LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for BEST-L Archives


BEST-L Archives

BEST-L Archives


BEST-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BEST-L Home

BEST-L Home

BEST-L  August 2006

BEST-L August 2006

Subject:

Fw: Another view on environmental trade-offs

From:

Mark van Soestbergen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mark van Soestbergen <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:09:17 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (173 lines)

This author makes many valid points, but what has always bothered me with 
nuclear is the extreme economic perversion of the business model. Nuclear 
exists due to VERY extensive basic and advanced research, all paid for by 
taxpayers money. The garbage from nuclear will stay around for some 300 
generations; storage, security, monitoring and potential risk issues 
foreseen and unforeseen. So, while nuclear is markted as 'cheap' or 
affordable, it ingores huge cost displacements into various other sectors of 
the economy, and avoids mentioning the billions per year it will take future 
generation, not one or 2 generations, but hundreds, to care for it.

So, even if you are off-grid today, happy with your windmill, you are paying 
for nuclear you ain't using, and will forever. In regards to future energy 
systems; if we could gather all the subsidies for nuclear over the last 50 
years, (not including the perverse subsidies for fossil resources), PV would 
be cheaper than rooftiles, the midwest would be giant windfarm, and every 
house that could, would thermally heat its water.

The climate challenges requires capitalization of new infrastrucure in the 
order of trillions, and preferably, while we are really opening up the 
checkboook, without repeating mediocre solutions of the past. Nuclear is 
centralized, and before us lies the opportunity to choose systems and 
technologies that are decentralized, so that we can extend the benefits of 
electrical and other types of energy, without the poles, the wires, the 
Ashplund trucks and the associated administrative and financial costs, to 
the 3 billion people that today live their lives on kerosene and D-cell 
batteries.

We can create those solutions, without the overhead of a "utility", the risk 
of something scary going wrong, the economic inequity of displacing 
associated system cost into DOE and Defense like budgets, and avoiding the 
absurdity of punting the after care of deadly, radioactive material 299 
generations down the line. Ideally, a house or a building uses very little 
energy, and what it uses, it generates itself. We are not that far away from 
that, and if seriously tried, we could be there by 2020.

So arguing for nuclear is like proposing to lay copper wires on the bottom 
of the atlantic ocean, after you've already figured out how to send a better 
signal via sattelite.

That is my take on it, anyway.

Mark van Soestbergen
ICBE
[log in to unmask]
www.icbe.com
352 284 8221 direct
352 335 9140 fax


ps, genetic modifation of forests is bio-terrorism for trees.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Langholtz,Matthew H" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: A view on environmental trade-offs


> From http://www.polkonline.com/stories/082206/opinion_cures.shtml
>
> Tuesday, August 22, 2006
> 8:44 AM on Tuesday, August 22, 2006
> Global-warming foes fight the cures
>
>
> By Deroy Murdock
> Scripp Howard News Service
>
>
> If Al Gore is right and global warming is genuine, grave and the fault
> of mankind, why do he and so many environmentalists oppose measures that
> would reduce those pesky carbon-dioxide emissions? Power sources that
> could cut atmospheric CO2 rarely seem good enough to satisfy the greens.
>
>
> Unlike oil and coal, nuclear power does not generate CO2. It may be the
> most practical, atmosphere-friendly power source now available. And yet
> the former vice president seems unimpressed.
>
> "I'm skeptical about it playing a much larger role," he said in London's
> Guardian newspaper May 31. "I don't think it's going to be a silver
> bullet."
>
> True, nuclear plants produce radioactive waste that must be stored
> somewhere. Despite an impressive safety record in America, where nuclear
> power meets 20 percent of energy demand - and even more so in France,
> where 75 percent of power is nuclear - the potential remains for
> catastrophic accidents or sabotage. But, as Gore and his pals should
> understand, life involves tradeoffs between low-risk options and
> clear-and-present dangers. If global warming truly is the unfolding
> horror show that environmentalists say it is, then why do they consider
> atomic energy even more dangerous?
>
> Indeed, Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Chris Horner wonders
> why environmentalists reject alternatives to fossil fuels if they agree
> with David King, British Prime Minister Tony Blair's science adviser,
> that global warming is "the greatest threat facing mankind" and is
> "worse than terrorism."
>
> "It is hypocritical that Kyotophile greens almost unanimously still
> oppose nuclear power and that (the Kyoto treaty's) own terms exclude
> greenhouse-gas-free nukes from its permissible sources of gaining
> Tcredits,' " Horner writes in his forthcoming Regnery book, "The
> Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism."
>
> Green groups are almost comically conflicted on this issue. "Climate
> change is the greatest threat of all," Tony Juniper of Friends of the
> Earth U.K. told The Guardian March 3. But then FOE's Web site declares:
> "Nuclear power ... cannot be part of the solution to climate change."
> So, apparently, some threats are greater than "the greatest threat of
> all."
>
> Greenpeace Executive Director Stephen Tindale believes that global
> warming "will claim hundreds of thousands of lives." Nevertheless, the
> group's Web site says, "Greenpeace is campaigning to end nuclear power."
>
> How about hydroelectric? Letting water run through dams, spin turbines
> and generate juice is carbon-friendly. And yet environmentalists want
> fewer, not more, dams. The latest ecological craze is to breach dams so
> fish can swim freely. In San Francisco on Monday, PacificCorp began
> relicensing hearings that could prompt the demolition of
> power-generating dams on the Klamath River to give salmon a fin up.
>
> Well, what of wind power? Here, too, liberals offer double-talk. A
> proposed 130-turbine wind farm off Cape Cod blew into a buzz saw when
> global-warming foe Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., moaned that it would
> ruin the ocean view from his Hyannis Port compound.
>
> Amazingly enough, tree huggers even object to using trees to absorb CO2.
> Naturally, trees inhale CO2 and exhale oxygen. What could be more benign
> than that?
>
> Yet, after pondering the idea of planting tree farms to consume CO2,
> ecocrats balked. In November 2000, United Nations and European Union
> officials involved in the Kyoto treaty process said such tree farms
> would "destroy the environmental integrity of the agreement." At
> negotiations in Milan, Italy, in December 2003, Horner writes, "those
> expressing the greatest fear of increased carbon dioxide concentrations
> quirkishly demanded a limit on what kind of trees be permitted to soak
> up the menacing precursor of photosynthesis as part of its cruel
> infliction of more and more oxygen on the unsuspecting planet."
>
> At the November 2002 World Environment Summit in Johannesburg, South
> Africa, Friends of the Earth International and the World Rainforest
> Movement issued a news release that insisted: "Genetically modified
> trees must be banned from the Kyoto Protocol." Thus, even crossbreeding
> trees, so they neutralize more CO2 than usual, is scarier than global
> warming itself.
>
> Environmentalists seem to think that conservation, ethanol and perhaps
> attractive-but-costly solar power can halt global warming in its tracks.
> That's dubious. If this supposed problem truly is the imminent planetary
> death sentence that global warmers say it is, they should grow up and
> fight CO2, not the tools to lasso it.
>
> New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps
> Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research
> Foundation in Arlington, Va.
>
> Matthew Langholtz
> Postdoctoral Research Associate
> School of Forest Resources and Conservation, UF
> P.O. Box 110410
> Gainesville, FL 32611-0410
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Office: (352)846-0892
> Pager and Cell: (352)246-7091
> Fax: (352)846-1277
> Home page: http://plaza.ufl.edu/mateo/
> ******************
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
July 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager