Energy and War
Bush Says US Should Emulate France on Energy.
I'm often critical of the French (as I am of all social-"democratic" states and European nations in general), but I will give them this- they know how to make energy policy. France is one of the greenest nations on earth, and at the same time they manage to supply their national need and are not dependent on foreign oil. The reason? 78% of France's power comes from nuclear energy. France has significant Uranium deposits, and it has wisely put them to use. They've largely freed themselves of dependence on foreign oil as a result.
People often complain about nuclear power's cost and the problem of waste storage. The French have solved this also- they recycle spent fuel rods. By this process, the amount of waste is drastically reduced and costs are driven down. They have no problem of waste storage, nor are costs significant. Furthermore, new technologies such as the pebble-bed reactor drive down cost and risk.
Why haven't we embraced this solution in the US? We also enjoy access to significant Uranium deposits, and we've enough weapons-grade radioactive material that can be debased and used in reactors to last us quite some time. The problem up to now has been partly based on the twin problems of cost and storage (we don't recycle our rods, we stick 'em in oversized swimming pools). But, the greatest problem is ideology and fear.
No nuclear power plants have been constructed in the U.S. since the 1970s. In 1979, there was a double-whammy which put nuclear energy more or less out of business in this country. First came the execrable Jane Fonda movie The China Syndrome, wherein heroic reporter Jane Fonda discovers the eeevil cutting-corners going on at a nuclear power plant. Thirteen days after the film's release, the Three Mile Island incident occurred. Though no one was killed, radioactive material was vented. There was a media circus, and this resulted in the loss of the political will to invest in nuclear energy. It also provided a big boost for the nascent environmental movement. When the Chernobyl disaster occurred when incompetent Soviet technicians ran a flawed reactor at several hundred percent beyond safe operating maximums, it sealed the fate of nuclear power in the west. Plants were dismantled, with no plans for replacement. The result was more dependence on oil, which is now becoming a major problem as prices increase beyond reasonable levels.
Even oil is problematic nowadays. The U.S.'s domestic refining capacity is lacking- we haven't constructed a new refinery since the seventies (coincidence?), and we haven't the means to best utilise our domestic oil production.
Other solutions in this energy bill are worth noting- developing small diesel-fuelled cars here (they're a big hit in Europe, and more efficient than the much-vaunted hybrids for city driving), and giving out tax-credits for fuel-efficient vehicles. Another solution is liquefied Natural Gas, which is clean-burning and cheap.
The problem with these solutions is the people who should be in favour of them- environmentalists. The environmental movement is so dogmatic and inflexible that they offer no real solutions. The much-vaunted solar and wind "alternative energy sources" are not very efficient, and are often blocked in their implementation by environmentalists, who argue that they pose a threat to birds, and object to the land that must be cleared for giant wind and solar farms!
They also have a dogmatic hatred of anything nuclear, viewing it almost as a demon. New LNG terminals are blocked by lawsuits, and clean-burning diesel vehicles aren't seen as a solution. Some groups even demand that the Republic's energy production capacity must shrink rather than grow! They claim that only a return to some kind of pseudo-nomadic lifestyle (and the incidental destruction of industrial civilisation) will save humanity. Of course, this lifestyle has a few problems- high infant mortality, short and hard lives for everyone, grinding toil, and the loss of the delicate flower of higher thought. But, given that higher thought is naturally antithetical to these types, it's a bonus for them.
Of course, if things start to go under, national energy independence will be an absolute key to the survival of the Republic.
In the all-too-familiar vein, it seems that a modern thinker (Thomas L. Friedman) has argued in his new book The World is Flat that globalisation and the new world economic order have made world peace a reality. Because of the interconnectedness of world trade, no industrialised nations could possibly be so insane to declare war on one another. Multinationals, international culture, and the electronic realm that includes the internet have created a global family! We're on the vanguard of a new world order based on peaceful trade! Hallelujah!
Of course, this is bunk. A look around the world sees a planet heading further and further towards the edge of war. This sort of theory has been floated about before- it's described in the opening pages of Barbara Tuchmann's excellent The Guns of August, which describes the beginning of World War I. Back then, the book was called "The Great Illusion," but it was the very spitting image of this modern tome. Gregory Scoblete over at Tech Central Station was also reminded of this, and he does a better job than I could on the eerie parallels between these similar strains of thought in his article, The Great Illusion, Redux.
I'm just waiting for someone to shoot an Archduke at this point. I suppose I'd better get back to work on the bunker.
