Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Six billion will die without move to nuclear power
Share: 
by pfinan | July 10, 2008 at 03:24 pm
627 views | 2 Recommendations | 9 comments
Photos
James Lovelock was the eminent scientist that convinced Richard Branson of Virgin that climate change was a serious issue and that he needed to start looking for alternatives to power generated by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nuclear power however is the "only" viable option in his opinion.
He's not alone. The co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore envisions and surprisingly supports a nuclear future. His opinion is that the growth of fossil fuels as an energy source is coming to an end. Alternatives such as solar, biofuel, geothermal are all potential solutions but are decades away from replacing our current massive reliance on fossil fuels. Hydro can be used only for a portion of our requirements. The realistic and expandable alternative is nuclear. It produces no greenhouse gases and is now a major active part of the energy solution for the modern economy. It currently represents 80% of the power generated in France but only 20% of the power generated in the US. As nuclear power grows, the increasing waste produced will have to be stored and treated as technologies improve but it's the only current option that produces no additional greenhouse gases.
As the fastest growing economy in the world, China is primarily powered by coal and oil. The country however is rapidly moving towards an environmental catastrophe as the air in cities such as Shanghai and Beijing, home of the 2008 Olympics, becomes massively polluted. Their solution is to move towards nuclear power by increasing their capacity by 25 times by 2030. In addition they are developing state-of-the-art mag lev trains that could travel between major cities. Public transit run on electricity powered by nuclear reactors is the vision of the future. No pollution or green house gases, and faster travel times up to 311 mph are now a reality in Shanghai and the Pudong Airport. The grim reality is that there is not enough oil produced in the world to satisfy the future needs of every Chinese family that wanted to power a car using gas.
Plug-in lithium battery powered cars in the US, with some of the electricity generated by nuclear power, is going to be a reality within two years. GM sees battery power as the future as gas prices soar beyond affordabilty for many families. To reduce future greenhouse gases, the U.S. could dramatically expand the number of nuclear power plants and transition consumers towards driving a battery powered car. Presidential candidate John McCain recently recommended a massive increase in the number of US nuclear plants. They are expensive to build but very cost effective to operate.
Besides the increasing cost of oil, many additional countries around the world are now embracing the reality that nuclear power is a valid energy solution as well as a green house gas solution. In the extreme case it be our only hope for a continued existence beyond 2100.
Advertisement
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (9)
at 15:34 on July 10th, 2008
Pfinan, here is the population "clock" figures of the world today, future looks pretty grim if they are right!
at 15:47 on July 10th, 2008
It would be pretty grim but I think the estimates for world population rates given a relatively high fertility rate is about 12 billion by mid century. I used to be in favour of nuclear energy (my dad designed fuels and waste management facilities) as an option but I'm not so sure any more. Since the majority of reactors are cooled by water this will become an issue as water resources become scarcer particularly in drier climates. There's also the issue of decomissioning which can be expensive and messy.
I'm more in favour now of really putting our resources into other alternatives -- solar in arid areas that get alot of sunshine; wind where it makes sense and geothermal pretty much everywhere.
at 03:44 on July 11th, 2008
Nonsense, to have an impact on climate change nuclear needs minmum 20%, means every 30 days a new Nuclear plant, can you do that? Not sufficient water is here to cool the plants. 40% OF FRENCH DRINKING WATER is used to cool the nuclear plants. Nuclear is now below renewable energy 3-5 % . But a agree all people will go for it prices for Uranium will go up 10x. The CO2 produced during mining and destruction of nuclear power plants is the same like by coal fired filtered plants. Good luck with the sub-prime crises the billions to buy such a 5bn $ plant have just burnt away.
You gave no source for your 6 bn dead people, interesting number from whom? It is not responsible to bring this number in a context "without nuclear" that was never the case. It's unqualified junk without source. May be you have been reading 6 bn people will be dead because of nuclear accidents 2100, who knows.
Mr. Branson pledged 3bn $ for renewables, never for nuclear don't manipulate public opinion on low cost level.
