Berkeley loses credibility by linking to garbage like this.
I am just as much on the fence as anyone else regarding nuclear power. I don't think we have a better option...the world isn't going to just power down and stop charging their Ipads and watching TV. This article makes some VERY valid points...anyone remember hearing about how london used to be blanketed in a fine layer of coal soot? There is no such thing as clean energy sufficient to power a modern grid...our lifestyle demands too much power and unless you live in a thatch hut eating raw seeds you yourself have harvested avoiding all energy consuming devices...you contribute to the MASSIVE energy use. Build a valid argument before you start shouting about how it damages the credibility of UCB. This forum with all it's nonsense is the only thing damaging to ANYONES credibility.
Yikes, is he even worth debating a discussion, the man is a mouthpiece for the industry that is all. A bottom feeder looking for a paycheck. Lets not stoop that far down.
If you want to discuss alternative energy great! I am sure we as a planet can do it with minimum impact. After all who is it that uses all the nuclear power anyway ? Isn't it the military industrial complex, followed by huge industry and corporations ? Can't we as a unified people see this ?
We think turning off our lights around the house at night and using special energy saving bulbs will make the difference ? It is a nothing more than a nano sized dent, compared to what big industry uses. In fact I wonder how much energy GE alone uses in one year ? No wonder they want nuclear it is mostly for their use, the general population can squeeze by with alternatives. But ssshhhh it is a secret we are not supposed to know about !
The population would be better off without nuclear. It is the big industry that would suffer.
Great post and important to keep in mind. We are devastating the planet not for ourselves but for the military industrial complex and the way of life it teaches us to love. Homes and small businesses are easily powered using low-key renewables.
Geothermal in yellow stone, hydro ,solar ,wind renewable energy providing jobs for our future.Also think of nuclear waste with no options we leave it for our future generations to deal with.
Geothermal/The Cerro Prieto Geothermal Power Station is the largest geothermal power station in the world, with an installed capacity of 720 MW, with plans for expansion up to 820 MW by 2012. The facility is located in south Mexicali, Baja California, in Mexico, and is built in five individual units, namely CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4 and CP5.
Why china is producing and not the USA ?
BEIJING, May 30 (Xinhua) -- A Sinovel made 6MW wind turbine prototype, fresh off the production line, can be used in onshore, offshore and inter-tidal wind farms, Tao Gang, vice-president of Sinovel Wind Group Co. Ltd. said Monday.
It is the first of its kind produced in the country. Previously, Germany was the only country capable of independently developing the turbine -- the largest in terms of capacity in the world -- and is the only country to have tested the prototype in the natural environment.
With 128-meter blades in diameter, the prototype has greater wind capturing capacity and is more efficient at utilizing wind resources than other turbines, said Tao.
Tao said indigenous production of the huge turbine will accelerate development of offshore wind power in the country.
Given the growing scarcity of land resources and emission reduction targets, European countries and the United States are pushing development of offshore wind power.
Over the next decade, Britain and France plan to install 7,600 offshore wind turbines -- each unit with a capacity of more than 5MW.
China is also racing to tap offshore wind power. The first 100MW offshore wind farm went into operation in Shanghai in August 2010, with 34 Sinovel made 3MW turbines installed.
Solar/parabolic trough solar thermal power
From the Three Gorges Dam to the Great Wall, China is known for its monumental projects that count among the biggest and grandest in the world. Recently the nation announced its latest supermassive project: the construction of the world’s largest solar power plant. Planned by China Technology Development Group Corp and privately-held Qinghai New Energy Group, the project will begin with a 30 MW plant in the Qaidam Basin that will expand to produce 1 GW of solar energy.
The project in the Mojave Desert near Blythe, Calif., is the sixth solar venture authorized on federal lands
At full capacity, the seven projects would generate more than 3,000 megawatts of power and provide electricity for up to 2 million homes. The projects are expected to create more than 2,000 jobs during construction and several hundred permanent jobs.Construction on the $6 billion plant is expected to start by the end of 2010, with production starting in 2013. Developer Solar Millennium, a company based in Germany, says the plant will generate 1,066 construction jobs and 295 permanent jobs.
The Itaipú hydroelectric power plant is the largest development of its kind in operation in the world. Built from 1975 to 1991, in a joint development on the Paraná River, Itaipú represents the efforts and accomplishments of two neighboring countries, Brazil and Paraguay. The power plant's 20 generating units add up to a total production capacity of 14,000 MW (megawatts). In 2000, the power plant generated 93,428 GWh (gigawatthours) of electricity, a word record for hydroelectricity generation.
I haven't looked it up yet but I'm going to bet dollars to doughnuts that ALL energy sources will have a devastating impact on either enviroment or health or both. I just read that Google has invested billions in a massive offshore wind energy program here on the west coast. Can you imagine how many ecosystems will be disrupted? Our energy hog lifestyle comes at a great cost no matter how you look at it.
