Wong Yue's Response, March 23
买盐的问题其实是个笑话,没必要多说。核能对环境造成的污染一直是一个需要解决的问题,他不仅涉及到能源发展与环境的tradeoff,更大的争议在于军事问题上,而这方面的问题又涉及到经济、政治等方向,在这里不作详述。
单就本次核泄露的事件来说,短时间内我们还不能看到核泄露所产生的影响(或者说我还没有通过媒体获知),而且本次核泄露事件的起因仍然不明了(是自然灾害,还是日本核试验是诱因),我们的大多数看法也只是源于外界的揣测和猜想。
然而无论产生多大的影响,或诱因是什么,核泄露事件都是一个小概率事件,我们都不能单纯因为这样的事件而放弃科学发展的机会。
据我的了解现在所谓节能环保的风能太阳能等也并不是真正达到了环保,其中所运用的材料也并不一定安全。在我们一味的放弃了我们认为有一定影响的能源后,社会还能有保证得到发展吗?
总而言之,我的观点是,与其为核危机所产生的问题担心,不如现在让核能方面的专家从这次事件中得到总结与经验教训,发展更为安全、环保的核能源,
上专业课无聊拿itouch说了几句,最近aw写得有点神经了,观点很薄尽管吐槽。
单就本次核泄露的事件来说,短时间内我们还不能看到核泄露所产生的影响(或者说我还没有通过媒体获知),而且本次核泄露事件的起因仍然不明了(是自然灾害,还是日本核试验是诱因),我们的大多数看法也只是源于外界的揣测和猜想。
然而无论产生多大的影响,或诱因是什么,核泄露事件都是一个小概率事件,我们都不能单纯因为这样的事件而放弃科学发展的机会。
据我的了解现在所谓节能环保的风能太阳能等也并不是真正达到了环保,其中所运用的材料也并不一定安全。在我们一味的放弃了我们认为有一定影响的能源后,社会还能有保证得到发展吗?
总而言之,我的观点是,与其为核危机所产生的问题担心,不如现在让核能方面的专家从这次事件中得到总结与经验教训,发展更为安全、环保的核能源,
上专业课无聊拿itouch说了几句,最近aw写得有点神经了,观点很薄尽管吐槽。
Shi Xiangying's response to Wong Yue, March 23
亲爱的汪玥,咱们每次回答都努力用双语好了~
比如我的观点我也忘了翻译:Irene: We should use safer energy like solar, water, wind energyrather than the dangerous nuclear!
比如你的观点就可以浓缩成一句话:Wongyue: We don't have to stop scientific development because of one accident. Solar and Water energy is not completely safe.
比如我的观点我也忘了翻译:Irene: We should use safer energy like solar, water, wind energyrather than the dangerous nuclear!
比如你的观点就可以浓缩成一句话:Wongyue: We don't have to stop scientific development because of one accident. Solar and Water energy is not completely safe.
Jared Schy's Response, March 26
Nuclear energy is a complex subject. As the article mentions, China's consumption is slated to grow by 12% a year meaning it will obviously need to increase its production. But the question is how. In the United States, big Greens such as the Sierra Club have long opposed nuclear energy, but in my opinion, only for shallow reasons. They write on their website they oppose it on these grounds, "significant safety problems inherent in reactor operation, disposal of spent fuels, and possible diversion of nuclear materials capable of use in weapons manufacture." At the same time, environmental justice groups, such as Environmental Justice Network also oppose nuclearenergy, but in my opinion, for much better reasons, including environmental racism, impacts on water, and the pollution that is spread across regions as fuel is transported. Moreover, continued reliance on centrally controlled energy systems impedes progress to a more democratic and distributed one which gives citizens control over what kind of energy they use, how they use it, and gives them the opportunity to sell it back. It's challenging for me to support nuclear energyreliance in the US given that final point, but at the same time, I am not convinced we will make the necessary transformations to the clean energy economy that meets our energy needs. I also feel we need a radical shift in values that leaves us consuming less energy and valuing energy free activities more.
It's difficult to comment on China in this regard because I simply don't know the situation there. Evidently, China needs energy and the world hasn't come up with solutions capable of meeting itsenergy needs. I would, however, question the motives behind China's development, which may be pushing the country to a level of consumption it ultimately will come later to regret.
