Fukushima convinces Monbiot of nuclear's merits
March 23, 2011 - 11:16pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fu...
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/76702,people,news,george-monbiot-goes-nucl...
George Monbiot, no slouch of a journalist and not typically considered right-wing, supports nuclear energy after seeing the Fukushima problems.
How solid are the arguments in his article? What are the deep green rebuttals to them?
Opposition to nuclear power is now starting to look like a position occupied by the uninformed masses of the public (who could be easily swayed with a well-run propaganda campaign after they inevitably forget about Fukushima) and die-hard environmentalists who don't give too much thought to the practicalities of a world without cheap, abundant energy.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/76702,people,news,george-monbiot-goes-nucl...
It's really a matter of picking your poison. We can go conventional and have a guaranteed global climate disaster or go nuclear and have possible local disasters - and an ongoing problem of what to do with spent fuel. Renewables are necessary and good but there is a need for plants that keep the lights on when the sun isn't shining and the wind not blowing. Better energy storage technology and network improvements may come along to make that sort of plant less necessary but I think there's still reason to keep nuclear as part of the energy picture.
some questions I have about the two articles above, which do not address all the issues:
How much thought and action is oriented towards saving energy? Not much that I can see. (Yes, I'm using the internet, but I try to do my own little part, which if everyone did, could lead to energy saving outcomes greater than the sum of the parts.) Non-renewable energy resources wasted today will not be there tomorrow, for future generations.
How far are we from major advancements in renewables and energy storage? Why isn't more research and development invested in these areas? (Monbiot points to the detriments of current and past renewable energy sources only.)
Assuming the human species survives to see the total exhaustion of fossil fuels and nuclear energy sources, and that billions of us are still on this planet, what will be the new "cheap and abundant" energy source? Wind and solar maybe? Wood, animals and slaves?
How much energy is used (and GHGs emitted) in the entire life cycle of uranium/plutonium fission technology? Including energy used for mining and processing of ores, robust safety precautions and ready-to-go contingency measures, and forever-safe waste disposal?
Is irradiation of land, food and water one of the relatively low costs Monbiot sees in nuclear?
How practical and safe is thorium technology?
It's really a matter of picking your poison. We can go conventional and have a guaranteed global climate disaster or go nuclear and have possible local disasters - and an ongoing problem of what to do with spent fuel.
Your choice of poisons seems to assume that choosing nuclear energy will avert global climate disaster. It won't. There are plenty of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the mining, refining, and concentrating of uranium, the building and operating of nuclear reactors and the manufacture of the associated equipment. Not to mention the consumption of large amounts of fossil fuel required for all those processes. And that's all before we even get to the problems of radioactive leaks, contamination, decommissioning, and spent fuel.
In addition, nuclear won't power automobiles, trains, and airplanes, or replace the carbon emissions from industrial processes. Nor does it deal with climate-destroying methods of agriculture, forestry, and other forms of land use. Or military activity, which is one of the largest single sources of greenhouse emissions.
Technically, you could run the mines and so forth on hydrogen produced by nuclear reactors, solar, wind or whatever other source of electricity is handy - so the fossil-fuel footprint of building and running a nuclear plant (or anything else - the metal for wind turbines is mined, the silicon for solar panels must be melted and purified, etc.) isn't fixed.
So, we're going to build massive renewable energy infrastructure in order to mine and process uranium in order to build green nuclear reactors? Why not just skip the nuclear reactors?
Besides, you know as well as I do that if there's a drop of fossil fuel left on the planet, the nuclear industry is going to use it before they start building windmills.
Why not let Wall Street and Bay Street offer to finance all of the nuclear power expansions and refurbishing all of the bottomless nuclear money pits for private enterprise alone to profit by? They could surely do it better than the taxpayers. And then they can socialize the massive cost overruns amongst all of the private enterprise outfits they want to sell power to? We could have two separate power systems: hydroelectric and green energy for households and essential services consumption, and all the massively stupid nuclear power clap-trap can go toward electrifying old world, energy-intensive economy that we really can't afford anymore? Afterall, private enterprise is supposed to be able to do it better.
It's sink or swim or time for the corporate jackals and their bankster friends. Let them figure out how they themselves can afford their stupid economic system.
Or they could just admit that their cold war era promises for middle class capitalism based on consumerism was a terrible lie from the beginning.
So, we're going to build massive renewable energy infrastructure in order to mine and process uranium in order to build green nuclear reactors? Why not just skip the nuclear reactors?
Besides, you know as well as I do that if there's a drop of fossil fuel left on the planet, the nuclear industry is going to use it before they start building windmills.
That all depends on cost, doesn't it? If oil starts heading toward $200 per barrel, finding substitutes for it starts to look very attractive. It's not like people use oil on principle.