Can you imagine how much an average consumers energy bill would spike? Alot of people will be pro nuclear as soon as they realize the cost of implementing alternative energy...I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
No, because we need to force nuclear to account for all the costs. If they actually had to get insurance on the plants (other than the taxpayers) and pay for all the damage they create, the cost of nuclear would skyrocket. The private markets, which peoiple in this country love so much, would never allow the nuclear power industry to exist. It's only because it is subsidized that it is cheap. And because when these doomsday scenarios play out, the company has limited liability (or will just go bankrupt) and the public sector has to soak up the losses (financially and in terms of damaged environment and loss of lives). Why are we subsidizing this crap??? We should be subsidizing cleaner and safer energy.
Imagine the revenue potential that we are passing up on as a country while other countries will be producing these technologies .the train is leaving and the USA is not aboard.Key word is transition to green energy
Money is so feeble an excuse when it comes to protecting and preserving our one and only the planet. For the Earth, only the best will do. Anything less is shortchanging everyone and everything.
Both really good points...however for the AVERAGE consumer money talks. At the end of the day half of our problems as a society are because people don't want/will not spend money they don't have to. I also agree that we are passing up a profound "sputnik" moment...although I really believe if there is any investor that could get the off shore wind power going it would be GOOGLE considering how much political and financial power they have. It's incredibly frustrating but you have to acknowledge the reality of living in such a massive society facing EPIC economic difficulties ahead.
But even if the massive off shore wind power worked and was successfully implemented and these massive solar power complexes were placed all across the country nuclear power would still be used. It's cheap and it's easy and there is a HUGE profit...at the end of the day PROFIT is all that matters.
Huge profit only if excluding insurance and unquantifiable environmental externalities. IMO, the nuclear option is too high a price to pay for energy. I am not alone by any stretch of the imagination.
From what I understand most nuclear plants have zero compensation liability.
No you're not alone. I completely agree with you, however, nuclear power is a massive trillion dollar industry...something worth that much dies hard. My other argument is in regards to the enviroment...no matter where you built it and what type of energy it is...a power plant is going to have harmful effects on the enviroment. I'm curious how many dams or windmills or solar panels would have to be built to replace ONE nuclear reactor? And what happens if we managed to shut down nuclear power? Who is going to foot the bill to dismantle and then STORE all of that fuel? This whole thing is an INCREDIBLY complicated issue...I wonder how qualified most politicians actually are when it comes to considering and weighing the facts?
German government changed it's position on NYC power and declared a couple of days ago to shut down all reactors by 2020. So, yes any country can change if they choose to. In Germany hundred of thousand people took to the streets after the disaster and in ours we did nothing, and as such we let out politicians and corporations do to us as they please!
Don't forget the massive government investment necessary for both construction of a plant and nuclear waste processing (which takes decades and then requires safe storage for hundreds of thousands of years).
Response to Monbiot statement.
A pity she doesn't try to address any of the criticisms Monbiot presented.
If you are on this forum to try and extract our subjective opinions, please go elsewhere. As we have stated time and time again, we are independent researchers and do not belong to a monolithic department where everyone follows lock-step to some government line. This is the most open university I know of and the researchers here work tirelessly for the public without any pressure to toe any line. If anyone did not know what tenure is for, this is it. It is not about job security, but that the public has a source of information that should not be biased away from the real truth. Tenure is not perfect, but it is the closest thing our society has to a truth-seeking body.
We have given anyone who wants to voice their opinion on this forum a free and transparent way of doing so but that we try to base the dialog between BRAWM and the public to be within the confines of science. Anyone has a right to their opinion and we feel it is important to actually listen (or read) everyone's opinion and reasoning no matter their political bend (pro or anti-nuclear). We maintain that if you would like to attack anyone's opinion on this particular forum, we ask that counter-arguments are based in science and reason. I think our credibility will be served by maintaining this principle.
It basically proves that all UC Berkeley has done is downplay the seriousness of the ramifications of Fukushima, minimize the negative cumulative effects of radioactive fallout and falsely reassure concerned citizens in order to promote their nuclear power agenda. ... So we've basically been conned, yet again. I'm done with this forum!
I'm sorry that you think that, Ana. I can assure you that we here in BRAWM have no such agenda, and none of us work with nuclear power or even intend to in the future. We study radiation detection, mostly for homeland security and medical applications.
Our agenda is to make measurements, present the data, and help explain the results. We have not been downplaying the effects -- we have been explaining to the best of our ability what the effects are, and they are actually very small. Please remain in dialogue if you have concerns.
Mark [BRAWM Team Member]
Thanks, Mark. Any idea why this article by a non-nuclear expert was posted by UCB? Is this merely one of many articles on this topic posted by UCB? Does UCB usually post opinion pieces such as this? I feel like I'm missing something here.
If you go to the Berkeley Nuclear Research Center blog, there are links to many other articles and blurbs about Fukushima besides this one. I suppose that the article was deemed relevant enough to current events. I don't know if they have any particular policies about what is or is not on that page.
