Even with the best intentions, sometimes our practice of Economic Decision-Making fails us. As do our politicians and their advisors.
People are right to point out below, that if one cannot identify the actual damage done by a technology or foresee such damage, then it can hardly be accounted for in the process of choosing alternatives.
Just witness the recent example of biofuels — did we foresee the rampant clearing of old-growth rain forest for the planting of palm tree plantations?
Did we see the coming shortages of, and price rises for, staples like corn and rice as formerly food-growing land is given over to fuel “growing”?
This decision was supposedly “green”. It was supposedly a “solution”. It is neither.
Politicians are too quick when it suits their purposes to adopt an approach — this is short-sightedness exemplified.
This is the quintessence of greed and stupidity.
So it can be with Nuclear Power. Or, for that matter even wind and solar. Or any other “magical” solution.
And I question if political decision-makers should be making all of the decisions. Perhaps a citizens’ coalition should be involved in making the main and initial recommendations.
The politicos can still vet and oversee, but since the time horizons of politicians do not much extend beyond the next election, perhaps they should not be the only (or most important) ones involved in the process.
Another problem is with using dollars as the units of measurement for comparing alternatives. Dollars vary in their purchasing power over time.
Even if all cost factors could be identified, how do we bring in the environmental costs? Like damage to waterways or the atmosphere or the use of mined water from aquifers.
There are fields of endeavor that pertain to identifying and “costing” of the usage of our natural “free” resources, and we are getting better at doing this over time.
While our Accounting System approach to Economic Decision Making is not entirely bad within our Western Mixed Capitalistic and Governmental Economic Systems, not all feedbacks of information are always taken into account.
The time frames are too short. Future generations have no voice. The pain from a future “accident” or “burn” cannot auto-magically travel through some time tunnel to let our own generation’s nervous system somehow “feel” that pain and thus take corrective steps to avoid that harm.
Our imaginations are limited; our eyes in the skies do not see every storm that is coming. Our current “credit crunch” is plain enough evidence of that.
If I could be permitted just one more small note on this subject.
I believe that Western Societies do not always calculate future costs properly.
In making decisions that will impact future generations, we often, as economic decision-makers, use Present Value of Future Cost. These are necessarily our best “guesstimates”.
So for the cost of disposal of waste fuel and the for the cost of dismantling old energy plants, we calculate that Future Cost as best we can. Then we use a technique called Discounting to express that Future Cost to bring it into so-called Present Value Terms. We have to use the Discount Rate that we think “best” applies.
This theoretically allows us to evaluate ALL costs of any particular energy source on a comparable basis (to each other) over the entire Life Cycle of that energy source.
We also need to calculate the health effects on workers in the nuclear industry, in the mining of uranium, and in its processing.
While I am not categorically (as in ONE category) against Nuclear Power (fission power for now) I do believe Western Society does not always calculate costs properly. And there is real risk in making errors.
Just like leaving debts to future generations, leaving a legacy from bad decisions is also immoral —— and harmful to those coming generations.
Of course leaving a good legacy is moral. So not doing anything is hardly an option. No one, least of all those future generations, wants to go back to the Stone Age.
Looking at FULL Life Cycle costs is critical. But normal practice for costs that might be incurred in 100 years quite often receives a cost for comparison purposes of ZERO. This assumes that such 100-years-in-the-future costs are even identified or considered in the comparisons made.
And when we do consider such costs, we use a Discount Rate that minimizes those Future Costs.
I agree with those sentiments expressed below that the technology is not perfect. Mistakes will be made. But there are also real costs in not doing anything.
So let’s use the smartest people and bring enough of them together to increase the chances that as advancing societies we make the best possible decisions for everyone’s sake in the future.
Even with the best intentions, sometimes our practice of Economic Decision-Making fails us. As do our politicians and their advisors.
People are right to point out below, that if one cannot identify the actual damage done by a technology or foresee such damage, then it can hardly be accounted for in the process of choosing alternatives.
Just witness the recent example of biofuels — did we foresee the rampant clearing of old-growth rain forest for the planting of palm tree plantations?
Did we see the coming shortages of, and price rises for, staples like corn and rice as formerly food-growing land is given over to fuel “growing”?
This decision was supposedly “green”. It was supposedly a “solution”. It is neither.
Politicians are too quick when it suits their purposes to adopt an approach — this is short-sightedness exemplified.
This is the quintessence of greed and stupidity.
So it can be with Nuclear Power. Or, for that matter even wind and solar. Or any other “magical” solution.
And I question if political decision-makers should be making all of the decisions. Perhaps a citizens’ coalition should be involved in making the main and initial recommendations.
The political bodies can still vet and oversee, but since the time horizons of politicians do not much extend beyond the next election, perhaps they should not be the only (or most important) ones involved in the process.
