A few problems with nuclear energy
Fostering Ecological Hope
Today from Margaret Swedish:
As you may know, there is a fierce argument about nuclear energy raging among those concerned about the rise in greenhouse gases that are threatening the Earth’s atmosphere by heating it up rapidly (gently referred to as global ‘warming’). Nuclear energy does not emit greenhouse gases and so some environmentalists argue that we need to get over our fear of nuclear power plants in order to address the greater fear of a hot uninhabitable planet.
Among the notables arguing in this direction is Dr. James Lovelock, one of the orginators of the ‘gaia theory,’ the theory that the earth self-regulates its own atmosphere, the geosphere and biosphere playing their roles in this symphony, to support whatever life exists at the moment. It is this balance that is being threatened by global warming.
Lovelock is so concerned about the potential death of the planet that he is arguing that the threat posed by nuclear energy is nothing compared to what will happen if we don’t prevent runaway warming, which many scientists believe is in our near future if we do not immediately begin to cut greenhouse gas emissions. (I am reading his new book, The Revenge of Gaia, right now and will review it when done.) Lovelock has become a strong proponent of nuclear energy.
Just to add to the debate, I wanted to share this article which is in today’s NY Times. There are lots of problems related to nuclear energy. This article lists some of them — their propensity to be shut down because of safety problems.
Another question is whether or not we could build plants fast enough, or increase capacity fast enough, or mine enough uranium over the longer term, to save the day. It can take decades to get nuclear plants up and running, especially in the numbers that we would need to replace current energy demand (not to mention rapidly rising demand), and doing it quickly is likely to exacerbate safety problems.
Still, the argument is compelling — that we must use whatever technology we have at our disposal to reduce emissions.
But I just don’t see this saving us from the more drastic change required — a sharp, deep, lasting reduction in our use of fossil-fuel-based energy, which means addressing the need to change a consumption-based, mobile, society. We could do that ‘right now’ with the right leadership, with the right national mobilization.
Here’s a very good article that covers the debate, both the arguments of proponents of nuclear energy and then what is wrong with this approach.
September 18th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
What I’ve found most interesting in the energy debates as a whole, and nuclear in particular, is that most of the active participants have never been involved in actually trying to generate electricity - whether from nuclear power, coal or wind. Would you by a car based only on reviews from people who don’t drive?
If we are to make good decisions about our energy future, we must first understand our energy present. I’ve worked in the US nuclear industry over twenty years and it’s much different that what is portrayed by the media, and by it’s opponents and proponets alike (including utlity PR folks). That’s not to say it’s better or worse - just different. If you would like an entertaining lay person’s tour of the US nuclear industry, see my blog http://RadDecision.blogspot.com for a thriller novel on the topic. It’s available free to readers - who seem to like it judging from their comments at the homepage.
And, oh yes - you are correct that conservation should be the first big issue talked about when we look at our energy future. The safest, cleanest, most benign energy is that which we don’t use. I’m not sure if our present society is equipped to handle really drastic changes though. We’re a NASCAR nation and it took generations to get that way - it may take generations to change.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:23 am
The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.
The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.
Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.
Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.
If there are no gaps there is no emotion.
Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.
When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.
There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.
People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.
Emotion ends.
Man becomes machine.
A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.
A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.
FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.
SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.
A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.
To read the complete article please follow either of these links :
PlanetSave
EarthNewsWire
sushil_yadav