エイモリー・ロビンズ：原子力は気候変動を悪化させる

エイモリー・ロビンズ：原子力は気候変動を悪化させる

http://democracynow.jp/video/20080716-2

 タグ: 原子力 温暖化 エネルギー

原子力は気候変動を悪化させる Democracy Now



プロード日: 2011/04/26

解説は "エイモリー・ロビンス：原子力は気候変動を悪化させる"
デモクラシー・ナウ へ
http://democracynow.jp/video/20080716-2
字幕翻訳 ： 桜井まり子 / 校正 ： 関房江
全体監修 ： 中野真紀子

===============================================================

http://democracynow.jp/video/20080716-2

放送日: 2008/7/16(水)

再生時間:

16分

気候変動の顕在化で一刻も早く対策を迫られる中、クリーンなエネルギーとしてさかんに持ち上げられているのが原子力です。今年前半には原油価格が高騰し、石油輸入からの脱却が急務となる中、ブッシュ大統領もマケイン、オバマ両大統領候補も政策が一致したのは原子力発電の拡大でした。「欧米で最も影響力のあるエネルギー問題の思索家」と言われる科学者エイモリー・ロビンズに、この問題について聞きました。
ロビンズによれば、原子力は石油の代替にはなりません。米国では火力発電の主力は石油ではなく石炭ですから、原子力が置き換えるのは石炭です。したがって、安全保障上の利点はありませんが、それでもCO2削減にはよさそうに聞こえます。でも原子力の拡大は、じつは気候変動にも不利だとロビンズは言います。その理由はコストが跳ね上がっていることです。電力消費の効率化やマイクロ発電のような他の温暖化対策に比べてコスト効率が極端に劣るため、より優れた気候対策を差し置いて原子力を拡大することは相対的にマイナスです。
原発がもてはやされているかのように言われるのは、たくみに作られた幻想だとロビンズは言います。原発のコストは風力発電の３倍と、おそろしく不経済なので、民間企業はたとえ補助金がついても原発に投資したがりません。原発を買うのは税金を使う役人だけなのです。
世界全体の原発の能力は2006年に微増しましたが、すべて設備の更新によるものであり、老朽施設の閉鎖が新設を上回ったと言います。 原発の能力増は太陽発電よりも少なく、風力の１０分の１、マイクロ発電の４０分の１でした。この年初めてマイクロ発電が原子力を抜き、世界の発電量の６分の１を占めるようになりました。マイクロ発電が総電力の半分に達する国もあります。世界一原発に熱心な中国でも、2006年末のマイクロ発電の能力は原発の７倍でした。
環境運動家の中にも少数ですが原発推進派がいます。原発はＣＯ２を出さないから、というのが推進の根拠ですが、ロビンズはそれだけではだめだと言います。ＣＯ２を出さない上に、安くて早く実現できるエネルギーが必要なのだと。再生可能エネルギーや省エネはＣＯ２を出さないし、廃熱発電もＣＯ２を出しません。最善の気候対策のためには賢い投資が必要です。年間を通じて有効で、最も経済的な対策は、どうやら身近なところにある省エネ対策のようです。（中野真紀子）
★ ニュースレター第12号（2009.3.25)
★ DVD 2009年度　第1巻 「環境とエネルギー」に収録

英語スクリプトはこちら
 

ゲスト

エイモリー・ロビンズ（Amory Lovins） コロラド州のＮＰＯ「ロッキーマウンテン研究所」の代表。1982年に同研究所を共同設立し、エネルギー・資源問題に関する旺盛な執筆活動をしている。世界8カ国の政府、米国の20の州政府にエネルギー政策を提言してきた。膨大な著作があり、『ソフト・エネルギー・パスから永続的な平和への道』、『ブリトルパワーから現代社会の脆弱性とエネルギー』、『スモール・イズ・プロフィタブル―分散型エネルギーが生む新しい利益』などが邦訳されている。http://www.ecostation.gr.jp/interview/1996/6.html

字幕翻訳：桜井まり子/校正：関房江
全体監修：中野真紀子

===============================================================

===============================================================



http://www.beyondnuclear.org/about/

About Beyond Nuclear

 

Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. The Beyond Nuclear team works with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, government officials, and the media with the critical information necessary to move humanity toward a world beyond nuclear.

  
Contact Beyond Nuclear at:
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400, Takoma Park, MD 20912
Tel: 301.270.2209; Fax: 301.270.4000; Email: info@beyondnuclear.org

 

Our Beyond Nuclear Team

 

THE STAFF

 

Paul Gunter: Director, Reactor Oversight Project

Paul Gunter specializes in reactor hazards and security of operating reactors; prevention of new reactor construction; regulatory oversight; climate change; the nuclear power-nuclear weapons connection; organizing and movement-building; radiation impacts on health; and wildlife impacts. Click on Paul's name to open full bio. And watch Paul Gunter at PowerShift 2009 on the Beyond Nuclear YouTube Channel. paul@beyondnuclear.org. 301.270.2209 x 3.

Kevin Kamps: Radioactive Waste Watchdog
Kevin Kamps specializes in high-level waste management and transportation; new and existing reactors; decommissioning; Congress watch; climate change; federal subsidies.Click on Kevin's name to open full bio. And see Kevin Kamps' 1992 Walk Across America for Mother Earth "Winter Count Poster" and key, documenting the cross country march that introduced him to anti-nuclear activism. A more detailed bio can be found here. kevin@beyondnuclear.org. 301.270.2209 x 1

Cindy Folkers: Radiation and Health Specialist; Administration;
Cindy Folkers specializes in radiation impacts on health; Congress watch; energy legislation; climate change, federal subsidies, and handles the administrative operations of Beyond Nuclear.Click on Cindy's name to open full bio. Cindy Folkers: cindy@beyondnuclear.org. 301.270.2209 x 0

Linda Pentz Gunter: International Specialist; Media and Development Director

Linda Pentz Gunter specializes in international nuclear issues. She also serves as director of media and development. Linda's issue works focuses on the nuclear power-nuclear weapons connection; wildlife impacts; nuclear France; and uranium mining and human rights. Click on Linda's name to open full bio. Linda Gunter: linda@beyondnuclear.org. 301.270.2209 x 2

 

FOUNDING PRESIDENT

Dr. Helen Caldicott. Dr Helen Caldicott, has devoted the last 35 years to an international campaign to educate the public about the medical hazards of the nuclear age and the necessary changes in human behavior to stop environmental destruction. In the U.S. she co-founded the Physicians for Social Responsibility. The international umbrella group (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. She also founded the Women's Action for Nuclear Disarmament (WAND and now known as Women's Action for New Direction) in the US in 1980. She is the author of numerous books and currently hosts a radio show in the U.S. - If You Love This Planet.

 

HONORARY CHAIRMAN

Ed Asner. Edward Asner. Ed is an American film and television actor and former President of the Screen Actors Guild, primarily known for his role asLLou Grant on the Mary Tyler Moore Show and its spin-off series, Lou Grant. More recently, he provided the voice of Carl in Up and continues to tour in live theater productions.

THE BOARD

Kay Drey (St. Louis, MO; anti-nuclear activist). Kay Drey, now retired, has worked for 30 years as an advocate for the protection of the general public, workers and the environment from the hazards of nuclear power and radioactive waste. She made her first speech against nuclear power on November 13, 1974 before a Missouri State Senate committee and today still conducts research and maintains a comprehensive library used by media, government officials and members of the public.

Lou Friedman (Canton, CT; consultant; peace and environment). Lou Friedman's 20 years in secondary education culminated as the Director of an alternative multi-cultural high school. He has worked for 35 years since as a consultant, facilitator, producer and press coordinator in international environmental and peace organizations such as Promoting Enduring Peace, EarthKind, EKTAS, Int'l. (Russia), PACE (Peoples Action for Clean Energy) and Beyond Nuclear. He has an MAT from Yale University.