Another problem is with using dollars as the units of measurement for comparing alternatives. Dollars vary in their purchasing power over time.
Even if all cost factors could be identified, how do we bring in the environmental costs? Like damage to waterways or the atmosphere or the use of mined water from aquifers.
There are fields of endeavor that pertain to identifying and “costing” of the usage of our natural “free” resources, and we are getting better at doing this over time.
While our Accounting System approach to Economic Decision Making is not entirely bad within our Western Mixed Capitalistic and Governmental Economic Systems, not all feedbacks of information are always taken into account.
The time frames are too short. Future generations have no voice. The pain from a future “accident” or “burn” cannot auto-magically travel through some time tunnel to let our own generation’s nervous system somehow “feel” that pain and thus take corrective steps to avoid that harm.
Our imaginations are limited; our eyes in the skies do not see every storm that is coming. Our current “credit crunch” is plain enough evidence of that.
If I could be permitted just one more small note on this subject.
I believe that Western Societies do not always calculate future costs properly.
In making decisions that will impact future generations, we often, as economic decision-makers, use Present Value of Future Cost. These are necessarily our best “guesstimates”.
So for the cost of disposal of waste fuel and the for the cost of dismantling old energy plants, we calculate that Future Cost as best we can. Then we use a technique called Discounting to express that Future Cost to bring it into so-called Present Value Terms. We have to use the Discount Rate that we think “best” applies.
This theoretically allows us to evaluate ALL costs of any particular energy source on a comparable basis (to each other) over the entire Life Cycle of that energy source.
While I am not categorically (as in ONE category) against Nuclear Power (fission power for now) I do believe Western Society does not always calculate costs properly. And there is real risk in making errors.
Just like leaving debts to future generations, leaving a legacy from bad decisions is also immoral —— and harmful to those coming generations.
Of course leaving a good legacy is moral. So not doing anything is hardly an option. No one, least of all those future generations, wants to go back to the Stone Age.
Looking at FULL Life Cycle costs is critical. But normal practice for costs that might be incurred in 100 years quite often receives a cost for comparison purposes of ZERO. This assumes that such 100-years-in-the-future costs are even identified or considered in the comparisons made.
And when we do consider such costs, we use a Discount Rate that minimizes those Future Costs.
I agree with those sentiments expressed below that the technology is not perfect. Mistakes will be made. But there are also real costs in not doing anything.
So let’s use the smartest people and bring enough of them together to increase the chances that as advancing societies we make the best possible decisions for everyone’s sake in the future.
Fusion (thermonuclear) energy or power has been in a state of development for the last 6 decades supposedly with functional “availability in a few decades from now” as a perpetual expectation for all of that time. I won’t hold my breath.
Diversify, diversify, diversify — in various locals — with various technologies.
You are not going to know what works out in what time, in what realm, at what cost.
CNN has hosted T. Boone Pickens several times — most recently on Larry King Live on Monday, Aug. 4, 2008.
His idea is to use Natural Gas as a Transportation Fuel.
Makes sense — U.S. cannot afford all that foreign Black Gold.
Please see http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/08/pickens.plan/
and
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/04/lkl.01.html
While the motivation for going to alternatives need not be found in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) which seems to be slowly leaving the stage as a scientific factor, it will indeed likely be found in Peak Oil.
It is odd — after all the bickering, there will be common cause (energy shortages) if not common reasons (AGW versus Peak Oil) to move toward alternatives.
Even those who are worried (needlessly, IMHO) about Carbon Dioxide can be assured that, as our economies find other energy sources, like geo-thermal, and tidal, and solar, less and less Carbon Dioxide will likely be emitted to the atmosphere over time.
This appears to be happening against a backdrop of a slowing world economy. While this may cause oil to drop in price as a reaction to the recession, this will likely prove to only be temporary. And prices will not drop back to prior lows.
The other speculative factor is whether our Earth might actually undergo cooling, of a kind that is disruptive to agriculture, and other human activities. If this happens, I wonder whether the emission of Carbon Dioxide might actually one day become desirable.
Please see http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20082105-17356.html
Yes Yes Yes… Only reason we havent been on it in the past is cause big oil would lose out. Just like everything else. Sad.
Nice to see there are still lots of nuts out there! A biproduct that it is highly toxic and remains so for tens of thousands of years and the best idea to deal with it is “bury it”. That would be because we all know that when you bury something it stays buried, forever!
The sun provides more power then we could ever possibly use, unless we were trying to destroy the planet. Between direct photovoltaics and the other sources of solar power (wind, wave, etc.) we have plenty of clean sources. We just have to make the decision that we are going to do it and get started!
How do you think rural electrification happened? We didn’t wait for the perfect system, we simply got busy using the system we could build at the time! That’s all that’s needed today.
