In response to this post, both Jeff and Ana have good points.
Jeff's is that a parallel bit of slipperiness often pops up in arguments about nuclear energy. On the one hand, we hear that renewables aren't "mature" and that only nuclear can get us safely through the global warming crisis. On the other, we hear that nuclear can do this (safely) only with a decade and billions of dollars in R&D costs for new technologies. But if we have a decade and billions of dollars, why not funnel them into clean energy?
Ana's is about the related bogus argument that, to meet our energy needs, solar would have to carpet the entire state of Oklahoma! Or wind turbines would have to fill the state of North Dakota! Plus they are intermittent, so they would leave gaps in our power! Etc. But of course no one claims that any one of these alternatives can fill the gap. The point is that we should move to a distributed mix of sources: solar, wind, wave/tidal, biomass, and let's not forget, conservation.
On Ana's point, check out this story, which discusses research done at Oxford showing that such a mix could provide a much larger percentage of the U.K.'s energy needs than had been previously thought. Jamais looks at the research in more detail.
Arguments against clean energy often indulge in these fallacies casually. It's time greens started challenging them.
Comments
View as Flat
zubs Posted 4:37 am
13 May 2005
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:10 am
14 May 2005
amp;ei=5094&partner=homepage
"The addition to the McCain-Lieberman bill, which is being circulated in draft form, would codify a new political bargain. Conservatives would support emission controls in return for liberal support for a new generation of nuclear power plants, a shift that could reshape the existing alignments on these issues."
When wind power has a proven cost of 3.5 cents per kwh in the latest installations in high wind speed ares, many on the left are turning to support new nuclear plants.
Alarming, but not unexpected. The talking points propaganda was reported here in the "Ecomagination" article, and before that in my blog asnd others.
When the likes of Stewart Brand now support nuclear power as an alternative to wind, solar, and biofuel as a solution for global climate disaster...we are in serious trouble!!
Will we lose on this issue too, as we lost the fight to stop the invasion of Iraq? It appears so.
The odds are now officially hopeless to stop new nukes from being built. Luckily that has not stopped us before. Fight the power!!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:33 am
14 May 2005
Check it out! This is a bad sign. Sophistry for nuclear power from not only brand, but an organization backed by James lovelock for nuclear power too?
"You can find the whole piece and other Lovelock writings on the subject at the site of The Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy (http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm)."
Local lawsuits to prevent siting nuclear plants are next folks. Will they work once bushco inc. nuclear contractors pull eminent domain out of the black bag of tricks and bribery? Unlikely.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 2:48 pm
15 May 2005
The first step is to confront so-called environmentalists who support nuclear power with all of its harms, beginning with the mining and processing of uranium all the way to the horrible toxic waste created that cannot be removed or detoxified. If they don't renounce nukes at that point, let's call a spade a spade and tell the world that those who support nukes are not enviros, whatever their agenda might be.
Permalink
Spectrumist Posted 3:27 am
16 May 2005
jdhlax says:
...without making horribly toxic compounds like plutonium
I would be more inclined to question the technical credentials of someone who refers to plutonium as a compound when it is, in fact, an element; as opposed to questioning the environmental credentials or motives of everyone who has a differing opinion regarding the hazards versus benefits of nuclear power.
Environmental advocacy is a broad issue, fraught with contradictions and unfortunate compromises with the "devil" (and those pesky details where the devil resides). The environmentalists I know who support nuclear power (under limits and conditions...again another forum) make real contributions to the cause on a daily basis; I for one can live with the knowledge that I do not meet the definition of environmentalist espoused by jdhlax.
Permalink
d on pc Posted 9:23 am
17 May 2005
On a different point, what about what happens after? It's obvious that we will run out of oil, why are we trying so hard to be preventative? We haven't prevented jack. I say someone should start planning how the country will handle another depression. Fifty years, maybe more, the end of our age of oil cunsumption will be in my lifetime. I go to highschool. Out of our thousand students, I'm the only one I know of that's given any thought at all to this looming disaster. People just don't care, and won't care, until it's already here.
Wanna know my idea for conservation? Raise gas prices to where they will be after we run out. It may not be popular, and I admit it has a billion in one chance of happening, but it would work. Think about it, really think about it, all the effects that it would have... I'll give you a minute... Now, wouldn't you say public transportation would be more popular? There would be less cars on the roads. People (unless they were governor movie stars) wouldn't be driving around in diesel breathing hummers. I'll admit that this wouldn't be that wonderful for anyone in the automobile industry, but I said this probabably wouldn't happen anyway, and hey, this is an environmentalist website right?
Permalink