been considerable advance in our ability to make them safe and much, much more efficient in their power output per unit of radioactive fuel used. Recent dual source reactors combine traditional nuclear reactors, run sub-critical, with a second source, generally a linear accelerator beam. This considerably increases safety. These critters also use a stunt of using spent nuclear "waste" as a jacket for the fission chamber, increasing neutron production. This is just one of many improvements in fission plant design, many of which do indeed use prior "waste" materials in innovative ways. I've read that coal plants actually produce more radioactive byproducts than nuclear plants do. Yet we hear little concern about their radioactivity, only their pollution. Politics also play a part. Breeder reactors are considered dangerous due to producing waste that can be used in bombs. So we decide to be less efficient with more traditional systems in order to be "safer". I'd sure like better science and less emotion in the matter. If I were told I had to have a power plant next door, I'd prefer a nuke. -- Owen On Apr 15, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > I'm curious why you think our future energy needs can be met without > nuclear energy. Do you have any references to forecast energy > budgets for the US which define energy usage in coming decades, and > the corresponding energy sources and delivery infrastructures for > meeting those demands? > > It's one thing to say "I don't like nukes," but another thing > entirely to claim that US energy requirements can be met without > fission nuclear power sources. Some justification for your > position, please? > > --Doug > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:19 AM, peggy miller > <[hidden email]> wrote: > Below is link showing Obama's support for nuclear energy. I was > sorry to see it stated so clearly, because I remain believing that > we can proceed without nuclear energy (unless it is developing cold > fusion, which he does not state in his speech), using wind, solar, > geothermal, hydrogen. I continue to see no reason this is not > possible, and deeply fear, having sat through countless hearings on > Capitol Hill about the potential threats of nuclear fission power > plants, the inevitable error of human management, and the inability > to protect the toxics from leakage over their 500 million year life > span. These systems remain of a similar threat today, with toxic > wastes still unresolved, and meltdown capabilities remaining. Such > solutions therefore should not be part of the equation in my opinion. > > But wanted you to see the link, whatever you think on the subject. > > Peggy Miller > Highland Winds > > > html?gclid=COmjvfGV85kCFQ6jagod1lm-Qw > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
It is interesting to note that Europeans (depending of course on the country) use at least 50% less energy per capita than Americans and yet have what some may consider a better standard of living. Also we waste water which in turn wastes energy (the water energy nexus). If we would be more efficient in our energy and water use, there would be no need to even consider nuclear energy. One of the positive aspects of the economic crisis is that it is reducing energy consumption.
Paul
-----Original Message----- From: Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Sent: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 8:29 pm Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama on nuclear energy
I think that the only way Americans, and by proxy the rest of the world, will learn which claim about whatever approach to satisfying our growing global power demands will succeed is to stumble blindly on, as we always do.
It we run out of power, anarchy will emerge. If the vigorously unsupported claims of the greens are true, and we discover by pure luck that we *can* meet our emerging energy needs with non-fission power sources, then we will declare success ("Heckuva job, Brownie") and stumble on to the next crises. However, now that both sides have claimed that *they are right* about which approach will guarantee that our hair dryers will turn on tomorrow morning, maybe we should just sit back and watch what happens. I didn't expect that either side of this argument would be capable of providing proof that their side was right. This is FRIAM, after all. So. let's just enjoy the next Jihad: The Jihad of the Greenists vs. the Monitarists. Or, perhaps, the Jihad of the Greenists vs. the Realists. On second thought, the former more accurately describes our current Jihad: Truth, Justice, and the American Way vs. CheneyBush era oil interests Oops, sorry, 50's Superman raison d'exister has lately turned into a rather embarrassing non-sequitur. Forget I mentioned it. Moving on, then, what would be a good slogan to describe the primary tension that captures the essence driving today's emergent energy issue? "Coal, it's always worked before!" "Nukes, better living through transuranics!" "Drill, baby, drill!" "Wind! It blows!" "Make more babies. We'll figure the rest out later!" Whatever, please keep those claims of "My way is the best way; your way is the highway" pouring in. Open minds eat that stuff up. --Doug On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
I believe Amory is wrong. Projections are that world energy needs will -- Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by HighlandWindsLLC Miller
Has anybody correlated gdp with tons of waste going to land fills?
Is what we all think of as economic growth anything more than our spending more time on the crapper?
NIck
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Rivernetwork is completing a paper on the carbon footprint of water use based on an analysis of the water-energy nexus. Actually when one flushes a toilet one uses enegry, so just hold it back Nick.
P
-----Original Message----- From: Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Sent: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:26 am Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Obama on nuclear energy Has anybody correlated gdp with tons of waste going to land fills?
Is what we all think of as economic growth anything more than our spending more time on the crapper?
NIck
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([hidden email])
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:41 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Rivernetwork is completing a paper on the carbon footprint of water use > based on an analysis of the water-energy nexus. Actually when one flushes a > toilet one uses enegry, so just hold it back Nick. > P "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down." ~~James ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |