Continued 6. Measuring

Continued
6. Measuring instruments and parameters must be permanently defined and of constant values, protected by agreements and laws.
7. Monetary value can not be permanently defined. Money is a speculative commodity under special interest control, an asset to the holder and liability to the issuer. It is infinitely and unpredictably variable, with corrupted conversions. Therefore it's use as economic measure is contradictory, unscientific, immoral and illegal.
8. The premise that huge production runs etc. are "cost efficient" is false, because it refers only to perceptions of temporary monetary benefits to special sectors, while transferring real and monetary costs on others through erroneous, or fraudulent accounting.
9. In physics "Mass increases with speed", i.e. to double the speed of a boat,the energy input may have to be squared. The speedup of production also uses inefficient inputs of capital, energy/matter and creates cost transfers on the environment and humanity.
10."For every action there's an equal reaction". Overcapitalized massproduction creates temporary benefits to a few with the distribution of research, development & administration costs, but multiplies transferred costs in inefficient, forced urbanization, pollution, enslavement, health & mental problems, violence, crime, stress, time & capital waste from commuting, taxation, etc. ad infinitum.
11.The "Gross Domestic Product" and "Productivity" are false concepts to permit the accounting of liabilities as assets.
12.Our economic systems are based on the misuse of words, concepts, mathematics and accounting. No sane person wishes to go back to primitivism or musclepower, but there must be new, democratically controlled determination of when, how far and for whose benefit convenience may, or must overrule the concepts of true efficiency within the recovery capacity of the environment and humanity.

Copyright 1991 by Ed Deak,

Continued 6. Measuring

Continued
6. Measuring instruments and parameters must be permanently defined and of constant values, protected by agreements and laws.
7. Monetary value can not be permanently defined. Money is a speculative commodity under special interest control, an asset to the holder and liability to the issuer. It is infinitely and unpredictably variable, with corrupted conversions. Therefore it's use as economic measure is contradictory, unscientific, immoral and illegal.
8. The premise that huge production runs etc. are "cost efficient" is false, because it refers only to perceptions of temporary monetary benefits to special sectors, while transferring real and monetary costs on others through erroneous, or fraudulent accounting.
9. In physics "Mass increases with speed", i.e. to double the speed of a boat,the energy input may have to be squared. The speedup of production also uses inefficient inputs of capital, energy/matter and creates cost transfers on the environment and humanity.
10."For every action there's an equal reaction". Overcapitalized massproduction creates temporary benefits to a few with the distribution of research, development & administration costs, but multiplies transferred costs in inefficient, forced urbanization, pollution, enslavement, health & mental problems, violence, crime, stress, time & capital waste from commuting, taxation, etc. ad infinitum.
11.The "Gross Domestic Product" and "Productivity" are false concepts to permit the accounting of liabilities as assets.
12.Our economic systems are based on the misuse of words, concepts, mathematics and accounting. No sane person wishes to go back to primitivism or musclepower, but there must be new, democratically controlled determination of when, how far and for whose benefit convenience may, or must overrule the concepts of true efficiency within the recovery capacity of the environment and humanity.

Copyright 1991 by Ed Deak,

Bang for the Buck

I had the image some years ago of a "feel Good" outdoor music festival with the audience seated on pedal power generators providing the power.
To read how little one can actually produce and how much input (food and water) required is a reality check. Perhaps, as one "Pedal Power" info site points out and the experiment described above hammers home, the lesson from human power trials is:
"Too little, too late".
That realization could possibly lead us to actually conserve the few gallons of the precious fluid that we have left.
And if a barrel of oil takes more energy to produce and deliver than it can provide?
A) Leave 'er Rite there
-(old saying from summers looking for minerals in B.C. - we got excited when we saw Mallechite, Pyrite or molybdenite but most of the rock samples were called "Leverrite")

B) Wrench it from the earth, cook it till it can be pumped, build massive pipelines and pumps to take it to shipping lanes through rocky inlets and float it to the markets thousands of miles away.

C) Stop and think

Your call

Great Article!

And it is a mistake to assume that the existence of tar sands makes Alberta or Canada exempt from decline.

Tar sands extraction is highly energy intensive with large quantities of natural gas being burnt to extract and process and upgrade the raw bitumen.

fjf

That's not a given. There are other forms of energy that can be used. All that's required is the desire to do so.

Morning Ed

In the time it took for me to grind out my comment you posted a well written and well thought article. Let me guess: You have a bunch of these stored on the "box" and can photoshop them up when the topic is ripe?
I read your stuff regularly and learn a bit here and there. i used to try to look at what we are doing from the viewpoint of a plant - say a big Fir tree:
What are we really doing here?
I (the tree) pump water from the ground and expire it along with some oxygen to the air.
Most years, depending on the climate I grow larger. Now and then I produce offspring or at least a bid for immortality (seed cones).
When the humans wander up to me I shelter them. When they "harvest" me I shelter them again or simply warm them a bit with the energy I have stored

silliness

With current generation of nukes the average westerner uses about a hockey puck chunk of fuel in a lifetime. With the next gen like India's new 500 MW first of 5 for 2020 unit, that is reduced to a few teaspoons.

We in the West are certainly stupid enough - look at the election results - to buy into this claptrap but the Asian's sure as hell aren't and are building current gen and researching next gen nukes as quickly as possible.

So while Western morons will be shortly looking at 25 cent a kwh GHG and pollution spewing wind/solar/gas power, our competitors in Asia will be laughing powered by clean and green zero ghg and environmental footprint nukes at 1.5 cents a kwh. Millions of unnecessary deaths annually from air pollution, massive climate disasters, and bankruptcy for us, all well deserved, the price of stupidity awaits us.

Nikiforuk's Most Prescient Insight

Mr. Nikiforuk has alluded to this concept in his earlier essays. The above article is the unveiling of the full insight.

It bears thinking about. Today, tomorrow, and next week. It will take time to sink in.

But the concept is staggering.

We are warping the laws of nature. Burning oil to drive in a 2,000 lb SUV to the store to buy a loaf of bread is wrong. Full stop.

Burning oil makes us slave masters. Slave masters all begin to mimic the same behaviours. Contempt. Arrogance. Impunity.

This is tied to concepts we used to study: virtue. The good. The just.

All of which are now terribly outdated. So yesterday.

No human society can survive for long in this state.

Nikiforuk has shown how we, the majority, are tied to industry, in a Faustian contract that will poison us all.

This may be one of the most important concepts to reach public discussion in this century. Stunning.

Great article!

Fantastic to see Ivan Illich's ideas getting a wider audience and have Nikiforuk put it into an easy to understand context.

The idea that we (the developed world) are no different than a old-timey royal, carried about on a palanquin, is an important one to consider. I think it's hard for our culture to incorporate this reality with our greatly-loved myth of pioneer self-sufficiency and earned entitlement for our 'stuff'. We really need to ask ourselves just how comfortable we are in perpetuating a system so reliant on the suffering of many propping up the comfort of a few. But, it's sadly true and without acceptance of the fact, any attempts at solutions will be hobbled by public distaste for giving up the energy consumption levels we've come to consider as a normal part of modern life.

Doggone.....What I've

Doggone.....What I've forwarded here is 20 years old and obviously "in the box", in its original form, as it was copyrighted then

Of course, I do repeat myself, because the same problems have been also repeating themselves for thousands of years and so have also their simple solutions, without anybody noticing them.

Now off to town

Cheers, Ed.

Peddled is selling - pedalling is riding a bicycle

And the same for peddlers and peddling - please correct.

Let me get this straight:

Let me get this straight: Approx 6.9 billion folks, of which a very small number have managed to pave-over and sterilize huge tracts of agricultural land, contaminate oceans, pollute the atmosphere, introduce thousands of carcinogens into our food supply, strip-mine the planet of nonrenewable and basic survival resources, mostly because they have had easy access to the energy slaves provided by fossil fuels?

And now that the easy-to-get slave population is about to die from exhaustion, forcing folks to look for a new supply of slaves, there are some that actually maintain a delusional insistence that, if we are smart enough to switch to nuclear slaves, which will allow even more folks to become slave owners, we can carry on destroying the planet much as before?

Do we seriously believe the planet will tolerate 9, 10 or 12 billion folks, and an even greater proportion of energy slave owners destroying resources at an accelerating rate? According to many folks in the life sciences the answer is "NO". We are already in population "overshoot", the abundance of basic survival resources is decreasing and owning nuclear slaves won't change that fact.

KWD

There was a UN report out yesterday that says we'll be up to 10 Billion by 2050.

"Every laptop computer

"Every laptop computer arrives impregnated with 240 kilograms of oil. Like any good slave, oil removes the toil."

240Kg of oil equals 1.75 barrels or about $200 worth of oil. A reference to such a study would be useful to test the accuracy of such a statement. Because laptops start at $250-350. Over half the cost is oil? Or is this a measure of the cost of equivalent energy to make it?

destroying the planet NOT

Since nuke power uses very little resources per kwh, produces a zero environmental footprint, and can replace all petroleum products, we would become a clean and green yet still high energy economy. Just the football field sized current store of nuclear waste is enough to provide all the world's energy needs for a 1000 years using currently available nuclear technology.

Big Oil has employed fascists like Harper, and his allies at Big Green (Pembina, Greenpeace,Suzuki, Sierra) to keep that knowledge and means from you.

ummm no

"Since nuke power uses very little resources per kwh, produces a zero environmental footprint, and can replace all petroleum products,"

I think you've overstated all three benefits, but point number three is so patently false that I have to call you out on it, even though I think we shouldn't discount nuclear options out of hand.

Low information greenies WTF

Well Chris an excellent start on your transformation from a typical low info greenie to a citizen who understands the way to the future and assists society on its way rather than impedes.

"nuke power uses very little resources per kwh, produces a zero environmental footprint"

But prove me wrong it will really help you learn.

"can replace all petroleum products, "

Clue - petrol = Hydrogen + energy + carbon
technology.

Now think - what does nuclear power produce in abundance and where can we get lot's of carbon!!!

Get back to me with your answer.

G West

The UN forecast may come true. I certainly won’t be around to find out. In any event one thing is for certain, in order to reach those numbers, the distribution and abundance of energy slaves and resources will have to change dramatically.

Of course, there’s a simple solution to our population/energy problem that could buy us a lot of time.

If we acknowledge that energy demand is directly proportional to the amount of energy consumed, the easiest way to ensure an adequate supply is to introduce genetically modified humans … ones that consume less energy.

Just think of the benefits of having a GMH that grows to about 3’. The possibilities are unlimited. Our energy demand is virtually cut in half. Housing, transportation, clothing, food, health services, drugs, leisure activities, all of life’s essentials and even our preference of pets will demand we develop a new perspective. The mind boggles :-)

Scarred Old Slaver...

First time I heard the 'energy slave' analogy was at a Thomas Homer Dixon lecture on peak oil a year or two ago - interesting way to frame the discussion...

I would also encourage anyone who has not yet done so, to read Al Bartlett's articles on energy and the looming lack thereof (peak oil). His work is decades old - no one paid any attention for the most part.