It's difficult to comment on China in this regard because I simply don't know the situation there. Evidently, China needs energy and the world hasn't come up with solutions capable of meeting itsenergy needs. I would, however, question the motives behind China's development, which may be pushing the country to a level of consumption it ultimately will come later to regret.
Kevin Osborne's Response, March 26
Let me start off by saying that I don't have all the answers, but I believe that nuclear power is not a viable option for meeting the world's energy needs.
There are two sources that I want to base my argument.
1. Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free - A Road Map for U.S Energy Policy, Arjun Makhijani
2. Rocky Mountain Institute, Amory Lovins
There are several reasons that raise big questions about nuclear power, but I think there is one fundamental reasons - not economically in the market place.
In the Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free book, it states the following information.
Uneconomical Costs:
The economics of nuclear power was first critiqued in Dec. 1950s before the American Assocation for the Advacement of Sciences by C.G. Suits. He was the Vice President and Director of Research at General Electric which was then operating the principal companies developing nuclearreactors for the production of electricity.
In his speech, he stated "...At present, atomic power presents an exceptionally costly and inconvenient means of obtaining energy which can be extracted more economically from conventional fuels...The economics of atomic power are not attractive at present, nor are they likely to be for a long time in the future. This is expensive power, not cheap power as the public has been led to believe."
There is a history of cost overruns at nuclear plants in the United States.
The U.S Congress is considering ever more massive subsidies for nuclear power plants in the form of loan guarantees - possibly as much as $4 billion to $5 billion per reactor for as many as 28 reactors. Michael J. Wallace, who co-heads UniStar Nuclear, a comany that wants to build nuclearpower plants: "Without loan gauarentees we will not build nuclear power plants"
Amory Lovins from the Mountain Rocky Institute, a leading opponent of nuclear energy and been described as "one of the Western world’s most influential energy thinkers". He believes that is thatnuclear's purposes would be to replace coal, the U.S and China's most abundant domestic fuel.
He states, "What nuclear would do is displace coal, our most abundant domestic fuel. And this sounds good for climate, but actually, expanding nuclear makes climate change worse, for a very simple reason. Nuclear is incredibly expensive. The costs have just stood up on end lately. Wall Street Journal recently reported that they’re about two to four times the cost that the industry was talking about just a year ago. And the result of that is that if you buy more nuclear plants, you’re going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you’ll get it about twenty to forty times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas, all kinds of central plans, in the marketplace. And those competitors are efficient use of electricity and what’s called micropower, which is both renewables, except big hydro, and making electricity and heat together, in fact, recent buildings, which takes about half of the money, fuel and carbon of making them separately, as we normally do."
Source:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/16/amory_lovins_expanding_nuclear_power_makes
Hence, with all this said, it is not a marketplace-solution. It has to be subsidized, so I don't see it being a viable option for meeting our energyneeds of the future. The economics are not in its favor, so there really no need to even address the waste problem, slow construction and development, safety of workers, etc.
There are two sources that I want to base my argument.
1. Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free - A Road Map for U.S Energy Policy, Arjun Makhijani
2. Rocky Mountain Institute, Amory Lovins
There are several reasons that raise big questions about nuclear power, but I think there is one fundamental reasons - not economically in the market place.
In the Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free book, it states the following information.
Uneconomical Costs:
The economics of nuclear power was first critiqued in Dec. 1950s before the American Assocation for the Advacement of Sciences by C.G. Suits. He was the Vice President and Director of Research at General Electric which was then operating the principal companies developing nuclearreactors for the production of electricity.
In his speech, he stated "...At present, atomic power presents an exceptionally costly and inconvenient means of obtaining energy which can be extracted more economically from conventional fuels...The economics of atomic power are not attractive at present, nor are they likely to be for a long time in the future. This is expensive power, not cheap power as the public has been led to believe."
There is a history of cost overruns at nuclear plants in the United States.
The U.S Congress is considering ever more massive subsidies for nuclear power plants in the form of loan guarantees - possibly as much as $4 billion to $5 billion per reactor for as many as 28 reactors. Michael J. Wallace, who co-heads UniStar Nuclear, a comany that wants to build nuclearpower plants: "Without loan gauarentees we will not build nuclear power plants"
Amory Lovins from the Mountain Rocky Institute, a leading opponent of nuclear energy and been described as "one of the Western world’s most influential energy thinkers". He believes that is thatnuclear's purposes would be to replace coal, the U.S and China's most abundant domestic fuel.