As much as I don’t like it. It should be done. We should also go back , and dig up any used uranium, and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.That’s at least until the technology concerning renewables is figured out.
My vote would solidly be for Obama if it weren’t for the nuclear issue. I want new nuclear power plants, and I want reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.Nuclear technology is much safer these days and if we reprocess the waste instead of burying it, it’s a hugely efficient resource. Energy is going to be one of the most important challenges our nation faces in the next 100 years, so we need to get started on it now.
I’m all for the ‘renewable’ electrical generation methods, and feel they need to be developed as well, but not developing such a rich domestic resource such as nuclear is insane,.
Yes, build as many plants as we can. France saw the light 30 years ago and is now 80% nuclear; consequently they have the cleanest air in the industrialized world. Reactor safety technology has steadily improved to the point where they are nearly foolproof. We are also the only country which stubbornly refuses to reprocess nuclear waste, because of nuclear proliferation fears. That policy has to change, or we’ll run out of Uranium in 75 years.
Solar cells, wind power, ocean tides, biomass, etc., is not going to power a hundred million electric cars, or generate enough hydrogen for a hydrogen economy–not even close. It’s going to take nuclear power. The anti-nuke folks should leave the Sixties behind!
Waste from nuclear power is nasty indeed but it is absolutely ridiculous to say we can’t store it safely. We can put a man on the moon and harness nuclear power but some seem to think it’s impossible to maintain the Yucca site? I don’t get it.
Many people are just professional malcontents and obstructionists in sheeps clothing.
FYI – Wind and solar create a heck of a lot more waste than nuclear (albeit more benign). What do you think the panels and windmills are made of? Ever heard of replacement parts?
With Peak Oil coming or already here, we are going to need Nuclear Energy, all the vogue ‘renewables’, ‘Clean’ coal, and off shore drilling and we are going to need them VERY soon.
With the rising prices of natural gas and the negative environmental impact of burning coal and oil for electricity, it is time to go nuclear for electricity. Yes, it will produce radioactive waste, but man will not be here long enough for it to be a major problem.
Nuclear needs to be part of an overhaul of energy policy. Alternative energy needs to be pursued now. Oil will not last forever. Coastal and Alaskan drilling will need to take place to reduce dependence on foreigh oil.
Foreign oil is not only a matter of economics, it is national security. We need to keep the money here instead of sending it to hostile nations.
I think building plants like these could be great for the economy. It provides a cheap source of very potent energy while decreasing the demand for oil. (Although this would not completely remove dependence on oil; a modern army at present must use oil). Later, these plants could be retooled for cleaner, safer, and even more potent fusion power, which is now projected to be only a few decades away.
As for the waste, I think provided proper initiative, researchers could find more effective ways to store or even recycle used uranium and plutonium. The half-life for spent uranium is somewhere in the thousands of years, so research should begin immediately. In the mean time, radioactive waste is stored in secure areas, where it is not intrusive to people or wildlife.
On the other hand, these views are very short-sighted. A lot of productive research has gone into solar power. In a few years, a home solar power/electrolysis device could be available to the public. This would enable (normal) households to be independent from a national power grid. How about looking more into stuff like that?
So, yes. Make more nuclear power plants!
If calculations show that solar power and other alternatives are not enough, then OK (reluctantly), for now.
But Southwest (and even Southeast) on its own should have enough Solar Energy (without compromising environment for hares, tortoises, tumbleweed, cacti, etc.) that going “all out” into nuclear might not be needed or desirable.
Of course solar and wind are not sufficient as “primary” in their current stage of development. With some storage system, like super-heated brine or sodium, or other system for later regeneration from stored energy, even solar could be realized as a “primary” source.
As adjunct source, for now, yes OK for nuclear.
As primary, forever, NO.
Geothermal, wind, tidal, and other non-traditional sources should all be harnessed as market viability is proven over time.
Its time for the USA to come out of the dark ages and into the future.By Building as many Nuclear Plants as it takes as quickly as we can to end our dependence on foreign oil forever.It dosent take a rocket scientist to realize this even the peoples delegates in the Senate and Congress schoud be able to do the math ??
-
Rich nations want others to cut greenhouse gases. Who pollutes the most? More -
Many businesses were laid to rest in '09. 8 familiar names now gone. More -
The Becerras spoiled themselves with a puppy. Here's what 6 other readers are indulging on. More -
Consumers looking to buy electronics for holiday gifts won't have to break the bank this season. More
Obama is not against nuclear.
McCain might leave America dependent on foreign uranium (he’s for free trade and there is more cheap uranium outside the U.S.), and McCain has done little for solar, especially in sunny Arizona.
Obama might lead us to a better American mix of energy, including more solar, and wind.