Greetings, all -- Bill McKibben probably said it best - there's no such thing as a silver bullet, only silver buckshot. We're going to need a variety of sources for energy, and we're going to need to be creative about efficiency and conservation. They're not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the US could do a lot more in efficiency and conservation - the "negawatts" approach of Amory Lovins and the RMI, for example - and continue to fund basic research into other energy options.
A geophysicist I heard recently noted that there are three sources of energy: solar radiation (leading to fossil fuels over time), radioactive decay (nuclear/geothermal), and the motion of the planet. Of the three, solar radiation appears to have the best long-term application. We need to figure out how (no small feat, I grant you), and we'll want to use everything including the oink, as we say in sausage-making. - Claiborne - On Dec 8, 2011, at 13:14, Paul Paryski <ppary...@aol.com> wrote: > I disagree, although there is a PC aspect to the discussion about nukes. I > believe that there are studies indicating that nukes are not cost effective > if all the related costs (construction, mining, transportation of materials, > water use, impact studies, decommissioning, etc.) are included. The risk > factor is significant; there has been one very serious incident every ten > years. France and Germany have spent billions trying to decommission some of > there older plants. > > This being said I think that research is important and newer technologies > might address some of these problems. Again nukes are a very complex issues. > The esthetics of a nuke plant are really yucky more so than wind turbines. > > Coal has very significant environmental issues, as most people are aware. > But then slowing the construction of coal plants in China by replacing them > with small, more innovative nukes might be a solution. > > Energy conservation and efficiency is a must. And most people don't realize > that the energy-water nexus is very real (every time one opens a faucet > energy is being used and every time one turns on a light water is being used > in a chain of impacts). > > There is no free lunch...... > > Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 5:15 am > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! > News > > I hate to say it, but I think the nuke issue has turned into a very PC > conversation. They're Just Wrong. Basically a sort of Science vs Religion > discussion. Saying Nuke's are OK or maybe even Nukes might be OK has all > your friends sighing and shaking their heads in dismay. > > I guess I'm in the middle. I basically think we walked from serious nuke > energy research, it was too sensitive an issue in terms of safety and we > didn't want rogue nations making bombs. > > As for "where's the science" on nukes, Carl sent out a lot of great links. > > Here's what may be an urban legend, but I've heard it from more than one > source: More radiation is emitted from a coal plant than a nuke reactor! How > is that possible? Well, coal has uranium and other elements in it. They are > not eliminated during processing so are free to exit into the air during > burning. Nukes, on the other hand, have standards for radiation emission, > while coal plants do not. Odd but I think its true. > > The real answer is likely Diversity: just say "yes" to Solar, Wind, Hydro, > Geo thermal, Tidal and so on. And indeed, as Kim Sorvig has pointed out .. > create small ones .. like a neighborhood sized solar installation. Why? Get > rid of transmission losses and increase local robustness and add to the > "smart grid". > > But boy, windfarms have a lot going against them: they are a visual blight. > We used to drive through one in California several times a year commuting to > Santa Fe from Palo Alto. > > -- Owen > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Paul Paryski <ppary...@aol.com> wrote: > If everything is taken into consideration, the carbon footprint of nukes is > really very high, much higher than the alternate forms of energy such as > wind, solar, hydroelectric and even some thermal sources. France is paying > dearly for its nukes. One of the innovative sources of energy that is being > installed in Europe is slow moving hydro-turbines placed in riverbeds. > cheers, Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Holmes <rob...@holmesacosta.com> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 4:29 pm > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo! > News > > Yeah, greenest only if you ignore the environmental/human/dollar costs of > getting the uranium out of the ground and then you forget about that whole > messy decommissioning component (which usually relies on the assumption that > national government must ultimately underwrite/pick up the tab and is > therefore free)—R > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net> wrote: > From the "I Like Nukes" department we have new designs that look interesting: > > http://news.yahoo.com/gates-discussing-nuclear-reactor-china-124722465.html > They run on depleted uranium and apparently are safer. > > Ironically, nukes are apparently the greenest critters around too. > > -- Owen > > ============================================================ > 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 > ============================================================ > 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