Karl Grossman(Sag Harbor, NY; professor and journalist). Karl teaches at the State University of New York/College at Old Wesbury. He has been writing and making television programs about nuclear technology since 1974. His books include: Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power and his television documentaries include Three Mile Island Revisited and The Push to Revive Nuclear Power.

Judith Johnsrud, Ph.D. (State College, PA; radiation and nuclear power specialist). Judith's many decades of activism include work on: the geography of nuclear energy; its entire system of production, utilization, and waste isolation; radiation impacts on humans and the environment; and the problems of sequestration of "high-level," "low-level," and recycled radioactive wastes.

Judith Kaufman (Cornish, NH; community development consultant, antinuclear activist). Judith Kaufman's environmental activism started with her work with the Upper Valley Energy Coalition and the Clamshell Alliance in 1976. She has since worked with coalitions of activists fighting regional plant and waste siting and relicensing of nuclear plants in Northern New England. As a professional, she launched the now largest microlending program in Kazakhstan - a nuclear weapons-free zone.

LAUNCH PARTNERS

Ed Asner, Ed Begley,Jr., Christie Brinkley, Susan Clark, David Cortright, James Cromwell, Judi Friedman, Keith Gunter, Joan MacIntosh, Friedrike Merck, John McEnroe, Bonnie Raitt, Susan Sarandon, Marilyn Strong, Steven Strong, Paul Winter, Gretchen Wyler (1932-2007).

For more about Beyond Nuclear, read our general organizational pamphlet.

Annual Reports

2011 Annual Report

2010 Annual Report

Beyond Nuclear is a member of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, the Apollo Alliance, the Campaign for a Nuclear-Weapons Free World and the French network, Sortir du Nucleaire. Beyond Nuclear is on the Advisory Board of the Environmental Media Association and works in coalition with hundreds of groups and thousands of individuals around the world.

Copyright © 2009, Beyond Nuclear. All rights reserved.

===============================================================

"Nuclear Power: Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive" -- Enviro Close-Up with Karl



 アップロード日: 2010/08/08

Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear explodes the myths now being promulgated by those promoting nuclear power. He tells of the insoluble problems of nuclear waste, how nuclear power plants routinely emit radioactive poisons, how catastrophic accidents can happen, how nuclear power plants are pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction for terrorists, and the enormously high costs of nuclear power. He exposes that nuclear power does not contribute to global warming.

 

カテゴリ
非営利団体と社会活動

===============================================================

Fukushima...radiation so high - even robots not safe



公開日: 2012/03/30

Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear joins Thom Hartmann. More than a year into the nuclear crisis at Fukushima - radiation levels have now reached their highest point yet. What does all this mean - and what should nuclear supporters in America be taking away from the continuing crisis?

カテゴリ
ニュースと政治

===============================================================

===============================================================



http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html

Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power

The nuclear industry seeks to revitalize itself by manipulating the public’s concerns about global warming and energy insecurity to promote nuclear power as a clean and safe way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on foreign energy resources. Despite these claims by industry proponents, a thorough examination of the full life-cycle of nuclear power generation reveals nuclear power to be a dirty, dangerous and expensive form of energy that poses serious risks to human health, national security and U.S. taxpayers.

Nuclear Power is Dirty

Each year, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process, including 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste(1) and 12 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste(2) in the U.S. alone. More than 58,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel already has accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there currently is no permanent repository. Even without new nuclear production, the inventory of commercial spent fuel in the U.S. already exceeds the 63,000 metric ton statutory capacity of the controversial Yucca Mountain repository, which has yet to receive a license to operate. Even if Yucca Mountain is licensed, the Department of Energy has stated that it would not open before 2017.