Lastly, I have always found it interesting that nature invariably works on the principle of the conservation of energy yet 'modern' industrialized humans proudly operate on the principle of energy profligacy.

You just have to know this won't end well and if you are familiar with Al Bartlett's work, you'll realize the day of reckoning can't be far off.

KWD

I might make it - but I'm not sure there will be enough room for my old bones by that time and, actually, I'm not sure I'd really want to see the UN prediction come true...

I don't think we actually 'need' GMHumans though - we just have to get enough of us to start using the enormous brain that got us into this mess.

You make good points though and, if we'd just stop eating so many calories (especially empty and sugar laced ones) we'd use a lot less energy too.

If exponential population growth were a great way to spur innovation then the third world would be a huge source of invention and practical solutions for the whole world.

And your point about pets is well observed too -

For 2009, it is estimated that $45.4 billion was spent on all pets in the U.S. in these categories:

1. Food…………………………………………….$17.4 billion
2. Supplies/OTC Medicine……..$10.2 billion
3. Vet Care……………………………………………$12.2 billion
4. Live animal purchases…………$ 2.2 billion
5. Pet Services: grooming/boarding .$ 3.4 billion

The Relevance of Cynicism...

Well, it's certain I won't make it. :-)

But scary shit indeed... mostly now, for the fruit of my loins. :-) And they don't. They don't really seem to get it.... though I do catch glimmers sometimes, that maybe...

But again, it's to Old Fait Lux to whom goes the greater insight, in my view:" 12.Our economic systems are based on the misuse of words, concepts, mathematics and accounting. No sane person wishes to go back to primitivism or musclepower, but there must be new, democratically controlled determination of when, how far and for whose benefit convenience may, or must overrule the concepts of true efficiency within the recovery capacity of the environment and humanity."

You keep on repeating yourself Ed. Maybe sooner or later, the critical point will be gotten. :-) Ler's hope.

And good stuff from my old friend, KWD... the cynic.

Why are all of the most serious and insightful critics of the status quo always so cynical? Perhaps for good reason? :-)

It just cannot go on and on here... for much longer. The staggering greed level is mind and logic boggling.

Good article. The old rule

Good article. The old rule is, if it can't go on forever, it won't. James Lovelock (originator of the Gaia hypothesis) doubts there'll be more than 1 billion humans by the end of this century. And given how we behave, the "adjustment" will be by traditional rather than enlightened technologies (famine, war, pestilence .....)

The more fundamental point of the article, and many posts, which I also endorse, is that we've GOT to shift the "framing" of political discussion from improving/maintaining/sustaining "economy," and "growth" etc. to some version of "happiness," "quality of life," "well-being....."

@seth

Maybe you'll find more allies when you don't go straight to the insults when somebody dares question your claims.

"nuke power uses very little resources per kwh, produces a zero environmental footprint"

Unless the nuke fairies make reactors and fuel magically appear where needed, then there's clearly big inputs required to get reactors built, uranium mined, and safely extracted, transported and dealt with in terms of disposal. There's obviously nothing on the planet with a zero environmental footprint. And finally, your contention that we can replace petroleum with nuclear at every turn is simply not true. There must be hundreds of important applications for petroleum where nuclear generated power from the grid wouldn't be an effective substitute.

I've attended two lectures in the past year where acclaimed individuals said nuclear was probably the only solution we have to our current situation. Neither of them made ridiculous claims such as you have done.

Convenient Low-Energy Alternatives

I do a lot of precision electronics and mechanical work (metal machining, etc). This requires good lighting. The lighting is mostly provided by a Coghlan's #0841 0.5 Watt LED headband light of the type shown at http://coghlans.com/products/05-watt-led-headlight-0841

This is similar to the type of headband lights that surgeons use. It would require at least 1,000 Watts of overhead lighting to provide a similar level of useful illumination on the workpiece, and even then there would be shadowing issues to deal with.

Assuming an overall system efficiency of 50%, it would require 2 minutes and 24 seconds per day of pedalling on a stationary bike generator to light the LED for 8 hours a day solid. I turn the light off when I'm not doing precision work so probably less than 30 seconds per day would be plenty. But instead of using a stationary bike generator, it's better to use a commuting type bike with a Bionx (http://www.bionx.ca) hub motor/generator because the bike battery can be charged while running errands. The quick-release bike battery can be brought inside to recharge LED headlight batteries etc. The Bionx is a Canadian designed and manufactured system that is internationally acclaimed as by far the smoothest, most efficient, flexible and reliable bike motor/generator in the world.

The Coghlan's LED headlight is better than others because it has a built-in DC-DC regulator, which makes it work well with NiMH rechargeable batteries. The DC-DC regulator also protects the LED from overvoltage failure when freshly-charged batteries are used. With proper voltage regulation, LEDs can last for up to 40 years. Cheap Dollar-Store LED headlamps last only a few months because the battery voltage is unregulated and excess voltage fries the LEDs. I bought my Coghlan's LED headlamps from the camping supplies area of London Drugs for about $20. They only stock it during summer months. Other vendors are listed on the http://www.coghlans.com website.

It's best to use a battery charger that monitors charge on each individual cell since this type of charger can make rechargeable batteries last for decades instead of months or years. Such chargers are made by Maha and other manufacturers. Some satellites with solar-charged nickel-based batteries have been operational for over 20 years in the harsh space environment.

This is just one example where energy consumption can be massively reduced without inconvenience or loss of standard of living. In every area where large amounts of energy are consumed, practical, convenient, low-energy solutions exist. But there are a lot of corporations and unions making huge amounts of money from the status quo. Both groups will relentlessly lie, cheat, threaten, bully, ridicule, manipulate and bribe to prevent change. Seth is a classic example of this.