I'm often critical of the French (as I am of all social-"democratic" states and European nations in general), but I will give them this- they know how to make energy policy. France is one of the greenest nations on earth, and at the same time they manage to supply their national need and are not dependent on foreign oil. The reason? 78% of France's power comes from nuclear energy. France has significant Uranium deposits, and it has wisely put them to use. They've largely freed themselves of dependence on foreign oil as a result.
People often complain about nuclear power's cost and the problem of waste storage. The French have solved this also- they recycle spent fuel rods. By this process, the amount of waste is drastically reduced and costs are driven down. They have no problem of waste storage, nor are costs significant. Furthermore, new technologies such as the pebble-bed reactor drive down cost and risk.
Why haven't we embraced this solution in the US? We also enjoy access to significant Uranium deposits, and we've enough weapons-grade radioactive material that can be debased and used in reactors to last us quite some time. The problem up to now has been partly based on the twin problems of cost and storage (we don't recycle our rods, we stick 'em in oversized swimming pools). But, the greatest problem is ideology and fear.
No nuclear power plants have been constructed in the U.S. since the 1970s. In 1979, there was a double-whammy which put nuclear energy more or less out of business in this country. First came the execrable Jane Fonda movie The China Syndrome, wherein heroic reporter Jane Fonda discovers the eeevil cutting-corners going on at a nuclear power plant. Thirteen days after the film's release, the Three Mile Island incident occurred. Though no one was killed, radioactive material was vented. There was a media circus, and this resulted in the loss of the political will to invest in nuclear energy. It also provided a big boost for the nascent environmental movement. When the Chernobyl disaster occurred when incompetent Soviet technicians ran a flawed reactor at several hundred percent beyond safe operating maximums, it sealed the fate of nuclear power in the west. Plants were dismantled, with no plans for replacement. The result was more dependence on oil, which is now becoming a major problem as prices increase beyond reasonable levels.
Even oil is problematic nowadays. The U.S.'s domestic refining capacity is lacking- we haven't constructed a new refinery since the seventies (coincidence?), and we haven't the means to best utilise our domestic oil production.
Other solutions in this energy bill are worth noting- developing small diesel-fuelled cars here (they're a big hit in Europe, and more efficient than the much-vaunted hybrids for city driving), and giving out tax-credits for fuel-efficient vehicles. Another solution is liquefied Natural Gas, which is clean-burning and cheap.
The problem with these solutions is the people who should be in favour of them- environmentalists. The environmental movement is so dogmatic and inflexible that they offer no real solutions. The much-vaunted solar and wind "alternative energy sources" are not very efficient, and are often blocked in their implementation by environmentalists, who argue that they pose a threat to birds, and object to the land that must be cleared for giant wind and solar farms!
They also have a dogmatic hatred of anything nuclear, viewing it almost as a demon. New LNG terminals are blocked by lawsuits, and clean-burning diesel vehicles aren't seen as a solution. Some groups even demand that the Republic's energy production capacity must shrink rather than grow! They claim that only a return to some kind of pseudo-nomadic lifestyle (and the incidental destruction of industrial civilisation) will save humanity. Of course, this lifestyle has a few problems- high infant mortality, short and hard lives for everyone, grinding toil, and the loss of the delicate flower of higher thought. But, given that higher thought is naturally antithetical to these types, it's a bonus for them.
Of course, if things start to go under, national energy independence will be an absolute key to the survival of the Republic.
In the all-too-familiar vein, it seems that a modern thinker (Thomas L. Friedman) has argued in his new book The World is Flat that globalisation and the new world economic order have made world peace a reality. Because of the interconnectedness of world trade, no industrialised nations could possibly be so insane to declare war on one another. Multinationals, international culture, and the electronic realm that includes the internet have created a global family! We're on the vanguard of a new world order based on peaceful trade! Hallelujah!
Of course, this is bunk. A look around the world sees a planet heading further and further towards the edge of war. This sort of theory has been floated about before- it's described in the opening pages of Barbara Tuchmann's excellent The Guns of August, which describes the beginning of World War I. Back then, the book was called "The Great Illusion," but it was the very spitting image of this modern tome. Gregory Scoblete over at Tech Central Station was also reminded of this, and he does a better job than I could on the eerie parallels between these similar strains of thought in his article, The Great Illusion, Redux.
I'm just waiting for someone to shoot an Archduke at this point. I suppose I'd better get back to work on the bunker.
posted by The Admiral at 5:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home