The biggest flaw in the pro-nuclear reasoning is the huge assumption that things as they are now, will always be.
What I mean by that is that the safety of reactors is conditional on the social, economic, cultural, and environmental stability of the state. When those break down, and they all eventually do, what happens to all that happy talk of safeguards and technological solutions?
What happens to a reactor when the state fragments, like we saw in the dissolution of the USSR? We saw exactly what happened; maintenance stopped, training fell away, skilled people disappeared, and the reactors decayed physically to the point where they are unsafe to operate.
What happens to all the spent fuel when the economic situation disintegrates? We know that the private companies operating these things will do anything to squeeze the bottom line, and the result is the degredation of the physical plant. Take a look at what's happening to the roads and bridges across the bankrupt US. It's by no means a stretch of the imagination to assume that private companies will weigh the costs of proper disposal and storage against the benefits of just dumping the stuff and lying about it, and act accordingly.
What happens when social upheaval leads to open conflict? Can a state in conflict adequately safeguard a plant from attack, or conversely, restrain itself from attacking? Israel had no problem blowing up the Iraqi plant before it was on-line, but I seriously doubt they'd have any qualms about destroying a functioning plant.
It reflects a dangerous myopia that sees our particular time on the planet as the only time. The future for the pro-nukes is one of endless technological advancement, utopian social order, and an undeserved optimism of the behaviour of future humans.
The idea that nuclear is a "green" energy is a brilliant ploy by the big-money backers of the technology. It has succeeded in duping many earnest worriers with the promise of a magic bullet to stop climate change.
That all depends on cost, doesn't it? If oil starts heading toward $200 per barrel, finding substitutes for it starts to look very attractive. It's not like people use oil on principle.
As long as we let market forces determine where and when we are going to invest in energy technology, we'll continue along the same path that got us into this mess in the first place. The market is only going to dictate what's profitable, not what's necessary to live in harmony with nature.
We have to get rid of market-based decision making on social and environmental issues. And to do that we have to replace capitalism - the system based on maximizing private profit - with a whole new kind of economy, based on meeting human needs and respecting the limits of nature's bounty.
What happens to all the spent fuel when the economic situation disintegrates? We know that the private companies operating these things will do anything to squeeze the bottom line...
We let the free market do only what we allow it. Like it or not, it reflects the way in which society does business as it is an institution of society. This idea of “cheap” fuel is a rhetorical fallacy because there’s always an added cost for anything we humans do. Particularly in resource exploitation. In relation to “cheap” fuel... the adage “you get what you pay for” rings true in terms of looking for the cheapest product. There's ultimately added cost, whether socially or environmentally, in doing things cheaply.
When we buy certain consumer items we’re sometimes charged environmental fees to subsidise things like recycling. I think that such costs, like in the case of spent fuel rod storage, should be borne by those who extract the resources in the first place. Whether it’s the uranium, or steel. or the energy it takes to get the product from point A to B. It’s a consideration for the cost of burdening society in the “whole” of the cycle of resource exploitation. The real cost of exploiting uranium resources isn’t fully reflected by it’s simple market value.
Anytime we extract some resource it introduces a cycle of burden on society. The cycle of use, and the cost to society, doesn’t simply end at consumption. The impacts and effects of anything we use reach much further. The best energy source is the one we can manage the most responsibly. As far as harnessing nuclear fission energy, we’re still far from competent in managing that cycle of activity regardless of the spin we put on it.
So, we're going to build massive renewable energy infrastructure in order to mine and process uranium in order to build green nuclear reactors? Why not just skip the nuclear reactors?
Besides, you know as well as I do that if there's a drop of fossil fuel left on the planet, the nuclear industry is going to use it before they start building windmills.
That all depends on cost, doesn't it? If oil starts heading toward $200 per barrel, finding substitutes for it starts to look very attractive. It's not like people use oil on principle.
So we dump one costly energy fuel for another in order to continue putting off overhaul and redesign of the economy, or what's really needed? And nuclear is not really a quick fix either. It takes years and years before expensive and unreliable, and dangerous nuclear power supplies are able to come on line. We actually have periods of low demand in Ontario, and nuke plants running regardless of demand are expensive. They can't be shut down overnight, it takes months and months. And the shutdowns are expensive, too. Then there is all that radioactive cooling water that needs dumping into the nearest river or someone else's backyard. At what point do people and the environment trump the obsolete old world economy at the root of the problem?
The pro-nuclear environmentalists have themselves between a rock and a radioactive place. To come out in favour of nukes is to admit that our addiction to cheap energy must be fed at any cost, and since we have this technology, its use will mean never having to confront the costs. Our culture and our extremely consumptive way of life must be maintained, even at the likely expense of eternal contamination.