LED Headband Counterweight

Forgot to mention. Since the weight is all upfront with many LED Headlamps, it's a good idea to add a counterweight to the back of the headband to prevent the front from sliding down over time. In my case, I added a flashing bike-type red rear light to the back of the headband because that provides extra visibility in traffic at night. The flashing rear light is turned off when indoors of course.

Coghlin's also makes a 1 Watt Headband LED with DC-DC regulator and batteries on the back for better balance. See http://coghlans.com/products/1-watt-led-headlight-0575

I haven't got my hands on one of these 1 Watt devices yet so I can't comment on the reliability. But I expect it would be as good as the 0.5 Watt units which I have used daily for years.

Love it!

"Just think of the benefits of having a GMH that grows to about 3’. The possibilities are unlimited. Our energy demand is virtually cut in half. Housing, transportation, clothing, food, health services, drugs, leisure activities, all of life’s essentials and even our preference of pets will demand we develop a new perspective. The mind boggles :-)"

hahaha!! Of course I'm all for pets over children, but what the hell... 10 billion you say? Yikes, I should make it but I freakin' don't want to so maybe I'll just live it up now while I'm young. There's already so many people around it gives me a massive headache most days.... ;0

"Since nuke power uses very

"Since nuke power uses very little resources per kwh, produces a zero environmental footprint, and can replace all petroleum products, we would become a clean and green yet still high energy economy. Just the football field sized current store of nuclear waste is enough to provide all the world's energy needs for a 1000 years using currently available nuclear technology."

Is the current store of nuclear fuel enough to provide all the energy needs an population that continuesto grow exponentially, aided by nuclear power? We've seen energy use grow in lockstep with population and ever higher standards of "living" for wealthy sectors of society. Switching to nuclear power -even if it could replace all applications of fossil fuel energy- would continue the rise in energy use.

I highly doubt that 1000 year figure accounts for this growth. Even if it does, we simply put off the necessary task of reducing energy use.

In addition, what of the other materials required to build a working nuclear power facility? Even if we take it as a given that the supply of fuel will last a century, what else is needed? These facilities are not exactly simple.

The proponents of nuclear (and assorted other energy sources that can apparently replace petroleum) seem to be in denial of the reality that we have an infrastructure built on the back of fossil fuels. We can't simply plug in a new source of energy and expect things to hum along smoothly. It's been argued that we may be beyond the point of no return for persuing such a strategy. We expect nuclear, or solar, or natural gas, or other assorted energy sources to "save us" from the need curb energy consumption. There limits to growth, and it's in our best interest to recognize them as such.

In regards to Seth's comment

In regards to Seth's comment above, while I am obviously not as well read as he, I do know that the nuclear industry has always banked on claims for the future.

The next generation of nuclear power, always right around the corner, will be safer, cleaner, easier, and will solve all our problems. Nuclear power advocates are always willing to ignore the downsides, or to minimize them by proselytizing about advances that have yet to be realized.

I find it peculiar that you chose to link that Popular Science article, as it contains little in the way of fact and much in the way of speculation:

"DARPA ultimately hopes for portable nuclear reactors that can provide 5 to 10 megawatts of electricity and produce 15,000 gallons of JP-8 or road fuel every day -- about enough fuel to top off a Chinook helicopter a dozen times, according to The Register.

Perhaps the biggest technical challenge is creating such small nuclear reactors in the first place. But at least Microsoft founder Bill Gates and others have already begun backing plans for shrinking nuclear power to portable sizes."

"Hope" is a key word here, along with "challenge" and "plans". At best, nuclear prolongs our situation, again downloading the problem onto generations further and further into the future.

@seth

Yes, yes, blah, blah, salt reactors, thorium, Gen IV on and on. Nuclear may be an option, but it's not the panacea you make it out to be... and the derision you dish out to anyone who dares question your fawning adulation of radiation is a huge reason why your preferred solution will have so much trouble gaining traction. I now remember why I usually just scroll past your comments looking for someone with manners AND intelligence with which to have a productive conversation.

Security + Insurance Cost of Nuclear Reactors?

Seth:

1) What is the true cost of nuclear power if you include the security cost of properly protecting every nuclear reactor against terrorist attacks?

2) What is is the true cost of nuclear power if each reactor is required to carry 100% liability insurance obtained from the private sector instead of having taxpayers cover part of the liability and saying tough luck to most victims as has been done so far?

Liability insurance would have to include not just so-called "Acts of God," but also Acts of War, vandalism, terrorism and any other destructive mechanisms. An act of terrorism is not directly the fault of a reactor builder, but the reactor builder should be liable for it in the same way that an adult is liable for the consequences when they place a loaded gun within reach of a 3-year-old. Yes, I am equating the mental capacity of vandals, megalomaniacs and religious fanatics with the mental capacity of a 3-year-old.

Please don't try to hand us the line that reactor vessels and spent fuel storage ponds are built to withstand a jumbo jet crashing into them. Spent fuel storage ponds are mostly covered with enclosures that are not much stronger than a typical tin garden shed. Reactor domes are supposedly built tough enough to withstand a plane crashing into them. But only if the plane disintegrates upon impact, spreading the impact force over a large area.

Hurricanes have been known to drive straws end-on deeply into telephone poles because all the force is concentrated on a small area. Similarly, if a 30-foot-long steel I-Beam is strapped to a rented Cessna that is flown by remote control and crashed into a nuclear reactor at terminal velocity, the I-Beam will instantly punch through both a concrete containment dome and a reactor vessel like a .44 Magnum round through a skull.

