Dear All,
If I may, I'd like add my 2 Japanese yen worth on this important topic of
sustainability and the energy challenge. There are a few misperceptions that
I have seen posted regarding the status of alternative energy technologies
that I think deserve to be corrected.
1. Regarding nuclear power- I am not a nuclear engineer but I have spoken
with a number of nuclear experts over the course of research I have done on
nuclear energy policy and the general consensus is that safety of operation
is less of an issue with modern reactors (even in earthquake prone Japan).
The concern is what to do with radioactive waste. Although reprocessing can
extend the life cycle of spent nuclear fuels, in the end, the law of entropy
wins out and the waste has to be stored somewhere. In North America (both
Canada and the US), nuclear waste is currently stored in facilities attached
to nuclear power generation facilities because efforts to identify a central
dumping ground have been stymied (and rightly so, I may add). With 50 plus
nations announcing aspirations to join the current club of nuclear powered
nations, waste disposal is a potential environmental threat around the
world.
2. Nuclear fuels- It is perhaps worth occasionally reminding nuclear power
proponents that nuclear fuels are finite. As such they are subject to the
same economic and energy security threats as their fossil fuel counterparts
face. Switching from one finite source of fuel for another is at best a
short-term solution. Indeed, many of the individuals that support nuclear
energy do so reluctantly with the knowledge that one problem is being
substituted for another for the sake of feeding humanity's thirst for
energy.
3. Regarding wind power- there have been huge advances in technology and
project design which has reduced the threat of stochastic wind flows;
however, critics who point out that wind power is still unpredictable are
right (by the way, given the track record of coal fired power plants
breaking down, coal is not exactly a perfectly dependable source of
electricity either). However, if the top economies dedicated even half of
what they spend on nuclear power research on electricity storage
technologies, the intermittent properties of wind (and solar PV) might be
completely resolved.
4. Regarding solar- the claim that solar PV in Germany is close to parity
with grid costs in Germany needs to be revisited and the source more heavily
scrutinized. I doubt the verity of this claim. While I would not disagree
with Dr. Srivastiva's assertion that the cost of solar PV is expected to
achieve 24 EuCent per kWh in 2 to 4 years in Germany, I am surprised to see
that this price level equates to the cost of electricity generation in
Germany! If that is true, the cost of electricity generation in Germany is
about 3 times the global average. Dr. Srivastiva could you please provide a
source for this assertion as I would like to look into it further. If true
it has some important insights for national competitive advantage...one of
the key barriers to carbon prices are concerns that electricity costs would
rise to a level that impairs national competitiveness....yet, the Germany
example indicates that this is perhaps not true as Germany is indeed a
highly competitive nation.
5. Regarding sustainable energy- While Dr. Boxer's tongue in cheek solution
is clearly unacceptable on a number of levels, he has raised an important
point that I think fits in with the remit of ONE. Is there a portfolio of
alternative energy technologies that can fully substitute for fossil fuel
powered energy? If so, what does the portfolio look like and how much
ecological damage will be caused by extracting the resources to build these
new generation energy technologies. Food for thought- each modern wind
turbine is over 60 m tall and consumes about 200 tons of steel for the tower
alone (or concrete equivalent). Imagine what the impact on steel prices
would be if the entire world shifted to 20% electricity from wind power and
turbine towers were all still made of steel.
Finally on the population contraction issue, I agree with Prof. Barnett that
front-end solutions are the only one's worth considering and even these
solutions have some fairly negative consequences (colleagues in India and
China can likely attest to this). But more to the point, even if a
population contraction could be achieved, what would this do to a global
economic system that is built on the principle that economic growth (which
has a record of consuming additional resources) is key to poverty
alleviation. It is indeed a pickle folks! And it does need to be discussed,
if only to inform and to encourage further investigation and reflection.
All the best,
Scott
___________________________________________
Dr. Scott Valentine
Assistant Professor, Assistant Director MPP/IP Program
Graduate School of Public Policy (GraSPP)
The University of Tokyo
#616 Administration Burearu Building No. 2
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku
Tokyo 113-0033, JAPAN
phone: +813-5841-1740
fax: +813-5841-1313
e-mail:
valentine@spp.u-tokyo.ac.jp
please contact me at
scott.valentine@nus.edu.sg up to March 1.