It's more insane to be a green nuke proponent that merely a capitalist opportunistic one. At least the latter has a rational explanation.
We can radically reduce the energy consumption of the developed world...but everyone else still wants washing machines. Between population growth and development we're in some trouble. Accommodating this without causing really dangerous climate change won't be easy and might require living with some nuclear energy even though this shouldn't be our first choice.
First off, I love renewable energy. Kinda my racket. But it has its limitations and I don't think people understand the scale of investment. We can talk about cutting military spending, but even the harshest cuts will not begin to cover the cost required to begin a big switch over to renewables. The biggest problems is that they're inefficient, finicky, high maintenance, require major capital expenditure, etc., etc. All problems shared with nuclear power. Another big issue is that a lot of Canada is very, very poorly positioned to capitalize on renewable resources. There are ways to ameliorate this, but a big problem is the area of production. We want renewables! Big problem - requires a huge, carbony destruction of land to get an industrial styled set up going. Sarnia has the largest PV farm in the world - 56 MW. A pittance. The total amount of solar on houses? Considerably more, but the costs of subsidizing private ownership of solar panels cuts out the poor, raises costs upfront of electricity, and the materials required are horrifically polluting (look at what goes into solar PV panel and the massive carbon emissions that come from their creation via mining, processing shipping, etc.). The microFIT program in Ontario is a form of theft - and until I hear a proposal that is realistic, costed and implentable...well, you ain't got a damned leg to stand on - you're just spouting hot air and empty rhetoric. I can go on about solar for days, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is not ready.
Additionally, we have the issue of wind. Due to the realities facing wind turbines in deployment and engineering (there are huge limitations with each design having its own problems) massive projects will be necessarily disruptive to the ecosystem, massively expensive and use out-of-date, problematic and high maintenance technology. Again, I could go on, but I'll spare you. In an urban (or suburban) environment, you just can't roll out wind. You can toss it up on farms and so on, but a few turbines here and there doesn't make a big difference. You'd have to go all up on Lake Ontario in a huge industrial operation. Wind turbines are kinda better than solar in that they're considerably older, more tested, somewhat cheaper, but still finicky and irritating in a lot of ways.
Both of these methods of generation also have the issue that, sure, Ottawa has great solar characteristics - not many other places in Ontario are particularly rocking. Likewise, we ain't da windiest spot on the Earth (check out wind maps - they're cool). So, to get that precious energy, we need to go further out and deploy massive new grids that will transmit th power back to the cities where it is needed - grid infrastructure is a gigantic investment. It'll have to be made soon, but if the policy isn't smart...it'll hurt us a lot in terms of what we can do to harvest power. Likewise, the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine hence why renewables are intermittent power. This is a problem because you kinda want to have more than McJobs - you want industry and so on. Renewables aren't particularly reliable.
There are ways to overcome these issues. A huge deployment of low-efficiency cheap solar PV cells that more passively and less obtrusively gather sun is a way. But this is really new, and will be very harmful environmentally because a lot of the elements used are fucking as awful as they get. There are massive environmental costs both ways, this has to be understood, admitted, dealt with. Very few people chat about this and it undercuts the strength of arguments to be made for renewables. Solutions need to be talked about, not just empty chitchat about how great this stuff is. That's my main beef, I have a lot of industry exposure and just like nukers...no one talks about the pertinent issues. Makes my blood boil, but I digress.
Countless times I have spoke of my deep loathing of the nuclear industry management structures and my skepticism regarding currently existing nuclear infrastructure. Before we talk about new nukes, we need to have a plan for the cabbage currently on the plate. How do we phase out the current nuclear infrastructure? What do we replace it with? How do we not take that capacity off the grid?
That last question is particularly pertinent and plays to the issues of energy conservation (which is a massive and probably more important discussion). I'm less knowledgeable about that on a policy level than I should be, but it is easy enough to do. It requires education and honest, smart investment in the homes of every Ontarian. Inside of every commercial building and inside of every industry. It'll basically be a Moon Shot to really get down and dirty and do what we need to do. I think that in some ways this is a more pressing issue than the mix of electricity in Ontario - cuz' that issue is going to take decades to sort out. It can also ameliorate the issues of capacity and generation required to fuel the economy and comfort of Canadians. It calls into question the doctrine of unquestioned growth - but in its stead we need to talk about alternatives. I have honestly not heard enough honesty from either side. Sure, there is doom and gloom, but that is masturbatory and silly. It is awesome to talk about all the awful shit we'll have to deal with and resigning ourselves to this fate, but the policy wonks and techies really need to get on the ball with better communicators - and the god damned twits we let lead this country (from the Bloc to the Nudems to the Cons and the OGODWHYDIDWELETiGGYLEAD crowd) need to listen and come with some realistic policies rather than simply pandering to basal political instincts. I dunno. The challenges ahead are insane...and I need to get to sleep to stop rambling...
