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

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Stan,

I don't recall your exact words, but it boiled down to ''being misinformed',
so I'm simply sending material that shows that eminent researchers,
environmentalists and climate change researchers are quite in agreement and
opposed to derailing progress towards renewable energy by using inefficient,
uneconomical, and long term damaging nuclear energy (even more so than
carbon).

Yours is a policy option that some people agree on, and others oppose, that
is all I want to restore in this debate.

I don't have time to really explore the energy debate, when I did so years
ago, nuclear was a very bad option; there are now new attempts to restore it
as an option, but I don't really see what has changed to warrant this.

For me you need to do a lot more than:

- make us choose between the pest and the cholera

- replace the short term danger with a longer term danger (nuclear waste)

- acknowledging it needs huge subsidies in order to be economical

Apart from that, I remain open-minded, but sceptical.

The onus is on those that want to poison our planet for tens of thousands of
years, and delay the transition to renewables by misguided investments in
inefficient nuclear,

Michel

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Stan Rhodes <stanleyrhodes at gmail.com>wrote:

> Michel, I'm disappointed and frustrated with your post. You did not read
> what I linked, you just knee-jerked, as you did the first time in dismissing
> Ryan.  Let me reframe the problem in terms of scope and requirements, so you
> understand why I'm saying what I'm saying.
>
> The question facing the world: what current technology can replace existing
> fossil fuel electricity generation WITH similar production capacity AND fuel
> cost BUT with a lower life cycle emission of CO2?
>
> In certain situations, geothermal, or hydroelectric, or OTEC can do this.
> In most cases they can't, and fossil fuels are used.  Nuclear was never
> claimed to be a flawless solution, but is superior to all existing solutions
> for MWe generation because it can match the capacity and cost of fossil
> fuels, but beat the emissions.
>
> Whether people like it or not, that's the reality of power consumption and
> needs: it boils down to fossil fuels vs nuclear for the majority of the
> world's power generation.
>
> Solid waste is a consideration too: radioactive solid waste created by a
> nuclear plant producing 1k MWe is less than a natural gas, oil, or coal
> plant of the same output.  Compare: natural gas, at 200k tons, nuclear at
> about 850 tons.  30 of those tons are spent fuel, and highly radioactive,
> but can be reprocessed.
>
> Even if we couldn't reprocess that fuel, nuclear still wins the comparison
> with fossil fuels.  Arguments about the dangers of waste miss the point: we
> only need something better than fossil fuels, and there is no other
> contender.  Thankfully, the safety record of nuclear is so much better than
> fossil fuels, there's no argument there anyway.  I'm all for nuclear
> watchdogs, standards, and individuals looking out for safety.  Industries
> need precisely that sort of thing to help keep them honest and safe, but
> pro-safety is not the same as anti-nuclear.  As a side note, the "where to
> bury waste" has always been a false dilemma.  Why not create a few research
> facilities to monitor the waste while pursuing better disposal options?
>
> As Ryan said, ruling out nuclear is impossible.  I don't know what he means
> by "minimize," because right now, if the world doesn't get the power from
> nuclear, it will use fossil fuels.  Until we develop a replacement for
> nuclear that fits the criteria previously mentioned, we must use it.
>
> To clarify my position on a few points without being exhaustive, I offer
> the following:
> 1) Research into other technologies should be continued;
> 2) OTEC seems to be a solid choice for most islands near the equator (after
> a bit more research, I'm impressed by it);
> 3) Wind is lousy because of highly variable generation capacity (like
> solar), and the huge concrete foundations that must be sunk for the towers.
> 4) Where heat capture can be used, it should be, such as homes (in the
> north, at least) with south-facing windows, supplemental solar hot-water
> heating, etc;
> 5) Small-scale solar is the only viable option I know of to empower "low
> watt" poor, and is useful in other low watt applications.
>
> -- Stan
>



-- 
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/20090616/19204ad6/attachment.html>