Uranium, which must be removed from the ground, is used to fuel nuclear reactors. Uranium mining, which creates serious health and environmental problems, has disproportionately impacted indigenous people because much of the world’s uranium is located under indigenous land. Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases. The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates approximately 100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and nearly one million gallons of liquid waste containing heavy metals and arsenic in addition to radioactivity.(3) These uranium tailings have contaminated rivers and lakes. A new method of uranium mining, known as in-situ leaching, does not produce tailings but it does threaten contamination of groundwater water supplies.

 

Serious Safety Concerns

Despite proponents’ claims that it is safe, the history of nuclear energy is marked by a number of disasters and near disasters. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine is one of the most frightening examples of the potentially catastrophic consequences of a nuclear accident. An estimated 220,000 people were displaced from their homes, and the radioactive fallout from the accident made 4,440 square kilometers of agricultural land and 6,820 square kilometers of forests in Belarus and Ukraine unusable. It is extremely difficult to get accurate information about the health effects from Chernobyl. Government agencies in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus estimate that about 25,000 of the 600,000 involved in fire-fighting and clean up operations have died so far because of radiation exposure from the accident.(4) According to an April 2006 report commissioned by the European Greens for the European Parliament, there will be an additional 30,000 to 60,000 fatal cancer deaths worldwide from the accident.(5)

In 1979, the United States had its own disaster following an accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor in Pennsylvania. Although there were no immediate deaths, the incident had serious health consequences for the surrounding area. A 1997 study found that those people living downwind of the reactor at the time of the event were two to ten times more likely to contract lung cancer or leukemia than those living upwind of the radioactive fallout.(6) The dangers of nuclear power have been underscored more recently by the close call of a catastrophic meltdown at the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio in 2002, which in the years preceding the incident had received a near-perfect safety score.(3)

Climate change may further increase the risk of nuclear accidents. Heat waves, which are expected to become more frequent and intense as a result of global warming, can force the shut down or the power output reduction of reactors. During the 2006 heat wave, reactors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as in France, Spain and Germany, were impacted. The European heat wave in the summer of 2003 caused cooling problems at French reactors that forced engineers to tell the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country’s 58 nuclear power reactors.(3)

 

Proliferation, Loose Nukes and Terrorism

The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is arguably the greatest danger of nuclear power. The same process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel also can be employed for the production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. As it has in the past, expansion of nuclear power could lead to an increase in the number of both nuclear weapons states and ‘threshold’ nuclear states that could quickly produce weapons by utilizing facilities and materials from their ‘civil’ nuclear programs a scenario many fear may be playing out in Iran. Expanded use of nuclear power would increase the risk that commercial nuclear technology will be used to construct clandestine weapons facilities, as was done by Pakistan.

In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. Plutonium, which is found only in extremely small quantities in nature, is produced in nuclear reactors. Reprocessing spent fuel to separate plutonium from the highly radioactive barrier in spent fuel rods, as is being proposed as a ‘waste solution’ under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, increases the risk that the plutonium can be diverted or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons or radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs. Reprocessing is also the most polluting part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The reprocessing facility in France, La Hague, is the world’s largest anthropogenic source of radioactivity and its releases have been found in the Arctic Circle.

In addition to the threat of nuclear materials, nuclear reactors are themselves potential terrorist targets. Nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand attacks using large aircraft, such as those used on the September 11, 2001.(7) A well-coordinated attack could have severe consequences for human health and the environment. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a major attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, New York, could result in 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the reactor.(8)

 

Nuclear Power Doesn’t Mean Energy Independence

Assertions that nuclear power can lead us to energy independence are incorrect. In 2007, more than 90 percent of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear power reactors was imported.(9) The U.S. only has the ninth largest reasonably assured uranium resources in the world.(10) Most of it is low to medium grade, which is not only more polluting but also less economical than uranium found in other nations. The U.S.’s high-priced uranium resources and world uranium price volatility mean that current dependence on foreign sources of uranium is not likely to change significantly in the future.