After I pointed this out to other pro-nuclear types on another discussion forum, they didn't deny the physics part of it. But they claimed such a thing could never happen because the U.S. would retaliate by firing their entire nuclear missile arsenal at Iran. I then pointed out that the truck bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building was carried out by Timothy McVeigh, a person of Scottish descent and former member of the U.S. military. I asked the pro-nuclear crowd whether this bombing could have been prevented by threatening to drop nuclear bombs on Edinburgh and the U.S. military unit that McVeigh was formerly part of. They didn't answer. Do you have an answer? If so, let's see it now.

Nuclear Slaves Even Worse Than Oil Slaves

There is indeed information we aren't reminded of about nuclear energy. #1: Once you turn it on, you can't turn it off. Full stop.

Fujukima has demonstrated the fatal Achilles Heel of nukes. The meltdown in Reactor #4 began shortly after the tsunami. It continues to this very minute. They have tried to pour water into the vessell but can't keep it cold enough. So every few weeks they have to pump millions of gallons of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. What a GREAT system.

Spent fuel rods will continue to boil water for thousands of years unless kept in an advanced cooling pen which MUST be maintained for thousands of years. Who on earth will agree to become the Nuclear Preisthood for this long?

Totally insane.

Kudos again to the Tyee and Mr. Nikiforuk.

People are stupid

With all the information that's out there about the finite amount of natural resources we continue to use them as if there's never going to be an end to them. The destruction this causes to our environment and to our health gets ignored by the majority of people. At the same time we rail on about how much we care about kids and grandkids and their future. We'll go to war to defend our way of life even though it's killing us at a slow steady rate. People are too stupid to survive.

Although I haven't bought

Although I haven't bought any for years, as there's nothing interesting in them now, seeking the highest degree of self sufficiency, I still have a large collection of mechanics magazines, going back to the 40s and 50s, with a lot of good "do it yourself" articles, and also wonderful predictions of the future.

According to those predictions, we should have had, many years ago, nuke powered power production so cheap that it wouldn't be worth reading the meters, nuke power in every home, driving everything for the ultimate luxuries of life.

Also, we should by now be be flying in nuke powered airliners for pennies and drive nuke powered vehicles on roads with guiding systems buried in the pavements, doing away with the need of steering and totally avoiding accidents.

We could get on the road, program our nuke powered vehicle where we wanted to go and then read a book, paper, or watch TV, and the road would just take us there in perfect safety.

How about radioactive golf balls, golfers could look for with a Geiger counter, in the grass.

But, a prediction that really came true is a a photo in one of the magazines, showing a Kimono clad Japanese lady in front of a car and a pickup, with the prediction that, because the company was only producing a car a day they're not much of a danger to the US motor industry.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. The photo shows Toyotas.

So much for predictions.

How about when Reagan's first Secretary of the Interior, James Watts, predicted that : "When the last tree is cut, the Lord will return!" , or when Rapture will just yank people out of their cars and houses, straight into heaven.

I hope there's a lot of safe nuclear power in heaven.

Ed Deak.

Nuclear pipe dreams notwithstanding

The UN reported early this week that the Earth is on schedule to be populated by 10 billion humans by 2050.

You can read the report here:
http://tinyurl.com/3zeuv3n

Even if these pessimistic predictions prove untrue and even if the most optimistic projections of the nuclear club pan out (and I am reminded that nearly every nuclear 'dream' seems to have, willy nilly, to have come twinned with a compensatory nightmare) we are still in for a world of trouble.

Cycling Commuter and his Double Standard against Nuclear

Liability Insurance? How about liability insurance for your substitute Carbon Capture & Storage? That’s getting 100% coverage by the Canadian & Alberta gov’t. With Liquid CO2 pipelines (thousands of miles of them) being a Terrorist’s dream come true.

How about the $1B third party liability limit on the A380 – which is basically a targetable small Nuclear Bomb that can be delivered anywhere. 911 proved it can be done with > $50B in direct costs and > $1T in Economic Costs. Why is that OK?

How about your substitute NG power plant which blew up killing 6 and maiming 24 – the company just declared bankruptcy – end of story?

And what about your toxic Mega-Oil Spill Rigs with a liability cap of $85M. At least Nuclear is covered by $20B insurance pool in the USA. Last Gulf Oil spill rig was >$50B in damages, not counting the environmental destruction?

And what about your floating giant bomb LNG tankers – you think they have coverage for wiping out a city?

And why do your Coal, Oil and NG energy sources get to dump their waste into the air, water & land – killing at least 5 million people worldwide every year and much more with a potential Global Warming catastrophe – why do they get 100% liability protection?

And mines create $250M screwups (i.e. Royal Oak) and just split off their profitable assets and then declare bankruptcy - been done many times. 100% taxpayer liability.

Terrorist Attack? Give me a break.

“…Similarly, if a 30-foot-long steel I-Beam is strapped to a rented Cessna that is flown by remote control and crashed into a nuclear reactor…”

What a NUTTY Idea! You wouldn’t get the Cessna off the ground with a 30 foot I-Beam and even if you could it would bounce off of the Containment Dome. And even if by spending $millions and immense planning that could fail in a hundred unpredictable ways, acquiring a sophisticated reinforced concrete & steel penetrating missile you would only get through the outer containment, it would be virtually certain that it would be deflected enough that it would have at best a 5% chance of hitting the small pressure vessel, and then likely being deflected off of that 10 inches of steel. Even if by some miracle you penetrated the pressure vessel – well woopedy-do, radioactive steam would be released into the building, a tiny amount would escape – NOT ONE PERSON OUTSIDE the plant boundaries would be killed. And GenIV reactors aren’t pressurized so there would be virtually no leakage.

