Ex-Antinuke Activist: Renewables Have "Not a Hope in Hell" of Solving Warming Problem Alone

[wtmusic]

"Nuclear energy has received the thumbs up from a former anti-nuclear environmentalist who co-authored an independent report pitting the advantages of nuclear energy against renewable energy for electricity generation.

Ben Heard told a uranium conference in Adelaide today that nuclear power presented lower start-up costs, lower cost electricity, much smaller land use, no use of fresh water, more reliable generation capacity and other advantages compared to renewable energy.

'If as a country, we continue to say ‘no’ to nuclear energy as a way of addressing climate change, we better damn well be sure we know why we are saying ''no'',' he added."

http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/42597/former-anti-nuclear-environmentalist-gives-resounding-nod-to-nuclear-power-42597.html

[Gregorian]

1. Even if they did, the problem is far bigger than carbon emissions.

It seems everyone is looking everywhere except the source of the problem, to try and solve the problem.

[pscot]

2. No worries, mate

it's self-correcting.

[wtmusic]

9. The warming problem is entirely due to carbon emissions. nt

[Gregorian]

12. And carbon emissions are entirely due to billions of people burning fossil fuel.

[wtmusic]

13. This Misattributed Source game is always fun.

My turn - "and they burn it because of their needs, wants, and desires".

Several choices. Do we:

1) Attempt to modify the N/W/D of 7 billion people?
2) Address meeting those N/W/D using fewer fossil fuels (or none)?
3) Whine on Democratic Underground about how the world is going to pot - which amounts to accepting starvation of poor people so that we can continue to use 5x as much energy as the rest of the world?

#1 is impossible and #3 is ethically-challenged, leaving #2 as the only real option.

[GliderGuider]

14. Or you could say that 1 and 2 are both impossible

Leaving #3 as the only realistic outcome, whether we like it or not.

Mother Nature has no ethics.

[Gregorian]

15. You are dead wrong about #1.

And since that is THE source, it is the most important place to put our efforts. (This, along with the obvious need for renewable energy sources.)

I'm addressing a serious issue that is all but ignored in ALL of these discussions. I will not shut my mouth about it either.

Furthermore, since energy is only a part of the problem that results from having billions of people, even if we do have renewable resources, we still have to address deforestation, depleted fisheries, and all of the rest, which are a result of the massive population. You can't ignore it away by calling it names. And also, there are yet another few billion to arrive soon, unless we get a handle on this.

[wtmusic]

17. I'm very interested in how you plan to modify

the needs, wants, and desires of 7 billion people.

[cprise]

3. The difference between a market dominated by

...a push for renewables, and one pushing for nuclear, is that you cannot deny the latter set of investors anything whatsoever. If they want more coal along with their nuclear, they will get it. If they want more wealth disparity they will get that, too.

They will exercise more regulatory capture (are ramping it up as we speak) while they've got Obama delivering platitudes about "all of the above". And being joined at the hip with high finance as all other large rent-seekers are, they will impart further weight and speed to all the corporate propaganda and other anti-democratic trends.

IOW, there would be an intensification of what has occurred since 1980.

[kristopher]

4. Don't you love how anyone whatsoever can be a "Ex-antinuke activist" and get paid for it?

There are real employment opportunities there, I tell you.

[caraher]

5. Interesting

Heard does seem to be an opportunist; I just spent 10 minutes searching the web, in vain, for evidence that he ever took a public stand against nuclear before he found religion and started his pro-nuclear consulting company.

I don't think "pro-nuclear environmentalist" is an oxymoron, but Heard in particular seems not be acting in good faith. This is particularly clear when he misuses a UNSCEAR report to set the cancer death toll from Chernobyl at 15. Friends of the Earth- Australia does a nice job pointing out what's wrong with that interpretation of UNSCEAR's refusal to make an estimate of cancer deaths overall:

The UNSCEAR report (PDF) argues that the long-term cancer death toll from Chernobyl cannot be meaningfully estimated because of "unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions", i.e. the limitations of epidemiological studies, and the uncertainties of applying a risk estimate (e.g. based on the linear no-threshold theory) to the collective radiation dose estimate (e.g. the IAEA's collective dose estimate of 600,000 person-Sieverts).

Mr Heard conflates UNSCEAR's unknown long-term cancer death toll with a long-term cancer death toll of zero. Obviously they are two very different propositions yet the distinction is lost on Mr Heard. An obvious question for Mr Heard − how could UNSCEAR arrive at a long-term cancer death toll of zero at the same time as it argues that the death toll cannot be estimated because of "unacceptable uncertainties in the predictions"? In truth, UNSCEAR doesn't estimate a long-term cancer death toll of zero − it simply declines to provide any estimate whatsoever.

UNSCEAR participated in the Chernobyl Forum study which estimates a death toll of 4,000 among the highest-exposed populations (with a follow-up World Health Organisation study estimating an additional 5,000 deaths among populations exposed to lower doses in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.) On the broader issue of the cancer risks of exposure to low-level ionising radiation, UNSCEAR's view (PDF) is that "the current balance of available evidence tends to favour a non-threshold response for the mutational component of radiation-associated cancer induction at low doses and low dose rates."

[cprise]

6. Indeed, we can't even deny the establishment things like

...a stream of "ex-antinuke" activists. The concentrated wealth and power ensure a supply of shills will line up at their doors; no advertisements needed.

If the human billboard phenomenon re-emerges, I'll expect the nuclear power industry to be at the forefront. Until then, with a little more investment in time and patience one can always spectate on their mind-whores.

[wtmusic]

8. Renewables don't have investors?

Ah my bad. "Elves". Almost forgot.

[cprise]

10. Do you have any class awareness

...at all?

[wtmusic]

11. Help me differentiate between rich investor-elves

and the elves who just want to make the world a better place.

The rich ones are the ones who are buying into renewables.

[hatrack]

7. That's because it's not a problem. It's a dilemma - a whole different animal.

Problems have a solution, sometimes more than one. Dilemmas don't - that's the nature of a dilemma.

[CreekDog]

16. More than 35% of U.S. Public Transit Buses Use Alternative Fuels or Hybrid Technology

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2013/Pages/130422_Earth-Day.aspx

More than 35% of U.S. Public Transit Buses Use Alternative Fuels or Hybrid Technology

Public Transportation is Leading the Way in Green Vehicles

In celebration of Earth Day, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) reminds us that taking public transit is among the most effective ways of reducing our daily carbon footprint because of its ability to take cars off the road. In fact, when APTA examined the bus fleet alone, more than 35 percent of U.S. public transportation buses use alternative fuels or hybrid technology, as of January 1, 2011. This is a striking contrast to the 1.3 percent of automobiles that used alternative-fuels in 2010, according to the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Outlook.

“Public transportation is leading the way with environmentally efficient vehicles,” said APTA President and CEO Michael Melaniphy. “The public transit vehicle fleet is the proving ground for environmental technology that may some day become a part of the nation’s automobile fleet.”

APTA statistics for early 2011 show that 18.6 percent of U.S. transit buses used compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG) and blends. Almost 9 percent (8.8%) of public transit buses were hybrids and nearly 8 percent (7.9%) of public transit buses used biodiesel.

“Today’s modern public transit bus is increasingly either a hybrid or is powered by fuels that are good for the environment,” said APTA Chair Flora Castillo. “The public transportation industry is a green industry and is committed to improving the environment.”