We can radically reduce the energy consumption of the developed world...but everyone else still wants washing machines.
What if some washing machines could be shared? Even one for every two households on average, that would cut the need for producing them in half.
Communities have to be altered to facilitate sharing. I know this isn't going to happen on a large scale anytime soon (though who knows), but one has to envision something before it can happen.
A world in denial of nuclear risks
First off, I love renewable energy. Kinda my racket. But it has its limitations and I don't think people understand the scale of investment.
You mean non-renewable energy doesn't have limitations? A sustainable society (from the standpoint of energy) is based on conservation and the sustainable use of renewable energy. It is a question of how to get there but we have to move in that direction.
He also trivialises the impacts of nuclear power more generally. In terms of radiation releases and exposures, long-term exposure from uranium tailings dumps is estimated to be a much more significant source of exposure than routine reactor operations or reactor accidents.
Read more...
We can radically reduce the energy consumption of the developed world...but everyone else still wants washing machines.
What if some washing machines could be shared? Even one for every two households on average, that would cut the need for producing them in half.
Communities have to be altered to facilitate sharing. I know this isn't going to happen on a large scale anytime soon (though who knows), but one has to envision something before it can happen.
A world in denial of nuclear risks
Some of us do that by choice in the developed world. That's part of the point behind cohousing and other intentional communities.
Green Action Japan says:
Global Warming: Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer (excellent YouTube video)
I'll go you one better. What if there were special places with plenty of washers and dryers where people could bring their laundry? What if we made sure these places were all over, so everyone would be within reasonable distance of one? Heck, big apartment buildings could even have their own!
Who's in?
First off, I love renewable energy. Kinda my racket. But it has its limitations and I don't think people understand the scale of investment.
You mean non-renewable energy doesn't have limitations?
No, he means they both have limitations. While we at babble write with an awareness of the limitations of non-renewable energy, the limitations of non-renewable energy are ignored. In order to move to a more sustainable energy grid, the limitations of renewable energy would have to be addressed and resolved, rather than ignored.
"Energy is like medicine," Monbiot writes, "if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work." Were he to visit the renewables frontlines, he would discover many views to the contrary. German government and companies have run a scaled national experiment showing that the modern economy could be powered by renewables. A sophisticated American modelling exercise has shown the same for the global economy. All it requires is systematic mobilisation, and the imagination to believe what Silicon Valley believes.
Ultimately we should be able to provide power far less expensively than new nuclear. As we grow, our costs fall. We do not need to hand open cheques for currently unknowable billions to the taxpayer for things like waste transportation, waste disposal, decommissioning, security at sites, or accident clear-up.
But like Spitfires and Lancasters in 1939, we need to be mobilised fast, along with our even more important sister industries in energy-efficiency. And herein lies the main reason why Monbiot contradicts his own objective to counter climate change. The nuclear industry does not want renewable energy to succeed. Indeed, they lobby to kill our chances.
The Guardian
How cynical. Monbiot wrote this while firefighters were risking their health and possibly their lives to protect citizens. He wrote this while the nuclear plant was radiating, the levels climbing around it, and still no prospect of an end to the leaks. He wrote this while the people of Fukushima looked on from emergency shelters as their livelihoods were destroyed, possibly for generations, and while tap water in Tokyo was forbidden to babies. Meanwhile, at the time of writing, the plutonium threat in reactor No 3 is still not under control.
The Guardian
I have to disagree with Monbiot.
A hydro-electric dam is NOT more damaging than nuclear meltdown, including the resulting radiation and sterilization of the immediate area.
There is harm from the dams, but much of that can be rectified by removing the dam. Not so with nuclear meltdown accidents.
Hydroelectric dam failures have killed a lot more people so far than nuclear plant failures. Hydroelectric can also offer the possibility of catastrophic failure, depending on who lives downstream.
Hydroelectric dam failures have killed a lot more people so far than nuclear plant failures. Hydroelectric can also offer the possibility of catastrophic failure, depending on who lives downstream.
Can catastrophic failure at a hydroletric dam travel around the world?
Hydroelectric dam failures have killed a lot more people so far than nuclear plant failures. Hydroelectric can also offer the possibility of catastrophic failure, depending on who lives downstream.
You're just making that up right...
Threat of the Dnieper reservoirs
edit: i had to fill out a captcha? bs
First off, I love renewable energy. Kinda my racket. But it has its limitations and I don't think people understand the scale of investment.
You mean non-renewable energy doesn't have limitations?