Good to know these facts mark maybe decominsioning old plants would be a option too?
Anyone that agrees with the OP is a hypocrit. BRAWM/UCBNE has allowed you to post and link whatever anti-nuke tripe you feel free to push down anyone's throat. They haven't made any judgements against your garbage and still you whine and complain on a site hosted by and run in favor of nuclear engineering.
How about this: if you can't at least appreciate that there are other viewpoints, how about you take your message to another venue and leave those of us here that are here for the science better off?
George Monbiots statement has much more to do with politics than science.
If you were just here for the science, why are you defending this link to blatant propaganda?
You keep tossing around big words like "hypocrit" and I will tell you to consult a dictionary for both the definition of "hypocrit" and the proper spelling.
The previous poster was accurate in his/her use if hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
People who would condemn UCBNE for doing what they do (nuclear engineering) yet feed off of that work while
actively criticizing it aptly fits definition number 1.
It seems to me that if all you can do is attack the previous poster's argument with mud slinging and dismissing their statement because of a typo, you really don't have a valid argument yourself.
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
3 : Someone who claims to be an environmentalist then says a nuclear disaster that at least seriously effects the environment made him love nuclear power
4 : An organization that claims to be neutral linking their website to this drivel
It would seem to me that anyone who claims to be neutral, without an agenda, just interested in the science and raw data would shy away from linking to a shill statement like Monboit.
Quote from wikipedia
"Monbiot believes that drastic action coupled with strong political will is needed to combat global warming. Monbiot has written that climate change is the "moral question of the 21st century" and that there is an urgent need for a raft of emergency actions he believes will stop climate change, including: setting targets on greenhouse emissions using the latest science; issuing every citizen with a 'personal carbon ration'; new building regulations with houses built to German passivhaus standards; banning incandescent light bulbs, patio heaters, garden floodlights, and other inefficient technologies and wasteful applications; constructing large offshore wind farms; replacing the national gas grid with a hydrogen pipe network; a new national coach network to make journeys using public transport faster than using a car; all petrol stations to supply leasable electric car batteries with stations equipped with a crane service to replace depleted batteries; scrap road-building and road-widening programmes, redirecting their budgets to tackle climate change; reduce UK airport capacity by 90%; closing down all out-of-town superstores and replacing them with warehouses and a delivery system.
Monbiot says the campaign against climate change is 'unlike almost all the public protests' that came before it:
It is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.
Monbiot also thinks that economic recession can be a good thing for the planet: "Is it not time to recognise that we have reached the promised land, and should seek to stay there? Why would we want to leave this place in order to explore the blackened waste of consumer frenzy followed by ecological collapse? Surely the rational policy for the governments of the rich world is now to keep growth rates as close to zero as possible?" While he does recognize that recession can cause hardship, he points out that economic growth can cause hardship as well. For example, the increase in sales of jet skis would count as economic growth, but they would also cause hardships such as water pollution and noise pollution.
Monbiot purchased a Renault Clio (diesel) after moving to a small town in mid-Wales in 2007, leading to charges of hypocrisy. Similarly he has also travelled through Canada and the United States, campaigning on climate change and promoting his book. He contends that this travel was justifiable as it sought to boost the case for much greater carbon cuts there."
This dude is a carbon taxer, not an independent scientist.Nowhere on his wiki is there any reference to him being a scientist, only a political activist/ environmentalist/shill.
He seems less qualified to make these statements than, Chris Busby, Arnie Gundersen,and Helen Caldicot. The BRAWM team has attacked each of these sources stating that they (BRAWM) have no agenda just pure science. But for some reason these "scientists" have linked to this unscientific article. BTW, this article was posted one week after the earthquake before any meltdowns or serious leaks were admitted the official word is a lot more serious now than it was on March 21.
Points of clarification:
Libeling someone (Monbiot) because you don't agree with their viewpoint and then reasoning that he is unable to
have a voice in the discussion because he is on the other side of your heros is quite childish.
If anything, Monbiot has drawn the ire of the LLRC crowd by challenging their work, as any good sceptic should. Instead of defending their work Caldicott, et. al obfuscate and claim they are the righteous and that they are beyond reproach. Ego takes the lead, not science.
LLRC, Caldicott, Busby and their cohorts are politically motivated, just as Monbiot is. Their work is incomplete at best, and a sham at worst. Please let's keep politics off this board.
Who says he doesn't get a voice, he is free to come here and post like everyone else. I think the problem is with the "no agenda" Berkeley website linking to his story.
Then, I will get you a mirror.
It is disgusting that they link to this propaganda. I agree with the OP, Berkeley loses any credibility that they had earned with me as well.George Monbiot is a douche!
I had seen this article from Monbiot earlier this week. It strikes me that the late great Bill Hicks would have had something succinct to say about Monbiot and the dark overlord. Probably not appropriate to elaborate more here.
UC Berkeley • College of Engineering • Contact
Campanile photo courtesy of Andrew P. Keating