Latest intel from Bin Laden, shows they were only interested in simple, GUARANTEED effective plans. Like derailing trains full of deadly chemicals like chlorine, phosgene, ammonia, cyanide to name a few. Just put an obstacle on the rail and kill thousands.

Terrorist attacks? How about terrorists taking a yacht to the Gulf of Mexico with several video guided torpedos. While drinking beers destroy a few of your Blowout preventers, creating several Oil Slicks much larger than the BP Oil spill. No Blowout preventer left to seal, so only way to stop the spills is by drilling dozens of deep wells. Probably >>$1T in damage and the terrorists would be back in Lebanon before anybody knew what happened. And Terrorists have stated hitting Oil & Gas infrastructure is their #1 goal.

Hitting a spent fuel pool would do ZIP. You just have to dump water on them to keep them cool. This is not Fukushima with the entire area infrastructure completely destroyed. And no they DON’T have to be cooled for thousands of years. Their heat output drops off rapidly with time. They can & do put them in dry casks after a few years with just ambient air cooling. Coal & NG gets to dump their radioactive waste into our Air & Water. Zero regulations on that.

No more increase in 'net energy'

Another excellent alarm bell from Andrew Nikiforuk.

Some fun tidbits from the dystopian web site, DieOff.org:

Calculations show that conventional oil production “peaked” in 2005, so it is now physically impossible (thermodynamics) to increase “net energy” as we have in the past.

Calculations show that the market is not efficient! When economists claim the market is “efficient,” they actually mean “the efficient distribution of benefits”— NOT “the efficient use of materials.” In fact, Americans could be wasting something like two billion tonnes (metric tons) of oil equivalent energy per year!

Calculations show that the planet is grossly overpopulated and can only support a billion (or less) when fossil fuels are depleted (in approximately 80 years).

Source: http://dieoff.org/

wood, oil, uranium

Before the Industrial Revolution western society nearly wiped out all the forests in Western Europe as wood was I most important resource. It built sailing ships especially tall straight masts, which we were used for trade and expansion of empires which was needed by our mercantile economies. Wood was used to build much of what we had. But as the Easter Island peoples we were well on our way to destroying our resource (in fact a renewable resource) and majorly screwing ourselves.

Lucky for us along came the Industrial Revolution revolution where after playing around with various forms of energy we ended up figure out the magic of oil. When oil runs out, or more realistically just becomes more and more expensive as what we have left is harder and harder to get at, we will move on to the next resource to abuse.

My guess is it will be nuke. Not because it is the best of our options but because it will seem like a good idea at the time when prices go up and we have not really planned for our future energy.

Now bring on the commodity speculation.

Japan PM calls for nuclear plant shutdown

Late breaking news from Japan. This says it all.

"Japan PM calls for nuclear plant shutdown
Naoto Kan calls for closure of Hamaoka plant, considered at high risk from a powerful earthquake in coming decades."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/05/201156164840824870.html

Food also a factor

I doubt that our population will rise all that much if our food supply decreases because of climate change, which is happening already:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-impacts-staple-crop-yields

You might want to start a vegetable garden, as food prices will keep rising.

antinuke etcetera

@rick
Yup enough nuke waste to fuel the world at with our lifestyle for hundreds of years. After that we have asteroid, the moon, another 1000 years worth of thorium in tailing dumps, lotsa uranium (as common as lead) in undiscovered mines and seawater, and of course anytime now nuclear fusion.

The critical period to get CO2 under control is the next 25 years.

The third world is not going to be reducing energy needs for a long time to come so expect plenty of energy growth for a while.

The Gen IV reactor is really just a big steel tube. Material requirements of 5 minutes output from a car plant.

Point in the PoP Sci article was that synfuels can be made from nuke power not necessarily small reactors. Shell has a giant natural gas to diesel plant in Qatar that could easily be adapted to use nuke hydrogen.

@Jeff

Actually as at TMI there was no pressure vessel damage at all at FukU. Whatever melted down if anything did no damage.

Today's shutdown demand is righteous forcing another inadequately built old Japanese plant to shape up. Never would have been allowed in any Western county.

@west

It's not a dream it's here. Indian version is built and online next year. First of many.

More Easy Terrorist Targets:

Actually, even easier. Get a remote service submersible like are used on Oil Rigs around the World (Iran has lots). Go to the Gulf of Mexico in a yacht. Drop an anti-tank mine (Iran has lots) beside each blowout preventer. Put them all on a timer or remote detonation. Go back to Lebanon. Kabooom! A > two $Trillion Oil Spill which would shutdown Oil Production in the Gulf of Mexico. Cause worldwide panic in Oil Markets. Push the price of Oil to over $150 per barrel.

Another easy Terrorist target. Hydro dams. ZERO LIABILITY insurance. A submerged bomb floated down a river. Remotely detonated and you could destroy an entire city – 10’s of thousands of deaths. Banqiao Dam Failure in China killed over 26,000 people.

So this is the Logic of Andrew, Warbler, Jeffrey, G West & Comm.

Thanks fellows, for spelling out pure Greenie Rationale so everyone can understand:

1) Cheap Energy is absolutely critical for modern industrial civilization, without it the World can only support at most One Billion people.

2) We are running out of Fossil Fuels, which supply 85% of the World’s Cheap Energy.

3) Nuclear can replace Fossil Fuels but it might cause some deaths like Chernobyl (~100 deaths) or “nasty” incidents like Fukushima ( ~0 deaths). Deaths per Twh for Nuclear are the LOWEST for all forms of Energy Production.