___________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lionel Boxer
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 5:54 AM
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: All we have to do is create a technology turning spent uranium
rods into electricity .....
Exactly the reaction I was after. I am being sarcastic to a point, but I am
equally outraged about the refusal to accept that nuclear power generation
is necessary in some circumstances; windmills are necessary in some
circumstances; wave power generation, solar power generation, and so on ...
. The alternative is to reduce the demand for electricity. I do think
there are too many human beings consuming too much and contributing too
little.
Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
Associate of RMIT University -
lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
Graduate School of Business
my "Assessment of Quality Systems with Positioning Theory"
now in a googe book - see link at
http://intergon.net
>>> Mike Barnett <
michael.barnett@SBS.OX.AC.UK> 14/02/10 10:34 PM >>>
Lionel, I was taking your posts to be sarcastic, but after a while, and with
direct statements such as below, it is hard to continue to assume sarcasm.
If you are serious in stating, directly, that killing humans for food or
fomenting a third world war with the goal of killing 90% of the world's
population, are good options, then I firmly and directly demand that you
stop posting and get out of ONE. I don't want ONE to be even remotely
tainted by a sociopath. Charles Wankel -- as moderator, you have taken on a
duty that involves screening out, not just forwarding on, all outrageous
filth; if that's not the case, then I have no clue why we have started a
delayed posting system with moderator (a recent advance, but as I now see,
perhaps a necessary one).
In all seriousness,
Mike
PS If I have mistaken something here, please do let me know. It is hard to
comprehend a post on an academic list that calls for an end to consumption,
to be achieved through mass slaughter. Thus, I may just be too weirded out
to know what the hell you're talking about, even though you've said it
several times.
************************
Michael L. Barnett
Professor of Strategy, Said Business School, U. of Oxford
Research Director, Oxford U. Centre for Corporate Reputation
Fellow, St. Anne's College, University of Oxford
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/research/people/Pages/MikeBarnett.aspx
View my research on my SSRN Author page:
http://ssrn.com/author=414796
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lionel Boxer
Sent: 14 February 2010 10:56
To:
ONE-L@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: All we have to do is create a technology turning spent uranium
rods into electricity .....
I did not say nuclear energy is a good option. A good option is soilent
green, or perhaps WWIII.
We really have to stop consuming. Happiness occurs when you learn to admire
without needing to desire. Sure, this will collapse economies, but then we
will not need as much electricity.
Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
Associate of RMIT University -
lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
Graduate School of Business
my "Assessment of Quality Systems with Positioning Theory"
now in a googe book - see link at
http://intergon.net
>>> Debbie de Lange <
ddelange@SUFFOLK.EDU> 14/02/10 10:09 AM >>>
To those who think that nuclear energy is or might be a good option, please
read Normal Accidents by Charles Perrow.
http://www.amazon.com/Normal-Accidents-Living-High-Risk-Technologies/dp/0691
004129
After this, think about all the costs and risks of nuclear technology from a
complete life cycle perspective and weigh that against other options like
truly clean, safe approaches such as solar, wind and tidal energy sources.
It's not as if it's harder to develop these latter approaches (and others
that would fall into the clean, safe, renewable category) than nuclear -
it's just that we've had an incredibly powerful nuclear power industry
pushing that agenda such that the political will (and investment) has been
one sided, against the other technologies.
I previously worked in the energy industry. I can tell you that they are a
bunch of dinosaurs and as they go extinct, they will take us with them, if
we listen to them.
I also worked for IBM and never listen to Bill Gates :-) At work, we passed
a computer game around that allowed us to throw pies at his face (ha, ha!).
By the way, there was also a study done that wind energy could power the
world many times over without any other energy sources. Why do we need
"traveling wave reactors, etc." when we have the sun?! I do not understand
how anyone could be so naive as to listen to Bill Gates and the nuclear
industry.
Cheers,
Dr. Debbie de Lange
Strategy and International Business
Suffolk University
Sawyer Business School
8 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA
USA 02108-2770
617-573-8794