One country that the U.S. continues to rely on for uranium is Russia. The Continuing Resolution signed into law in September 2008 extended and expanded the program to import Russian highly enriched uranium that has been down-blended for use in U.S. commercial reactors. This program, which was set to expire in 2013, has been extended through 2020 and expanded to allow more uranium imports per year from Russia. While the program is an important non-proliferation measure (highly enriched uranium can be used to make a nuclear weapon), it means that the U.S. will continue to rely on Russia for a significant amount of uranium for commercial nuclear reactors.

 

Nuclear is Expensive

In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss promised that the nuclear industry would one day provide energy “too cheap to meter.”(5) More than 50 years and tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive. Even among the business and financial communities, it is widely accepted that nuclear power would not be economically viable without government support.(11) Despite this poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more than $13 billion in production subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives for nuclear power.

The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is “very high well above 50 percent.”(12) The nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion.

 

Making the Safe, Sustainable Investment

It is clear that alternatives to fossil fuels must be developed on a large scale. However, nuclear power is neither renewable nor clean and therefore not a wise option. Even if one were to disregard the waste problems, safety risks and dismal economics, nuclear power is both too slow and too limited a solution to global warming and energy insecurity. Given the urgent need to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the long lead times required for the design, permitting and construction of nuclear reactors render nuclear power an ineffective option for addressing global warming.

Taxpayer dollars would be better spent on increasing energy conservation, efficiency and developing renewable energy resources. In fact, numerous studies have shown that improving energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and sustainable way to concurrently reduce energy demand and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Wind power already is less expensive than nuclear power. And while photovoltaic power is currently more expensive than nuclear energy, the price of electricity produced by the sun, as with wind and other forms of renewable energy, is falling quickly. Conversely, the cost of nuclear power is rising.(3,11)

When the very serious risk of accidents, proliferation, terrorism and nuclear war are considered, it is clear that investment in nuclear power as a climate change solution is not only misguided, but also highly dangerous. As we look for solutions to the dual threats of global warming and energy insecurity, we should focus our efforts on improving energy conservation and efficiency and expanding the use of safe, clean renewable forms of energy to build a new energy future for the nation.

 

Call the Capital Switch Board (1-202-224-3121) to ask for your Congressional Representative and your Senators and urge them to oppose subsidies to the dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear industry.

(PDF version)
_______________________________

Endnotes

1 Andrews A. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Locations and Inventory. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RS22001, Dec. 21, 2004. Available at: http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/04dec/RS22001.pdf.
2 General Accounting Office (GAO). Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Disposal Availability Adequate in the Short Term, but Oversight Needed to Identify Any Future Shortfalls. GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, June 2004. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04604.pdf
3 World Information Service on Energy (WISE), Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS). Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change. Nuclear Monitor, Feb. 2005. Available at: http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf.
4 Chornobyl.info. “Overview of health consequences”. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. http://www.Chornobyl.info/index.php?userhash=10786534&navID=21&lID=2#Sources
5 http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/default/dok/118/118729.the_other_report_on_chernobyl_torch@en.htm
6 Wing S, Richardson D, Armstrong D, Crawford-Brown D. A Reevaluation of Cancer Incidence Near the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant: the Collision of Evidence and Assumptions. Environ Health Perspect (1997); 105: 53-57.
7 Behrens B, Holt M. Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RS21131, Feb. 4, 2005. Available at: http://www.vnf.com/security/rs21131.pdf.
8 Lyman, Edwin. Chernobyl on the Hudson? The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian Point Nuclear Plant. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004. Available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/impacts-of-a-terrorist-attack-at-indian-point-nuclear-power-plant.html.
9 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/table3.html
10 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
11 Scully Capital Services, Inc. Business Case for New Nuclear Power Plants. Report prepared for the Department of Energy (DOE), 2002. Available at: http://www.nuclear.gov/home/bc/businesscase.html.
12 Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of S.14, Energy Policy Act of 2003, ftp://ftp.cbo.gov/42xx/doc4206/s14.pdf

PDF Version

Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.