No, he means they both have limitations. While we at babble write with an awareness of the limitations of non-renewable energy, the limitations of non-renewable energy are ignored. In order to move to a more sustainable energy grid, the limitations of renewable energy would have to be addressed and resolved, rather than ignored.
It is well understood that it will be difficult to ramp up sustainable use of renewable energy to the extent that it will replace current levels of use of non-renewable energy, and non-sustainable use of renewable energy, hence the need for conservation. We are talking about a sustainable energy regime, not necessily a sustainable energy grid.
More from Monbiot http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/mar/31/double-s...
This is what Monbiot wrote the week before.
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/16/atomised/#more-1561
Essentially he was reiterating his support for nuclear energy on the following conditions (the last was belatedly added after the earthquake and Tsunami):
1. Its total emissions – from mine to dump – are taken into account, and demonstrate that it is a genuinely low-carbon option.
2. We know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried.
3. We know how much this will cost and who will pay.
4. There is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be diverted for military purposes.
5. No plants should be built in fault zones, on tsunami-prone coasts, on eroding seashores or those likely to be inundated before the plant has been decommissioned or any other places which are geologically unsafe.
Some of these conditions might never be met.
He is somewhat justifiably concerned about the substitution of fossil fuels for decommissioned and planned nuclear plants. However the Chinese, whom he is most concerned about, have announced a major focus on solar in response to the Fukishima crisis.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/china-to-focus-on-solar-farms-c...
Indeed, conservation will be required for the phase out of a variety of power sources. However, it is an issue that must be dealt with contemporaneously to the actual generation of energy. First off, you can bring it in through funding blocks - ie, focusing on getting homes to upgrade insulation, small educational campaigns, offering light timers, incentives on more efficient bulbs and appliances, changing over furnaces, etc., etc. This really is the small stuff on the residential end. However, you will come up against a basic home energy brick wall when it comes to lower income individuals who can't afford to make these large one time purchases. Likewise, there needs to be a way to mandate and incentivize these options among renter properties, which raises a whole other host of issues. Really, you need to start at the source, which is developers who churn out endless fields of cookie cutter crap homes and condos.Likewise, have fun entering into the commercial realm where most of the stock of commercial buildings are built like crap and will be a net energy sink for decades to come at the expense of tax payers. Industrial sites are necessarily inefficient and can't really be home to major conservation efforts due to the cost of developing new, energy efficient equipment. And we can't afford to lose additional industrial capacity in this province.
But that doesn't change the fact we need to talk about 'what comes after coal' which is logically natural gas as it on average offers 70% less carbon emissions than coal and far fewer side effects. Then you have to talk about what to do to maintain existing capacity as more and more plants are taken off line. The simple fact is that the baseline in Ontario is provided by the pre-existing nuclear facilities. So, we can take those offline and accept rolling black outs, mass lay offs and a lower standard of life. Or we can plan to stringently review the currently existing infrastructure and make it as safe as possible so that taking it offline won't be painful and immediate. Nuclear does need to be phased out, but until the grid can be upgraded and major infrastructure changes made...it really is a choice of high emission carbon plants which will cost the whole world dearly, or the horrendous costs and potentially horrific localized disasters of nuclear. Frankly, we all know the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. The battle is now to slow nuclear power's growth, mandate it until it is secure and understand that it will be with us for 60 years and that we have to put an increasing amount of resources into renewable energy and innovate that fertile field until we can totally phase out our nuclear infrastructure. A hasty assault is counter-productive because we lean very heavily on it.
Monbiot's criteria that 'no one has died' is foolish because this disaster is substantively different than Chernobyl and from the beginning the wiser people in the industry were saying 'this is going to go on for a while'. Nuclear is a hot, persistent technology. It can't just be shut down. This is the bind we are in. It sucks. I want nuclear gone, but it just can not happen.
More from Monbiot http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/mar/31/double-s...
Good points. I can't really go for the whole "EEK NUCLEAR! Shut it down now!" position that doesn't consider the risks and problems of the various alternatives as well. It's not as though people are welcoming new wind farms or solar plants near their homes with open arms either.
Three Raging Nuclear Meltdowns In Progress grtv
The situation is grave and serious. And according to updated reports, there may have been a breach at one of the reactor cores and probable meltdown underway.
God help them.
Japan's Nuclear Crisis: Genesis Of An International Catastrophe - by Dr Peter Custers
http://www.countercurrents.org/custers310311.htm
"Its humanly difficult to accept. Yet the worst fears nuclear opponents have voiced for years are becoming true in the nuclear disaster unfolding in Japan...
There is an increasing liklihood that the crisis will turn into an international catastrophe. Thus, according to European nuclear experts, a massive bubble of melted fuel rods and metal has probably formed on the bottom of nuclear reactor no.3. Coincidentally, it is precisely this reactor where plutonium has been used as part of the mixed, uranium-plutonium fuel rods.