He states, "What nuclear would do is displace coal, our most abundant domestic fuel. And this sounds good for climate, but actually, expanding nuclear makes climate change worse, for a very simple reason. Nuclear is incredibly expensive. The costs have just stood up on end lately. Wall Street Journal recently reported that they’re about two to four times the cost that the industry was talking about just a year ago. And the result of that is that if you buy more nuclear plants, you’re going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you’ll get it about twenty to forty times slower, than if you buy instead the cheaper, faster stuff that is walloping nuclear and coal and gas, all kinds of central plans, in the marketplace. And those competitors are efficient use of electricity and what’s called micropower, which is both renewables, except big hydro, and making electricity and heat together, in fact, recent buildings, which takes about half of the money, fuel and carbon of making them separately, as we normally do."
Source:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/16/amory_lovins_expanding_nuclear_power_makes
Hence, with all this said, it is not a marketplace-solution. It has to be subsidized, so I don't see it being a viable option for meeting our energyneeds of the future. The economics are not in its favor, so there really no need to even address the waste problem, slow construction and development, safety of workers, etc.
Marvin Nala's Response, March 26
Thanks Jared, Kevin & Irene,
In my perspective, I have four points to make:
- In my assumption, nuclear energy is of great potential due to its seemingly inexhaustible reservation.
- Nuclear energy expansion is inevitable in order to meet the soaring demand for electricity and mitigation of greenhouse gases. Take France as example, over 80% of the energy comes fromnuclear electricity. How can they stopped those plants at a sudden? And evolution into other renewable energy industries is at higher expenses comparing to nuclear.
- Energy policy of developing countries, as well as Russia and Italy, will be persistently followed no matter the social protests. Nothing is more important than to ensure the basic living conditions of its citizens in the bureaucratic ideology of China. History of modern China implied that pragmatic consideration of national industrial development overrides the individual right of safety at regions.
- The world is of all possibility. Even for bio-fuel, we have witnessed the negative impacts it made to the food security and world economy. In stead of abandon the nuclear industry totally, I would like to see technology advances in keeping it as safe as needed.
In my perspective, I have four points to make:
- In my assumption, nuclear energy is of great potential due to its seemingly inexhaustible reservation.
- Nuclear energy expansion is inevitable in order to meet the soaring demand for electricity and mitigation of greenhouse gases. Take France as example, over 80% of the energy comes fromnuclear electricity. How can they stopped those plants at a sudden? And evolution into other renewable energy industries is at higher expenses comparing to nuclear.
- Energy policy of developing countries, as well as Russia and Italy, will be persistently followed no matter the social protests. Nothing is more important than to ensure the basic living conditions of its citizens in the bureaucratic ideology of China. History of modern China implied that pragmatic consideration of national industrial development overrides the individual right of safety at regions.
- The world is of all possibility. Even for bio-fuel, we have witnessed the negative impacts it made to the food security and world economy. In stead of abandon the nuclear industry totally, I would like to see technology advances in keeping it as safe as needed.
Kevin Osborne's response to Nala, March 26
I would like to provide another opinion about nuclear energy expansion.
I think that we should end subsidies for nuclear power and fossil fuels.
I believe that massive subsidies should not be sustained indefinitely for any source of energy, especially one that carries significant nuclear proliferation, waste, and severe accident risks.
In the the 'Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free', it states that "Nuclear power advocates claim that it could be part of the solution of the climate change problem. CO2 emissions caps will cause the costs of fossil-fuel-related generation to increase. Nuclear power should be able to compete with that in the marketplace. There is no sign that it will be able to do so."
I believe there should be policies considered, and if they are, nuclear energy would certainly not be able to be market competitive. The cost would be too high.
In addition to this, we need to think about climate change. As you probably know, nuclear power plants need to be near and use cold water sources like rivers. Further heat waves and droughts may cause nuclear power plants to be shutdown for extended periods at times of peak demand. Since such events are expected more frequently in a warming world, this may introduce a problem for nuclear energy.
Source:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-02_LearningFromJapan
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.asp
I think that we should end subsidies for nuclear power and fossil fuels.
I believe that massive subsidies should not be sustained indefinitely for any source of energy, especially one that carries significant nuclear proliferation, waste, and severe accident risks.
In the the 'Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free', it states that "Nuclear power advocates claim that it could be part of the solution of the climate change problem. CO2 emissions caps will cause the costs of fossil-fuel-related generation to increase. Nuclear power should be able to compete with that in the marketplace. There is no sign that it will be able to do so."
