[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls

Thu Jun 11 09:03:09 CEST 2009

Stan, sorry, criticism of the nuclear industry is not ill-informed, and
widely shared:

A buildup of nuclear plants could cost taxpayers billions of dollars and
create more high-level atomic waste, said environmentalist Brent Blackwelder
and Robert Alvarez, a former U.S. Energy Department official.

Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, said the U.S. already has
enough trouble disposing of the highly toxic waste generated at nuclear plan
ts.

He and Alvarez traveled from Washington to speak at USC as the debate over
climate change heats up.

"The idea that this somehow might be a clean solution to global warming" is
a misconception, Blackwelder said of nuclear energy. "They're going to have
insurmountable problems with the waste. If you can't handle it now, how can
you possibly launch forward like this?"

It's quicker to launch energy efficiency programs and develop alternative
energy sources than to try to build a nuclear power plant, which can take
years to receive environmental approvals, he told about 75 people at a forum
at USC's Learning Center for Sustainable Futures.

With pollution from coal-fired power plants a major contributor to global
climate change, utilities such as SCE&G and Duke Energy are studying whether
to build more nuclear plants.

The South Carolina-owned Santee Cooper power company has been criticized
heavily for attempting to build a new coal-burning plant in Florence County.
Coal's impact on climate change has prompted some environmentalists to
say they'll
listen to arguments in favor of nuclear power.

But Blackwelder said South Carolina and other states could learn from
aggressive efficiency programs that have made a difference in California.
California residents use only about half the electricity per person, on
average, that other Americans do, he said.

*Changing light bulbs*

Switching from a traditional light bulb to a compact fluorescent bulb can cu
t 70 percent of the electricity needed for the light, he said.

Utility company spokespeople say they're trying to be more efficient and
find alternative energy sources, but it's hard to realize enough energy
savings to offset the country's growing power demands.

"Absolutely these things help, but they won't get us where we need to go,"
said Theresa Pugh, director of environmental services for the American
Public Power Association.

Nuclear, coal and hydro-power are the only proven sources to supply major
amounts of electricity, some industry officials say.

Alvarez, a former senior Energy Department official, said the agency is
wrongly pushing a plan to recycle used fuel to serve existing commercial
nuclear reactors and new ones that would be built.

The program will produce dangerous amounts of radioactive cesium and strontium
and cost as much as $500 billion, said Alvarez, who authored a study on
reprocessing earlier this year. Two sites near Aiken and Barnwell are under
consideration for a nuclear recycling plant.

"This shouldn't (use) a penny of taxpayer dollars," said Alvarez, who
assessed the recycling program in a report earlier this year.

(http://a4nr.org/library/nuclearrenaissance/07.19.2007-thecolumbiastate)

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:

> Yes, nuclear fuel is depletable, but the rest of Michel's criticism is
> ill-informed.  Good nuclear technology has been around for decades:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
>
> All modern reactors use a passively safe fuel setup, for obvious reasons.
> Here's a bit about the IFR project, and how they ran a coolant test before
> Chernobyl had a cooling catastrophe:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
>
> Loans are not subsidies, but as with any lobby, there's plenty of chance
> for sweet deals.  All industries are hyping themselves to get loans.  At
> least nuclear has shown itself to be viable.  Quite recently, "renewable"
> energy industries, along with nuclear, all came together to ask Obama to
> speed up loans:
> http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/renewable-industries-ask-obama-to-speed-loan-guarantees/
>
> Companies have been attempting to navigate the fear and red tape to find
> smaller solutions, too:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/06/10/10greenwire-company-calls-new-small-nuclear-reactor-a-game-45123.html
>
> The "40 years of uranium left" Tomas mentioned may be a fair guess (I
> honestly don't know--I've read similar numbers), but obviously there are a
> lot of variables.  For example: are the countries with the reactors legally
> allowed to reprocess and use the U-235 fuel in question?  If not, you throw
> away a lot of potential energy as waste.  In the US, we don't reprocess
> fuel.  Obviously, we should (the other nuclear powers do).  40 years
> reliable and powerful emission-free generation is wonderful compared to all
> other power sources right now.
>
> Ryan's energy summary seems fair.  I don't share Ryan's enthusiasm about
> OTEC, part because I only know the basics about it, and part because land is
> a much gentler mistress than sea.  Regardless, unreasonable fear about
> nuclear power certainly qualifies as a pitfall of the past and the present,
> but I hope that pitfall does not remain.
>
> -- Stan
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Nuclear is a really really bad alternative, it's not economical, it's
>> depletable, it sets up humanity with a huge and probably unsolvable
>> pollution problem, and, accidents WILL happen. All it will take is one
>> accident and the current industry driven hype for huge government subsidies
>> will disappear again.
>>
>> Let's focus on renewables and not be sidetracked,
>>
>> Michel
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Michel:
>>>
>>> The US is a fair model of a future world:
>>>
>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/USEnFlow02-quads.gif
>>>
>>> Transportation will decrease, but it will not remain carbon-based.  The
>>> only serious alternative is electric.  Hydrogen will be a chunk, but not
>>> much.  Hybrid is a transition technology.
>>>
>>> Local consumers in most places cannot access wind or solar in reasonable
>>> quantities to make personal production realistic or economical.
>>>
>>> I think small solar is a 3% at best sort of solution.  Centralized solar
>>> turning turbines with hot air, etc. is more realistic.  Centralized power is
>>> needed for industry and transportation and those aren't going away.  Yes,
>>> there will be efficiencies and savings, but there will also be growth.
>>> People in the undeveloped world are not going to agree to be poor while the
>>> West gets to be rich with lights, heat/AC, mobility, shipping, intensive
>>> mining and mineral use, etc.
>>>
>>> Nuclear has a huge future role.  It has to.  People who argue otherwise
>>> are simply hurting the planet--killing it.  We need power.  Nuclear is going
>>> to be the main source (period.)  We should fight to minimize it wherever we
>>> can, but it is the main source.
>>>
>>> We need mostly decentralized medium scale distribution grids with medium
>>> scale production resources that are sustainable and non-carbon.  That means
>>> hydrogen to me.  Ocean energy can aid, but it isn't a real answer so far.
>>> OTEC is the obvious vehicle to hydrogen--as is geo-thermal.  Iceland will be
>>> rich one day when it uses its geo-thermal assets to make liquid hydrogen and
>>> ship it around the world to hydro plants that fuel small and medium sized
>>> coastal developments.  Everyone can be rich by building and deploying deep
>>> ocean OTEC.  The Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, Nigeria,
>>> Ethiopia/Somalia, India, Central America, the Caribbean--all obvious winners
>>> with OTEC/hydrogen.
>>>
>>> It has been positively criminal that hydrogen and means of production
>>> haven't been pushed forward more vigorously.  Solar I see as a non-starter
>>> that will be a minor player--it is too small to produce hydrogen and it is
>>> too variable to be a realistic developed power source on its own.  The sun
>>> is the answer, but you need energy storage--warm water gives you that...and
>>> we've got plenty of it.
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090611/b727bd2f/attachment-0001.html>