Plutonium is the most toxic element on earth.
There is an increasing liklihood that the crisis will turn into an international catastrophe. Isn't it time the wisdom of continuing with nuclear energy be radically questioned?
Nuclear Industry Dead: Million People Dead (and vid)
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2011/03/nuclear-industry-dead-million-peop...
This is awful, absolutely awful. They've got to start evacuating a lot more people. The North of Japan will be a dead zone for a long time. Tokyo? FFS!
we're going to have to get to work on this in southern Ontario - these ticking nuclear timebombs are all around and they want to build more of them.
Democracy Now, Prescription For Survival: Monbiot -Caldicott
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/30/prescription_for_survival_a_debate...
But that doesn't change the fact we need to talk about 'what comes after coal' which is logically natural gas as it on average offers 70% less carbon emissions than coal and far fewer side effects.
I believe you are talking only about what happens when you burn natural gas, not fugitive methane emissions.
Evidence Meltdown
Posted: 04 Apr 2011 11:27 AM PDT
The green movement has been circulating appalling falsehoods about the dangers of radiation.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 5th April 2011
Bury the Nuclear Renaissance Once and For All - by Dr Brian Moench
http://www.truthout.org/bury-nuclear-renaissance-once-and-all
"As I write this, the world is watching helplessly to see if the nuclear disaster unfolding in Japan will reach the level of the signature nuclear disaster of Chernobyl in 1986. For anyone who thinks this shouldn't portend the death knell to the nuclear power 'renaissance' the contents of a new book should be required reading.
So far, one million people from around the world have already died from Chernobyl radiation. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire northern hemisphere.."
A million human beans? Whhhy, that's nothing if it means propping-up a miserable broken-down economic system for a bit o' copper. I'll gladly apologize and make excuses for taxpayer handouts to electrify the corporate welfare system. Just send me cheques in the mail, and I'll become a glowing advertisement for nuclear killerwatts.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/13/mark-lynas-error-cost-nuke-op-ed/#...
Monbiot is making the same overall mistake in ignoring the economic costs of nuclear power. Nuclear is not a cost-effective option.
Turning Together
Posted: 27 May 2011 05:24 AM PDT
I challenge Jonathon Porritt to explain his contention that nuclear power and renewables are incompatible.
By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian's website, 27th May 2011
Monbiot's argument is nothing new. A character in a P. D. James novel (Devices and Desires) made it over 20 years ago, before climate change was a household term, and while the intellegensia were still railling about the 'technocracy', and whether science will save us. In the end, it seems that most conform to 'the system', environmental gadflys included.
The Porritt/Monbiot feud over nuclear power goes back at least three years. If Monbiot doesn't get it by now, he never will.
So, here are the offending words:
"I have now reached the point at which I no longer care whether or not the answer is nuclear. Let it happen – as long as its total emissions are taken into account, we know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried, how much this will cost and who will pay, and there is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will used by the military. We can no longer afford any rigid principle but one: that the harm done to people living now and in the future most be minimised by the most effective means, whatever they might be."
Source: one George Monbiot, scourge of literally all and sundry, especially of those who are perceived by him to be "betraying the cause."
Context: George is (probably even now) at the Climate Camp outside Kingsnorth in Kent, energetically supporting the campaign against E.ON's proposal to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth – with or without Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) built in.
Common ground: this is a campaign with which I am in total agreement – planning permission for E.ON at Kingsnorth – would usher in a new and utterly disastrous lease of life for coal in the UK. There may be up to eight further coal-fired power stations in the pipeline. The fact that BERR would appear to be minded to go ahead with such a proposal tells you all you need to know about the Government’s head-long retreat from what we now know to have been the high point of sustainable energy thinking in the 2003 Energy White Paper.
Disagreement: as George says, a horror story. But does one’s horror at one horror story justify turning a blind eye to another – equally horrifying – horror story? "Yes", says George, because our every sinew must now be strained to combat the threat of resurgent coal. "No", say I, because a resurgent nuclear industry constitutes (almost) as grave a threat to the emergence of truly sustainable energy strategies as coal does.
Source
At least the Germans are getting it. Hopefully, others will catch on....
Into Eternity is an excellent movie on the storage of nuclear waste. this is the cutting edge storage yet in the end it's nothing but a crap shoot....