I believe there should be policies considered, and if they are, nuclear energy would certainly not be able to be market competitive. The cost would be too high.
- All subsidies for new nuclear power plants, including government-supplied and guaranteed insurance, tax credits, and licensing subsidies should be ended.
- Governments should not be responsible for nuclear waste disposal from nuclear power plants; it should be the responsibility that extends only to existing power plants for their licensed lifetime.
- The insurance provisions for present plants should more realistically reflect the estimated damages from worst-case accidents that are estimated to be part of the plant's design vulnerabilities.
In addition to this, we need to think about climate change. As you probably know, nuclear power plants need to be near and use cold water sources like rivers. Further heat waves and droughts may cause nuclear power plants to be shutdown for extended periods at times of peak demand. Since such events are expected more frequently in a warming world, this may introduce a problem for nuclear energy.
Source:
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2011-02_LearningFromJapan
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.asp
Shi Xiangying's response to Kevin and Jared, March 27
Kevin, I just have a question for your opinion. If nuclear energy is not economically practical, why is France use so high proportion nuclear energy? And as reported, French electricity is cheaper compared to other European countries.
Jared, I have a feeling that it's really hard to reduce energy demand when people want to live a better life, especially those still live a poor life. So I think we should try to reduce clean energy price.
Jared, I have a feeling that it's really hard to reduce energy demand when people want to live a better life, especially those still live a poor life. So I think we should try to reduce clean energy price.
Marvin Nala's Response, March 30
New Post at China Dialogue today.
http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4190-Why-greens-should-support-nuclear
http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4190-Why-greens-should-support-nuclear
Jared Schy's Response, March 31
I have been reading a lot about Nuclear today. I will try and post my thoughts later today. I also would just note that it would be wise for everyone to consider what part of the country or which country they are referring to when stating opinions on this topic. I don't think the case for nuclearin the US is the same for nuclear in China--that is what I'd love us to get at. What are the differences?
Anna Huang's Response, March 31
我就说一句话:我需要补充基础知识,大家告诉我如果在不以这个为专业的前提下,我如何才能找到最基本的阅读资料呢?大家欢迎给我发来啊,2种语言都没有问题的,我就是想先了解。感觉读这些东西一大片不知所云,感觉特别打击。
帮忙啊~
帮忙啊~
Kevin Osborne's response to Xiangying, March 31
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-energy/issues/climate-change/wise_nirs_2005.pdf
Please check out this link as it discusses more about nuclear energy and what the nucler industry has been advocating, but providing a critique on it based on comprehensive research.
For France, I don't have a direct answer for them expect it is very cheap because of the high subsidies that come from tax payers. You have to know that France has a much higher tax rate than in the U.S. I don't know about China.
Please check out this link as it discusses more about nuclear energy and what the nucler industry has been advocating, but providing a critique on it based on comprehensive research.
For France, I don't have a direct answer for them expect it is very cheap because of the high subsidies that come from tax payers. You have to know that France has a much higher tax rate than in the U.S. I don't know about China.
Michael Davidson's Response, April 1
I agree with Anna, there is a lot of opinions out there on nuclear (and I wouldn't trust anything Mark Lynas says after Copenhagen).
Some very credible, objective sources of information on nuclear (besides the NRDC factsheet that Kevin sent around, of course ;-):
World Nuclear Association. The most comprehensive source of nuclear plants (and some economics). The Chinese page is worth a read: www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
IEA. Each year they publish information collected from OECD countries (and using surveys from non-OECD countries, such as China) on the cost of generation. I am attaching the few pages from the 2010 report (I don't think it's available online). But there are a lot of assumptions that go into this (such as the discount rate -- which basically accounts for inflation) -- and the wide ranges based on these (the far right column) allow almost anyone to make an argument for or against.
Union of Concerned Scientists. Very factual discussion of the dangers of nuclear power. Something on reprocessing (which China is seeking to ramp up with help from Areva):www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/nuclear_proliferation_and_terrorism/nuclear-reprocessing.html
Some very credible, objective sources of information on nuclear (besides the NRDC factsheet that Kevin sent around, of course ;-):
World Nuclear Association. The most comprehensive source of nuclear plants (and some economics). The Chinese page is worth a read: www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
IEA. Each year they publish information collected from OECD countries (and using surveys from non-OECD countries, such as China) on the cost of generation. I am attaching the few pages from the 2010 report (I don't think it's available online). But there are a lot of assumptions that go into this (such as the discount rate -- which basically accounts for inflation) -- and the wide ranges based on these (the far right column) allow almost anyone to make an argument for or against.