So far so good. I can agree with points 1) to 3).

Greenie Conclusion:

We can’t allow Nuclear Energy because there will be some “nasty” Nuclear incidents that might even kill some people or damage the environment some. But we must accept 6 to 9 billion people will be killed due to the lack of cheap Energy. That’s just the way it is – a law of nature so we must just resign ourselves to the inevitable.

Am I the only one who sees the ABSURDITY & GENOCIDAL CRUELTY of the Greenie Logic.

Pardon me?

This is what I wrote:

Nuclear pipe dreams notwithstanding
The UN reported early this week that the Earth is on schedule to be populated by 10 billion humans by 2050.

You can read the report here:
http://tinyurl.com/3zeuv3n

Even if these pessimistic predictions prove untrue and even if the most optimistic projections of the nuclear club pan out (and I am reminded that nearly every nuclear 'dream' seems, willy nilly, to have come twinned with a compensatory nightmare) we are still in for a world of trouble.

I think it's demonstrably true, furthermore, nowhere did I say anything about whether or not I believe in 'nuclear energy' or not.

I simply stated, in a careful and conditional way, that it is unlikely to be the solution to the problems that will clearly go along with a human population of 10 billion souls.

The pipe dream I refer to is the suggestion - which some here seem to be making - that there are any simple and easy solutions to the dilemma we find ourselves in.

So, kindly leave me out of your argument guys.

Cheers.

I am reminded that nearly

I am reminded that nearly every nuclear 'dream' seems, willy nilly, to have come twinned with a compensatory nightmare)

The dream is reality. There is no new tech needed and just Big Oil and corrupt politicians in the way.

What is that nightmare?

Chernobyl? - nuke weapons experiment in a Soviet nuke weapon plant gone bad. Nothing to do with nuke power.

TMI? - no damage other than a wrecked 50's design reactor - caused by corruption.

FuKU? - nobody hurt from the nuke accident caused by a corrupt regulator in a fifties design reactor and damage a tiny fraction of that caused by the Tsunami

None of this possible in a modern reactor and not much of a nightmare.

If the Greenies wacks hadn't have been successful shutting down nukes for coal, and we had kept building nukes oil prices would be $10 a barrel, the air would be clean and nobody would have heard of global warming. Since all food issues can be solved by going vegetarian and by dirt cheap energy, I'm not seeing why 10 billion consumers in a modern world economy is such a big deal.

The " Nuclear Pipe Dream "

"...I am reminded that nearly every nuclear 'dream' seems, willy nilly, to have come twinned with a compensatory nightmare)..."

Yeah, like what nightmare? Do you even understand the logic of Deaths per TWh of Energy?

Deaths per TWh of energy:

Coal: 161
Oil: 36
Biomass: 12
NG: 4
Hydro: 1.4
Wind: 0.15
Nuclear: 0.04

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html

So here is your “Nuclear Pipe Dream”. France:

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf

See the big fat yellow line - that's Nuclear. Notice how much Oil consumption it replaced. So that is what France achieved with a mediocre effort, using an ancient US design LWR. No Factory Production. No modern CAD or CAM. No modern PLC/DCS control systems. Factory production hasn't even been done for Nuclear power yet. And yet they managed to generate half of their Energy Supply with Nuclear in about 15 yrs. This is for a middle wealth nation, with the best health care & social services in the World, one of the most expensive, World Class Militaries in the World, and during the period improved their Standard of Living & productivity much faster than Renewables Germany, and instituted a 4 day, max 35 hr work week with minimum 5 weeks paid vacation – most get 8 weeks. See:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/27/60II/main704571.shtml

Notice how duplicating that modest effort one more time and France would be 100% Green Nuclear Energy. All it needs to do is complete electrification of Transport which it has already started. And use Nuclear synthetic fuels – very simple – Nuclear H2 plus Biomass Carbon = Methanol & DME at ~25 cents per liter equivalent to diesel. Note that this is a 100% transfer of Biomass Carbon to liquid Fuel carbon – the most efficient & greenest way to utilize Biomass.

As a Greenie alternative, let’s check out Germany, the #1 Renewables country in the World – Green Party Heaven, which is always proclaiming but never manages to shutdown its Nuclear Power plants.

Germany, after 100's of $billions in subsidies, and 20 yrs of all out effort:

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DETPES.pdf

See that skinny little red line – that’s their highly hyped Solar, Wind & Geothermal Energy. Any thickening of that red line is matched with a thickening of their NG line that is 5X larger. Notice how #1 anti-Nuclear country Germany, achieved a lot more and a lot quicker with their mundane Nuclear expansion than they have with their all-out, no-holds-barred, mega-subsidy Solar & Wind program.

See how a Nuclear Powered Russian Icebreaker travels at 15 knots for one day through 6 ft of ice on ONE POUND of Uranium. Canada & the USA's diesel powered Icebreakers (they got stuck trying to reach the North pole) cannot do a fraction of that consuming 100 tons of filthy Bunker C every day:

http://tinyurl.com/2doo92y

Some of our issues are policy-driven

There is absolutely no reason why road transport should be so heavily subsidized by the taxpayer for movement of goods, and rail transport, which moves the same weight across the continent only a couple of days more slowly should have to pay full freight plus maintain its own right of way.

I think there are still advantages to rail effiencies per tonne/km over truck as well, though those are smaller than they used to be, and only effectively compared for heavy loads. Consumer goods (the wasteful shit we tend to buy and dispose of 6 months later) are too light to enter into that equation.