Onkalo – the world’s first permanent nuclear waste repositoryOnkalo is a Finnish word for hiding place. It is situated at Olkiluoto in Finland - approx. 300 km northwest of Helsinki and it's the world's first attempt at a permanent repository. It is a huge system of underground tunnels hewn out of solid bedrock. Work on the concept behind the facility commenced in 1970s and the repository is expected to be backfilled and decommissioned in the 2100s – more than a century from now. No person working on the facility today will live to see it completed. The Finnish and Swedish Nuclear Authorities are collaborating on the project, and Sweden is planning a similar facility, but has not begun the actual construction of it.
Onkalo presentation folder
http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/nuclear-facts-2/
Thanks epaulo13. It's interesting that the Finns called their nuclear waste repository a 'hiding place', as in: 'out of sight, out of mind'-- presumtively. Unfortunately, the 'invisible imbeciles' who necessitated this elaborate and expansive (expensive) catacomb, won't have to live with it for the next 100, 000 years (1,000,000 in the U.S.A.).
Thanks epaulo13. It's interesting that the Finns called their nuclear waste repository a 'hiding place', as in: 'out of sight, out of mind'-- presumtively. Unfortunately, the 'invisible imbeciles' who necessitated this elaborate and expansive (expensive) catacomb, won't have to live with it for the next 100, 000 years (1,000,000 in the U.S.A.).
..one of the questions the movie asks of those working in the project is..will anyone coming across these catacombs far in the future be able to even read the "danger stay away signs". language will have changed that much. or even if they do understand go ahead and dig in anyway.
NIRS: Radioactive Waste Project
http://www.nirs.org/press/05-12-2010/2
"...the Great Lakes are currently compromised by radioactive contaminations through routine emissions and accidental releases at upwards of 50 nuclear sites. The Great Lakes and St Lawrence River systems together comprise close to 20% of the world's surface fresh water.."
At least the Germans are getting it. Hopefully, others will catch on....
Germans Protest Against Nuclear Power (and vid)
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/182230.html
and unlike Canada, because the Germans 'get it' their politicians will get it too, if they don't respond. Here, on this as with most things it is a sleepy hollow backwater.
@epaulo13: Your point about the future is well taken.
@NDPP: Thanks for the interesting links.
If only Ontarians would actually inquire about those 'debt retirement fees' on their electric bills! Perhaps Hudak plans to bury them in Finland?
A socialist response to Monbiot:
What Monbiot himself said in his Guardian article was that he had plumped for nuclear because the alternatives were technologically inferior, or at least no better. All of his article concerns the technological suitability or acceptability of other forms of energy production, compared with nuclear. While many of these technological arguments are false or distorted or debate with straw positions, there is a more important point. How much energy we consume and what forms of energy production we use can’t be decided on a purely technological basis. They are first of all social-political issues: what is possible is determined more by who rules than it is by technology....
When a technologically feasible measure such as improved public transport is rejected or ignored by capitalist governments, Monbiot looks around for some other technological “fix”, one that he hopes will be acceptable to the powers that be. Unfortunately, the currently dominant methods of energy production — nuclear power and the burning of fossil fuels — are highly profitable and will not be given up by the capitalists without a fight. Because he won’t look beyond capitalism, Monbiot is reduced to trying to choose the least destructive of capitalism’s preferred methods. As it happens, he gets that choice wrong. But even if he got it right, he would still be choosing between evils, choosing between different methods of destroying human life and the environment on which it depends.
Instead of trying to choose the least unpleasant disaster, we should draw the logical conclusion that we need to replace capitalist government with a working people’s government that can take the necessary measures that capitalist governments always avoid. But if he did that, Monbiot would be a revolutionary rather than a liberal, and he probably wouldn’t have a Guardian column for very long.
The pro-nuclear environmentalists have themselves between a rock and a radioactive place. To come out in favour of nukes is to admit that our addiction to cheap energy must be fed at any cost, and since we have this technology, its use will mean never having to confront the costs. Our culture and our extremely consumptive way of life must be maintained, even at the likely expense of eternal contamination.
It's more insane to be a green nuke proponent that merely a capitalist opportunistic one. At least the latter has a rational explanation.
As Gwynne Dyer has pointed out, a low energy intensity economy is no longer possible without mass die-offs. We can't produce enough food without energy intensive farming... so perhaps in 2200, when the population has recovered from its global peak and is looking three billion in the face we might have a shot... except:
There's an inverse relationship between fertility and standard of living.
But that said, that's not where climate and deep green and humanist conservationism are going to find their real conflict... no, it's going to be in geo-engineering, because while it's theoretically possible to get our emissions down fast enough to stop the warming hitting 2 degrees, AKA feedback levels, the politics don't seem to be there... it won't be possible without a global revolution in the next couple of years. So now the focus is on buying time, by artificially lowering the earth's temperature. This, of course, smacks against the moral values of the deep greens (i.e. industrial activity is inherently damaging and should not be tolerated) while permitting the kinds of natural feedback processes that are going to drive climate change even absent further human activity.