- Martin Luther King, Jr

Physicians for Social Responsibility
1111 14th St, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202.667.4260 Fax: 202.667.4201

All content © Copyright 2009 All rights reserved.

===============================================================

http://healutah.org/what/energypolicy/nuclearpower/chipward

Healthy Environment ALliance of Utah

Why Nuclear Power is Not an Energy Solution for Global Warming

If you’ve seen those television commercials for Energy Solutions (they were Envirocare before the extreme makeover) that show endangered tree frogs crawling across the corporate logo, you may have already guessed that Energy Solutions is to tree frogs what Donald Trump is to salamanders - that is, there is no relationship beyond the contrived imaginings of the advertising agency that Energy solutions pays to come up with such nonsense. Nevertheless, the claim that nuclear power is an “energy solution” for the global climate crisis we are now experiencing is worth examining because it is being made by the nuclear industry’s political lobbyists and PR operatives across the nation and is now being echoed by the politicians who are in the industry’s pocket. Even clueless car dealers who own unpronounceable arenas, basketball teams, racetracks, and faux-Mayan restaurants are joining the chorus calling for more nukes to combat global warming.
So let’s look at the facts. The industry’s reps are right on one point: nuclear reactors themselves do not directly emit greenhouse gasses that contribute to global climate change. That good news should be tempered by the fact that the “emissions” from those reactors take the form of extremely radioactive waste that is dangerous for tens of thousands of years, is also dangerous to transport, is an obvious target for terrorists, can be used to make “dirty bombs,” and is endlessly expensive to endlessly manage. In Utah we are very familiar with the intractable problems from nuclear power’s waste stream and the troubling politics of ‘pass the radioactive hot potato’ that go with it. But let’s be generous and concede that although small amounts of radiation are emitted from nuclear reactors, no greenhouse gasses are emitted.
Nuclear power generation, however, requires so much more than just what happens in the reactor alone. The raw material for nuclear power is uranium. Uranium must be located and mined, transported and milled, and then further processed into useable fuel. At every step along the way, energy is consumed and emissions that are indeed greenhouse gases are released. At one time, for example, four dirty coal-fired power plants were operated exclusively to electrify the uranium enrichment plants at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio.
Nuclear power is infrastructure intensive. Nuke power plants come in one size – extra large – and massive construction projects also burn up fossil fuel and spew CO2 as trucks, bulldozers, cranes, etc. do their thing. Nuclear power plants require massive amounts of materials, of course, and the steel comes from smoky steel furnaces and iron ore that is also mined by pollution-belching machinery. Cement, lead, and other reactor materials also result in CO2 emissions as they are produced. Then there is building an infrastructure for the waste – the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, which is looking very doubtful these days, was slated to be the largest single construction project in history and the machinery and materials used to build it also contribute to global warming.
Recent research highlighted in the prestigious British journal, The Ecologist, estimates that when the entire production cycle is accounted for, nuclear power emits less greenhouse gas than burning coal but far more than alternatives like wind, solar, and conservation. For every unit of uranium recovered, the study concluded, 20 units of CO2 are produced. So much for saving the planet from greenhouse gasses. Suggesting, as the industry does, that we assess the global warming impact of nuclear power based on reactor emissions alone, then, is profoundly misleading. This comes as no surprise – the industry has a long history of misrepresenting its dangers, its costs, and its potential. This was the energy solution that we were told in the 1950’s would be so cheap it wouldn’t be worth metering.