Your nuclear electric car, so tell me why don't I see one in France with 80% nuclear. The dead people are already here 2003/ 15 000 in France due to heat wave caused by climate change. We are all responsible for this, that's more than a Irak war.
at 13:37 on July 11th, 2008
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16956300/the_prophet_of_climate_change_james_lovelock
James Lovelock article re "Six billion to perish"
at 05:32 on July 12th, 2008
Thanks for the source code pfinan, original:
One of the most eminent scientists of our time says that global warming is irreversible — and that more than 6 billion people will perish by the end of the century
your version :
Six billion will die without move to nuclear power (did he say that)
First again Branson spents $ 3 bn for renewable energy not for nuclear
he intends to fly Virgin with renewables, but for sure not nuclear
Mr. Lovelock is a person that Branson respects, like I do. He is 88 years old and his approach for the living planet with a soul "Gaia" share also many Brazilians. So due to the Gaia approach you have no right to "inject" toxic material like nuclear or nuclear waste in the home planet earth, the gaia planet will backfire and spit out the dangerous material, like your body would do. So far the "Gaia view explainer". That Mr. Lovelock in his desperate life view turns to nonresponsable nuclear I am sorry for him, with 88 years he will not have to stay the consequences like the next generations. Think about it you will have all the proplems not him.
at 13:44 on July 11th, 2008
pfinan, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 13:54 on July 11th, 2008
James Lovelock on the necessity of nuclear power
A steady supply of electricity will also be vital. Five days after his visit to the Hadley Centre, Lovelock penned a fiery op-ed titled "Nuclear Power Is the Only Green Solution." Lovelock argued that we should "use the small input from renewables sensibly" but that "we have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear -- the one safe, available energy source -- now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet."
Environmentalists howled in protest, but for anyone who knew Lovelock's past, his embrace of nukes is not surprising. At the age of fourteen, reading about how the sun is powered by a nuclear reaction, he came to believe that nuclear energy is one of the fundamental forces in the universe. Why not harness it? As for the dangers -- radioactive waste, vulnerability to terrorism, the possibility of a Chernobyl-like meltdown -- Lovelock says it's the lesser of two evils: "Even if they're right about the dangers, and they are not, it is still nothing compared to climate change
at 21:08 on July 11th, 2008
The partially battery powered car is already a reality. The Toyota Prius is proof of that. Now GM is racing to catch-up with a fully plug-in model by 2010.
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/General-Motors-to-launch-rechargeable-car-by-2010/292460/
at 15:50 on August 19th, 2008
Union of Concerned Scientists has very useful documentation about the dangers of nuclear power:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/
High-Altitude Wind Power is VERY promising, cheaper than nuclear and coal energy generation. High-Altitude Wind Power is produces virtually no toxic air pollution, or very dangerous radioactive nuclear waste.
From KiteGen: "The energy source, currently untapped and available anywhere, is the powerful altitude wind of the troposphere, channelled through arrays of large tethered power kites cruising at an altitude of 800 / 1000 m, whose movements are electronically controlled by highly sophisticated sensors and proprietary software."
See:
http://www.kitegen.com/ ... http://www.makanipower.com/
... http://www.skywindpower.com/ ... http://www.magenn.com/
We need to invest in the innovative designs of high altitude wind power immediately. They are much faster to deploy, and much safer and cleaner for this and future generations.
After reading the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl) I just don't think people are in their right mind to continue with nuclear power. The dangers are far too great. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
The long term burden of protecting Life from extremely long-lived toxic radioactive nuclear waste is criminal exploitation of future generations for the short term energy wasters of today.
The more significant problem is corporate and government corruption. Greedy short-term money making criminals permeate our world, having been manufactured/brainwashed by the ego-manipulation industry.
We must work to prevent short-term profits of investors and construction industries from determining the course of energy generation, or we will be stuck with deadly time bombs of toxic radioactive nuclear waste.
Beware the special interests of corporate investors and brokers and consultants.