I like nuclear myself. Yes a disaster contaminates water and soil... ever tried to live near a mountain that they've dynamited for the coal? The plants put out more radiation, kill more people, and the mining is much more dangerous. The disasters never do as much to despoil the land as the slow-motion disaster that is the fossil-fuel industry, and that's not even counting the spills. And yes, plants are dependent on political stability, but then, so are our energy needs... governments collapse, consumption drops. It kills countless people though.
The pro-nuclear environmentalists have themselves between a rock and a radioactive place. To come out in favour of nukes is to admit that our addiction to cheap energy must be fed at any cost, and since we have this technology, its use will mean never having to confront the costs. Our culture and our extremely consumptive way of life must be maintained, even at the likely expense of eternal contamination.
It's more insane to be a green nuke proponent that merely a capitalist opportunistic one. At least the latter has a rational explanation.
As Gwynne Dyer has pointed out, a low energy intensity economy is no longer possible without mass die-offs. We can't produce enough food without energy intensive farming... so perhaps in 2200, when the population has recovered from its global peak and is looking three billion in the face we might have a shot... except:
There's an inverse relationship between fertility and standard of living.
But that said, that's not where climate and deep green and humanist conservationism are going to find their real conflict... no, it's going to be in geo-engineering, because while it's theoretically possible to get our emissions down fast enough to stop the warming hitting 2 degrees, AKA feedback levels, the politics don't seem to be there... it won't be possible without a global revolution in the next couple of years. So now the focus is on buying time, by artificially lowering the earth's temperature. This, of course, smacks against the moral values of the deep greens (i.e. industrial activity is inherently damaging and should not be tolerated) while permitting the kinds of natural feedback processes that are going to drive climate change even absent further human activity.
I like nuclear myself. Yes a disaster contaminates water and soil... ever tried to live near a mountain that they've dynamited for the coal? The plants put out more radiation, kill more people, and the mining is much more dangerous. The disasters never do as much to despoil the land as the slow-motion disaster that is the fossil-fuel industry, and that's not even counting the spills. And yes, plants are dependent on political stability, but then, so are our energy needs... governments collapse, consumption drops. It kills countless people though.
It might be more correct to say a low energy intensity economy is not possible without a much lower population. The real question is not whether basic needs (food, water, shelter, etc) can be met with much lower energy and other resource inputs (they have been, and just distribution is part of this equation), but how lower populations and energy intensity will occur.
To me, the economic arguments against nuclear are so compelling, the other arguments are almost moot, and comparisons to coal and other fossil fuels are odious as because nuclear isn't sustainable either and requires the use of fossil fuels when it's entire life cycle is considered. A high energy intensity economy is unsustainable and will cause mass die-offs, so how are we going to transition to a low energy intensity economy without mass die-offs over a short period of time, rather than a much longer period of the death rate exceeding the birth rate by a rate allowing social stability.
Population levels have nothing to do with energy intensity, which is a measure of energy use per unit of production.
Population levels have nothing to do with energy intensity, which is a measure of energy use per unit of production.
I agree with the definition, but not that it has nothing to do with population. We need to produce more food because of a higher population and because of unjust or non-existent distribution. This seems to require a much higher rate of energy use per unit of production.
There are many kinds of geo-engineering, some of which are more benign than others. Throwing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is a form of geo-engineering, but so is installing millions of white roofs, planting millions of trees, or widespread use of biochar.
Population levels have nothing to do with energy intensity, which is a measure of energy use per unit of production.
We need to produce more food because of a higher population and because of unjust or non-existent distribution. This seems to require a much higher rate of energy use per unit of production.
Where's your evidence for that statement? There may be a need to increase production - even dramatically, but that doesn't necessarily mean an increase in energy intensity. In fact, economies of scale often lead to reductions in energy intensity as production levels increase.
Population levels have nothing to do with energy intensity, which is a measure of energy use per unit of production.
We need to produce more food because of a higher population and because of unjust or non-existent distribution. This seems to require a much higher rate of energy use per unit of production.
Where's your evidence for that statement? There may be a need to increase production - even dramatically, but that doesn't necessarily mean an increase in energy intensity. In fact, economies of scale often lead to reductions in energy intensity as production levels increase.
My own perception, which can certainly be flawed. You can't actually do the comparison of industrial agriculture with pre-industrial agriculture without a full life cycle analysis of all the inputs and products. Economies of scale may lead to reductions in energy intensity, but hardly over all ranges of production levels, and the idea is to reduce energy and other resouce inputs, not just their intensity. Economies of scale are not particularly useful when the inputs aren't sustainable in the first place.
http://worldenergyblog.com/food-and-energy-basics/