What about reprocessing the high-level radioactive waste into fresh fuel and skipping that dirty uranium mining and milling cycle altogether? That, after all, is what Energy Solutions would like to be all about. And that is how nuclear power was supposed to work when it was sold to us the first time back in the 50’s and 60’s. But the one commercial attempt at reprocessing was a financial and environmental disaster that went belly up after just six years, leaving U.S. taxpayers with a whopping $5 billion clean-up that has yet to be completed. Reprocessing facilities in France and England are responsible for about 90 percent of “routine radiation emissions” for their entire nuclear fuel chain – by far the dirtiest component of nuclear power generation. As a result of reprocessing in England, about a thousand pounds of plutonium were discharged into the Irish Sea, making it one of the most radioactive bodies of water on Earth. Plutonium from reprocessing facilities has been detected in the teeth of children hundreds of miles away and has spread as far as the Canadian Arctic.
So-called “breeder reactors” were supposed to produce plutonium that could be used for fuel in other non-breeder reactors, thus making nuclear power self-sustaining. Aside from three breeder reactors built abroad, two of which are no longer active and one of which never “bred,” and a breeder reactor built in Michigan that experienced a partial meltdown in 1966, breeder reactors were not constructed because they are potentially more catastrophic than your run-of-the-mill Three Mile Island or Chernobyl reactors. They are also much more expensive to build. A new generation of breeder reactors and new “light-water” nuclear reactors are imagined but could be twenty years or more in development if they are ever perfectible and affordable at all - too late to make a difference in global warming.
When America walked away from breeders and reprocessing in the 70’s, too many workers involved in reprocessing the fuel had become sick. Unfortunately for the proponents of nuclear power, the technical problems involved in “recycling” nuclear fuel are too complex, too expensive, and too dangerous. Energy Solutions boasts it is the leader in a new quest to successfully reprocess nuclear waste. Given the thoroughly disappointing and wishful history of reprocessing so far, this is a bit like being on the cutting edge of alchemy during the Middle Ages. Or maybe there is just money to be made selling wishful thinking to those who are desperate for a solution and in denial about the unlikelihood of ever realizing one. Energy Solutions or energy delusions?
When President Carter, a former nuclear submarine commander, ruled out reprocessing for America, he sited the danger that the by-products of reprocessing could be used to fashion nuclear warheads. In fact, every new nation that has recently acquired nuclear weaponry or is about to do so, including North Korea, Iran, India, and Pakistan, have relied on the by-products of nuclear power generation to produce nuclear weaponry. The danger of terrorists using nuclear power by-products is also very real. Although the problem of nuclear proliferation and terrorism can be regarded separately from the question of whether nuclear power can ease global warming, a world that is experiencing climate chaos and the ensuing displacement of refugees and competition for viable habitat, should not also be awash in nuclear weapons. A nuclear exchange will not be an “energy solution” to global warming. Reprocessing nuclear fuel is the pipe dream Energy Solutions is smoking – saner minds just say no.
Uranium is finite and world supplies are decreasing while prices and competition for access increase, especially for high-grade ore that does not require more in expenditures of energy than the energy it contains. Without reprocessing as a realistic option, dwindling supplies of uranium could raise the same tragic dynamic that is fueling war for access to oil at the end of the fossil fuel epoch. The inevitable scarcity of uranium would be accelerated if the world decided to build the thousands of nuclear power plants that would have to be built to make a dent in global warming. Do we want to burn all that fossil fuel as described above to build an energy production system that is likely to become as vulnerable and unreliable as an oil pipeline through the Middle East is today?
Nuclear power plants would be vulnerable not only to fuel scarcity and disruption, but to terrorism and to global warming itself. Severe weather would make nuclear power plants too dangerous to operate and reactors would be shut down in the face of hurricanes, floods, and even droughts and heat waves.
Nuclear energy is terribly expensive. To make a difference in global climate change, we would have to immediately build as many nuclear power plants as we already have in the U.S. (about 100) and at least as many as 2000 worldwide. A massive investment would have to be made immediately. Wall Street won’t invest in nuclear power because it is too risky, even though the industry is shielded from liability by the Price Anderson Act (yep, you guessed it – if a reactor melts down, taxpayer have to cover most of the costs). The partial meltdown at Three Mile Island taught investment bankers how a two billion dollar investment can turn into a billion dollar clean-up in under two hours. Since the private sector cannot and will not generate the capital for such an expensive undertaking and will not tolerate the risks, the taxpayer would have to foot the bill. Gosh, do you think there might be cost overruns? Do you think this could be done on schedule (so far, the Yucca nuclear waste repository is 20 years behind schedule)?