Union of Concerned Scientists. Very factual discussion of the dangers of nuclear power. Something on reprocessing (which China is seeking to ramp up with help from Areva):www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/nuclear_proliferation_and_terrorism/nuclear-reprocessing.html
Jared's Schy's response to Michael
I just read the NRDC's report. Really well written and easy to read...what is it that you do there exactly anyways...are you a researcher?
There was one part of the article I don't understand, but it is the crux of the point which makesnuclear seem the least viable. This part I've pasted below, about capacity utilization, is a little fuzzy for me. Specifically, what does the article mean when it says "nuclear tax credits actually stimulate 1.5 times the amount of subsidized capacity." Do they mean, it could subisidize 1.5 times the amount? Also, if it has a capacity utilization of 85%, does that mean only 85% of its total capacity is ever used, or does it mean something different? Finally, why when it calculates the average annual expected growth rate for nuclear, does the article divide 0.85MWx9,000 MW by 15 years when for the average expected annual growth rate for wind it multiplies that outcome?
Hope you can clarify these questions. Thanks!!
Jared
Renewable Energy Technologies Are Expanding Faster Than Nuclear It is instructive to compare this “nuclear renaissance” with the current rate of growth in wind power, which is adding about 3,000 MW of generating capacity per year. To accurately compare the two, capacity utilization must be factored in: Assuming a favorable case, namely that by 2021 the nuclear tax credits actually stimulate 1.5 times the amount of subsidized capacity, and with an average capacity utilization factor of 85 percent, then 0.85 x 9,000 MW = 7,650 MW/15 years = 510 MW/yr as the average annual expected growth for nuclear, but with none of it available for at least 10 years.
Nuclear FactsEven though wind has a much lower capacity utilization factor, and even assuming no further acceleration in the its rate of growth, then 0.35 x 3,000 MW x 15 yrs = 15,750 MW for wind over the same period, or at least 1,050 MW/yr, with all of it available each year. In other words, windpower is already growing at twice the potential growth rate of nuclear over the next decade, and the outlook for wind is for even
faster growth. In a similar vein, recent dramatic improvements in the processes for mass-producing solar photovoltaic cells suggest that by the time these subsidized new nuclear plants are connected to the grid, distributed solar power will be a formidable, and likely superior competitor.
There was one part of the article I don't understand, but it is the crux of the point which makesnuclear seem the least viable. This part I've pasted below, about capacity utilization, is a little fuzzy for me. Specifically, what does the article mean when it says "nuclear tax credits actually stimulate 1.5 times the amount of subsidized capacity." Do they mean, it could subisidize 1.5 times the amount? Also, if it has a capacity utilization of 85%, does that mean only 85% of its total capacity is ever used, or does it mean something different? Finally, why when it calculates the average annual expected growth rate for nuclear, does the article divide 0.85MWx9,000 MW by 15 years when for the average expected annual growth rate for wind it multiplies that outcome?
Hope you can clarify these questions. Thanks!!
Jared
Renewable Energy Technologies Are Expanding Faster Than Nuclear It is instructive to compare this “nuclear renaissance” with the current rate of growth in wind power, which is adding about 3,000 MW of generating capacity per year. To accurately compare the two, capacity utilization must be factored in: Assuming a favorable case, namely that by 2021 the nuclear tax credits actually stimulate 1.5 times the amount of subsidized capacity, and with an average capacity utilization factor of 85 percent, then 0.85 x 9,000 MW = 7,650 MW/15 years = 510 MW/yr as the average annual expected growth for nuclear, but with none of it available for at least 10 years.
Nuclear FactsEven though wind has a much lower capacity utilization factor, and even assuming no further acceleration in the its rate of growth, then 0.35 x 3,000 MW x 15 yrs = 15,750 MW for wind over the same period, or at least 1,050 MW/yr, with all of it available each year. In other words, windpower is already growing at twice the potential growth rate of nuclear over the next decade, and the outlook for wind is for even
faster growth. In a similar vein, recent dramatic improvements in the processes for mass-producing solar photovoltaic cells suggest that by the time these subsidized new nuclear plants are connected to the grid, distributed solar power will be a formidable, and likely superior competitor.
