PES Manifesto

1. Lovelock by zentrist on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 11:11

Frederic, in times of crisis we sometimes see people who offer the silver bullet which kills all our problems. We see hydrogene prohets like Jeremy Rifkin, we see solar missionaries, and we see  so-called independents like Lovelock who opt for nuclear energy.

As far as I know he belongs to a breed of scientists who go for the big picture. He considers the planet a huge organism (Gaia), an organism that got sick recently. Now, that is a fine metaphor, but he means it literally. The metaphor of an organism has been historically linked to conservatism, by the way. However, Lovelock mixes ideology and science in a completely uncontrollable way, and one of his results has been to advocat nuclear energy as the one big answer to global warming. Now, even if it is true that co2 emissions of nuclear power plants are comparatively low, and even if we conceded that it is possible to run these plants in a 100% safe way, what shall we do with the nuclear waste? We do not have an answer for the nuclear waste produced so far. What shall we do with the stuff that we produce if we use four times as many nuclear power stations as we do now?

I would strongly advise everyone who deals with climate change to accept that we talk about an extremely complex issue. A network of thousands of scientist like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reflects this complexity with its inbuilt diversity. An individual alarmist and conservative voice like Lovelock is perhaps not the best guide when it comes to PES answers to climate change. 

2. What does Lovelock propose for nuclear waste? by Asynjen on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 11:57

As a feminist I am always alerted when people speak in metafors of the 'organic' or 'natural' - however, I'll try to stick with the topic at hand, namely nuclear energy as a solution to climate change!

I've certainly never been a big fan of nuclear power. As Zentrist says nuclear energy implies major waste problems - and if we introduce nuclear power as the 'big answer' to our energy problems, we will have even more dangerous waste! In my view it's not sustainable - but it could be very interesting to hear what Lovelock has to say about the issue? Frederic, can you tell me a bit more about Lovelock's conclusions?

3. Hello , about Lovelock and Gaia and nuclear power by frederic.vareillas on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 19:03

My friend,

I'm not that clever ; I suggest strongly you read Lovelock's books.

From what I can gather, nuclear waste isn't as dangerous as Green activists want us to think :

For instance, compare nuclear France and coal/gas Germany : Which do you think is the greener ?

That's France, by far. Denmark as well, with all their wind turbines pollutes much more.

In France we retreat nuclear waste or we store it safely deep in rocky ground and it doesn't weigh very much compared to coal... seven grams per inhabitant !

The real problem is CO2, methane (21 times more) and sulphur, not the Sun (hotter ?!) or nuclear plants.

But I am no scientist , and I write better in French.

Please go read that book or the Internet site and then make up your mind.

I am not a nuclear lobbyist but am ready to accept living near nuclear waste.

It 's an emergency , our Planet is changing : Let's quit oil in Europe.

Yours friendly,

Frederic

4. nuclear waste by zentrist on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 at 15:03

Hmmh, I am not a mathematician, but see:

0.07 gram x 60000000 (French citizens)

= 4200 tons of nuclear waste every single year. 

Sounds like an awful lot, given that the radiation might last for up to several hundred thousand years. Even if it is less dangerous than we used to think. On top of it, 4200 tons seems pretty conservative. When you dismantle a nuclear power station, you can expect hundreds of tons of nuclear waste. Btw.: the cost for dismantling a nuclear power plant are extremely high. The dismantling of the small fuel reprocessing plant in Karlsruhe, Germany, is now calculated with 2.5 billion Euro. The dismantling of the Slovakian nuclear power station Bohunice might cost more than 400 million Euro. And this does not include the management of the nuclear waste. If you ask me: this is simply not sustainable! I still remember the early days of the nuclear promise. Low cost, no danger, permanent energy supply. Add "free of Co2" and it sounds familiar, doesn't it. If you ask me: too good to be true!

5. So what ? by frederic.vareillas on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 14:08

All right my friend , you are concerned about the waste.

So , all I can tell you is : What do you suggest we do ? :

We have two years left before oil and gas cost ten times more + solar energy and wind turbines can supply maximum 7 % of our total consumption of energy + oceans are littered with plastic bags, wrappings and are 80 % DEAD + the Sun's getting hotter + we are killing the great forests to get wood to burn (and transform in paper) + Earth's temperature is rising 2 ° C (which is huge).

What would you say if we could recycle and re-utilize nuke waste and nuke plants ?

Think again : We have two years in front of us before the great depression.

What do you suggest we do ?

Friendly,

Fred

6. to nuclear or not to nuclear by JonRouge on Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 10:34

Well if things are so bad, then we need to quickly adapt, if things are not so bad we need to still quickly adapt, so rather than reading this learn more about spin:

http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/Nuclear_is_not_the_Answer_to_Climate_Change