That said, due to inefficient taxation, we haven't even started to gain any impetus on making goods transit truly intermmodal.

If only Harper could concentrate his briliant mind on something useful like this, we might start to be able to live in a world better than before, rather than worse.

Cycling Commuter: thanks

Thanks Cycling Commuter for conveying information on practical affordable options.

This is what the average person in the street needs and wants.

Slave analogy unnecessary and incredibly offensive

This was one of the most offensive articles I've read in a long time.

Appropriating the brutal history of slavery not only weakens your argument (which is a shame because it is a compelling argument), but also exemplifies the trend in environmental activism that co-opts marginalized voices and experiences to speak to a largely white, middle-class audience.

These arguments need to be made, but they need to be made in a manner that doesn't further perpetuate marginalization and oppression.

j-dub

I disagee. I think the 'slave' analogy is the perfect metaphor for what is happening in the world today.

He's protesting marginalization and oppression and illustrating how the lifestyles of the top 2 or 3 % 'depend' upon a modern version of slavery.

That's the whole point - he's not into perpetuation - he's into changing the parameters of the whole debate.

If we in the West were not so concerned about 'preserving' our selfish lifestyle at all costs we (and our system) wouldn't attract the kind of criticism we so richly deserve.

Cheers.

Nukes don't change carrying capacity much

Ah yes, nuclear will power those F35 attack planes we will shortly be procuring, as well as those constantly increasing domestic and international flights.

The U.N. population report is problematic (as have been many of their previous population predictions) in that social changes and environmental carrying capacities are not well integrated into the report.

The populations of Yemen, or in the Nile delta and along its river banks, are constrained by more than just energy availability, but food, potable water, health services and other limits. The land and lagging human infrastructure cannot sustain rapidly increasing populations.

Nuclear might help a little there, but would we be comfortable providing Egypt or, worse yet, Yemen or Somalia, with nuclear technologies?

YCSTS: Nuclear-powered icebreaker leaking radiation in Arctic

YCSTS wrote "Nuclear Powered Russian Icebreaker travels at 15 knots for one day through 6 ft of ice..."

Not for long. See:

http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=f7f958d4-db6c-43c4-a369-ccebe0b2b713
Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker leaking radiation in Arctic, forced to abandon mission.

YCSTS: Terrorist Attacks on Nuclear Plants

YCSTS wrote: "You wouldn’t get the Cessna off the ground with a 30 foot I-Beam..."

I didn't specify the cross-sectional dimensions of the I-Beam a terrorist might use. A Cessna could easily get off the ground carrying a 30-foot I-Beam provided the cross-sectional dimensions are small enough to keep the weight under about 2,000 lbs.

If a terrorist was planning on using a rented Cessna as a makeshift cruise missile that was launched from the nearest airstrip, they wouldn't need much fuel onboard. That would allow a substantially heavier payload. Fuel typically consumes much of an aircraft's payload capacity. A remotely-controlled or GPS-guided aircraft wouldn't need a pilot, seats or life support equipment (oxygen tanks etc.), so that's leaves even more payload capacity.

As I pointed out earlier, nuclear reactor domes are designed to withstand an impact from a relatively fragile plane that will disintegrate on impact. They are not designed to withstand something like an I-Beam striking them on-end at terminal velocity. And they are most definitely not designed to withstand the types of makeshift explosively formed penetrator bombs that the Taliban has started using with devastating effect against armoured vehicles in Afghanistan recently.

The Israelis attacked the Osirak reactor in Iraq 30 years ago, after the reactor and dome had been built, but before uranium fuel had been added. They didn't need a B-52 bomber with huge, specialized bunker-buster bombs to do it. They smashed the reactor dome with 2,000 lb Delayed-Action, Mark 84 bombs. These are plain-vanilla, general-purpose, unguided, Vietnam war era bombs costing about $3,000 each.

Since the bombs used were the Delayed-Action type, they didn't explode until after they had smashed through the reactor dome just by sheer weight alone. A Cessna with a minimal amount of fuel onboard and no pilot or passengers can carry a payload of about 2,000 pounds.

Here's a picture of the Osirak reactor dome before it was destroyed:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/static/pictures/resized/136-106/40/40302.jpg

Timothy McVeigh and his three accomplices didn't spend millions of dollars to destroy the Oklahoma city Federal Building. They rented a Ryder truck for a couple of hundred dollars and built a bomb with at most a couple of thousand dollars worth of easily-obtained materials.

A self-contained, AA battery-powered GPS receiver the size of a 36mm film can, accurate to within 2.2 Meters, and with standard Mini-USB plus Wireless Bluetooth outputs can be purchased for $65. Now go to http://maps.google.com then cut and past these coordinates into the search window: 43.810257,-79.070599 Click on Satellite View and zoom in on the green arrow. This will place you at the dead center of one of the Pickering, Ontario nuclear reactor domes.

33.369200,-117.555500 will place you at the center of one of the San Onofre, California reactor domes.

This is all public information.

Nuclear Reactor Domes: Google Satellite Views

Here are one-click links to the Nuclear Reactor Dome Google satellite views mentioned in my previous postings:

Pickering, Ontario Reactor Dome:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=43.810257,-79.070599&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=28.114729,76.640625&ie=UTF8&ll=43.810248,-79.070465&spn=0.00078,0.002339&t=h&z=19

San Onofre, California Reactor Dome:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=33.369200,-117.555500&aq=&sll=43.810248,-79.070465&sspn=0.00078,0.002339&ie=UTF8&ll=33.369245,-117.555449&spn=0.000903,0.002339&t=h&z=19

Again, this is all public information.