Jared Schy 's Response
With this comment about the "making an argument for or against" do you mean to say this source is not credible or that we should decide our opinion on nuclear ourselves? I just read anna's response fully (was putting off doing so because it was in Chinese, but I actually got the gist of it translating only three words!) so if this is in response to that directly then I assume you are pointing the source I mentioned above out as not credible.
Jared Schy's Response
What I'd really like to see actually (I haven't looked yet, so wait!) is something about the markets for Nuclear in China.
Even with the little I know about renewables' growth and China, if the costs are the same, it seemsnuclear would not be a good option. Anyone have good articles about this?
Even with the little I know about renewables' growth and China, if the costs are the same, it seemsnuclear would not be a good option. Anyone have good articles about this?
Jared Schy's Response
1) I don't think we can say anything is "inevitable." That makes an assumption which precludes any other possibilities, which, in my opinion cannot be made.
2) "History of modern China implied that pragmatic consideration of national industrial development overrides the individual right of safety at regions." I understand this point, but if we argue on economic grounds, then what does the Chinese government think? Moreover, given how long it takes for nuclear plants to be built (maybe it's faster in China), aren't there then faster ways to provide people and industry with power that is safer?
3) To your point about biofuels; I do agree that there are always seem to be unforeseen negative effects with all new technologies (actually probably with everything that exists in general). My good friend always points to how oil was revered as the a completely clean fuel when it was first discovered and used in the industrial economies. Of course, that was in comparison to coal and before we knew about climate change.
2) "History of modern China implied that pragmatic consideration of national industrial development overrides the individual right of safety at regions." I understand this point, but if we argue on economic grounds, then what does the Chinese government think? Moreover, given how long it takes for nuclear plants to be built (maybe it's faster in China), aren't there then faster ways to provide people and industry with power that is safer?
3) To your point about biofuels; I do agree that there are always seem to be unforeseen negative effects with all new technologies (actually probably with everything that exists in general). My good friend always points to how oil was revered as the a completely clean fuel when it was first discovered and used in the industrial economies. Of course, that was in comparison to coal and before we knew about climate change.
Jared Schy's response to Xiangying
This is a great question indeed, and a very challenging one, perhaps the most because to me it touches on the crux of the whole debate around who is responsible for climate change that our countries currently engage in, that is: countries with historically little carbon output have the right to develop with carbon because their people deserve good lives too. I just wanted to point that out, but actually what I wanted to respond to is about energy forecasting.
I've just read the summary, of an article put out by Berkley professors that explains how energyforecasts made in the 70s for the United States energy usage and demand in the year 2000 were off, in some cases, by almost a factor of two. Despite this, these forecasts influence policy significantly. The main thing, they say, that forecasters screw up, is that they don't include into their models designs for unexpected developments "Expect the unexpected and design for uncertainty." That said, I am wondering if energy forecasts for China are different, given that the Chinese government is trying to give hundreds of millions basic amounts of energy. Does that fact make its energy forecasts more predictable? That said, energy forecasting, to me, seems largely a gamble because really, nobody can predict the future. And, as the author of the summary says, "A forecast, says Koomey, is useful because it 'illuminate[s] theconsequences of choices so that the people and institutions making them can evaluate the alternative outcomes based on their own values and judgment. Hidden assumptions and value judgments exist in every forecast, but the best forecasters make these explicit, so that users of their work are fully informed.'"
I've just read the summary, of an article put out by Berkley professors that explains how energyforecasts made in the 70s for the United States energy usage and demand in the year 2000 were off, in some cases, by almost a factor of two. Despite this, these forecasts influence policy significantly. The main thing, they say, that forecasters screw up, is that they don't include into their models designs for unexpected developments "Expect the unexpected and design for uncertainty." That said, I am wondering if energy forecasts for China are different, given that the Chinese government is trying to give hundreds of millions basic amounts of energy. Does that fact make its energy forecasts more predictable? That said, energy forecasting, to me, seems largely a gamble because really, nobody can predict the future. And, as the author of the summary says, "A forecast, says Koomey, is useful because it 'illuminate[s] theconsequences of choices so that the people and institutions making them can evaluate the alternative outcomes based on their own values and judgment. Hidden assumptions and value judgments exist in every forecast, but the best forecasters make these explicit, so that users of their work are fully informed.'"
Jared Schy's response to Wong Yue
I am in agreement with you about other supposed "clean tech" not being safe. It just depends what we define as safe. I have heard (although have not, and have been unable to confirm) that some of the minerals used to create wind turbines contain Coltan which is a mineral found in large abundance in Congo and said to be the major source of genocidal conflict there.
A note about Chinese or English responses. I think a good way to help us non-native chinese speakers would be just to give a 1 line summary of what you're saying if you write something more than 5ish lines (like xiangying did for you and herself). With language, context is everything so if a I have the context, even if there are lots of characters and grammar structures I don't understand, I can at least get the general gist of things by skimming through. What do you think?
A note about Chinese or English responses. I think a good way to help us non-native chinese speakers would be just to give a 1 line summary of what you're saying if you write something more than 5ish lines (like xiangying did for you and herself). With language, context is everything so if a I have the context, even if there are lots of characters and grammar structures I don't understand, I can at least get the general gist of things by skimming through. What do you think?
Jared Schy's Response
Read the folowing article about Mark Lynas interview with China Dialogue on Fukushima.
Link: http://www.marklynas.org/2011/03/mark-lynas-interview-with-chinadialogue-on-fukushima/
All other cited sources:
Article on the nature of energy forecasting
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-energy-forecasting.html
George Monbiot's opinion on Nuclear
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
Imagining the US without Nuclear Power, NPR
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/24/134827595/imagining-the-u-s-without-nuclear-power
Andy Revkin, Dotearth (nytimes.com) on two different responses after the accident in Japan
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/divergent-lessons-from-japans-calamity-for-mckibben-monbiot/?ref=atomicenergy
Bill McKibben on Nuclear after the accident
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/18/japan-horror-thin-edge-climate-change?CMP=twt_gu
Nuclear Physicist and Professor at Princeton's op-ed in the NY Times on Nuclear
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24Von-Hippel.html?hp
Link: http://www.marklynas.org/2011/03/mark-lynas-interview-with-chinadialogue-on-fukushima/
All other cited sources:
Article on the nature of energy forecasting
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-energy-forecasting.html
George Monbiot's opinion on Nuclear
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
Imagining the US without Nuclear Power, NPR
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/24/134827595/imagining-the-u-s-without-nuclear-power
Andy Revkin, Dotearth (nytimes.com) on two different responses after the accident in Japan
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/divergent-lessons-from-japans-calamity-for-mckibben-monbiot/?ref=atomicenergy
Bill McKibben on Nuclear after the accident
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/18/japan-horror-thin-edge-climate-change?CMP=twt_gu
Nuclear Physicist and Professor at Princeton's op-ed in the NY Times on Nuclear
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24Von-Hippel.html?hp
Kevin Osborne's response to Jared, April 5
I would you suggest you read this important article, Forget Nuclear, by the Rocky Mountain Institute. That article sums up many of my reasons for second guessing nuclear power as an excellent option. The organization's mission is "to drive the efficient and restorative use of resources" On their website, "RMI's style is non-adversarial and trans-ideological, emphasizing integrative design, advanced technologies, and mindful markets. Our strategic focus, executed through specific initiatives designed to take our work rapidly to scale, is to map and drive the transition from coal and oil to efficiency and renewables.
Link: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library%2FE08-04_ForgetNuclear
We work extensively with the private sector, as well as with civil society and government, to create abundance by design and to apply the framework of natural capitalism."
Link: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library%2FE08-04_ForgetNuclear
We work extensively with the private sector, as well as with civil society and government, to create abundance by design and to apply the framework of natural capitalism."
Jared Schy's response to Kevin, April 6
I did read your articles and posts, actually that is probably why I never responded, because I read everything you sent out! I thought the sources you gave were really helpful in articulating the important aspects of this debate. Mainly, I think I'm sold economically that nuclear doesn't make sense in America. I just read an article on ChinaDialogue about how little nuclear will actually contribute to fulfilling energy demand but I want to know more about Chinese markets to understand whether it is economically feasible. My feeling, based off what I've been reading on ChinaDialogue, is that it still doesn't make too much sense to invest in nuclear in China, especially that new reprocessing plant they're likely committing to.
All of this debate really made me realize some interesting assumptions I hold about environmental justice, which I will share with everyone, once I've thought about them more.
All of this debate really made me realize some interesting assumptions I hold about environmental justice, which I will share with everyone, once I've thought about them more.