Then there is the time factor. Even under the most ideal scenario, a doubled nuclear power infrastructure would take decades to build - too late to make a difference in climate change. Globally, to build the 2000 nuclear reactors that expert studies say would make a difference in climate change, four reactors would have to be built per month between 2010 and 2050. Also, a Yucca-sized dump would be needed every three to four years. Is this reasonable and realistic? In the time it would take to build enough reactors and dumps, we could cover the globe with windmills and solar panels, put everyone in China in a Prius, and find scores of new ways to conserve or create energy. And the money we spend to build new nukes would mean less money to develop wind and solar or to conserve the energy that we now waste - solutions to our energy woes that would make a difference much sooner than later (to learn how we could cut global warming emissions in half through efficiency and clean energy, check out the executive summary of the National Resources Defense Council’s “Responsible Energy Plan for America” at http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/rep/execsum.asp).
Where would all those new reactors go and how would they get there? Communities are not lining up to have nuclear power plants built in their neighborhoods. Building so many new reactors would require a widespread suspension of civil rights and democratic practices. Communities and citizens would have to get out of the way – they couldn’t be allowed to resist or sue if they believed their health or property interests were endangered. That pesky, if anemic, public participation process for locating new nukes would have to be scrapped altogether. Un-elected, inaccessible, and distant bureaucrats would have to be given the power to overrule the locals and fast-track the construction of new plants. Nuclear power is a technology that is better suited to authoritarian regimes than democratic cultures, which is why you can build a reactor in North Korea or Iran more easily than you can put one up in California. We shouldn’t have to burn-up the Constitution to get clean energy.
Nuclear power is an energy solution only if the problem you are solving is how to make big profits from the potentially catastrophic global crisis we find ourselves in. Billions of federal tax dollars for research into reprocessing added to billions to bury the waste in environmental sacrifice zones like Utah’s West Desert will solve the problem of Energy Solutions’ investors – how to cash in on the public’s fear of global climate change and their willingness to invest in solutions? But if you are looking to actually alleviate global warming, nuclear power is no solution at all. It is a shill, snake oil, a cruel joke with unwanted consequences - and those Energy Solutions advertisements are as shameless as they are baseless. And, fortunately, most of us sense that. The only person buying the Energy Solutions pitch, it seems, is Larry Miller, a used-car salesman who should recognize a lemon when he sees one.

Chip Ward
January, 2007

© HEAL Utah

===============================================================


===============================================================

Amory Lovins: Congressional testimony on energy solutions 



アップロード日: 2008/03/12

Energy expert Amory Lovins, Chair & Chief Scientist for the Rocky Mountain Institute testifies before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming about the danger of relying on nuclear energy as a solution to global warming.

カテゴリ
ニュースと政治

===============================================================

TEDxRainier - Amory Lovins - Reinventing Fire



アップロード日: 2012/01/04

Amory Lovins shows how the U.S. can run a 2.6x-bigger 2050 economy with no oil, coal, or nuclear energy, $5 trillion cheaper, with no Act of Congress, led by business for profit.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

カテゴリ
科学と技術

===============================================================

Amory Lovins: A 40-year plan for energy 
 

公開日: 2012/05/01

http://www.ted.com In this intimate talk filmed at TED's offices, energy theorist Amory Lovins lays out the steps we must take to end the world's dependence on oil (before we run out). Some changes are already happening -- like lighter-weight cars and smarter trucks -- but some require a bigger vision.

TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at http://www.ted.com/translate

If you have questions or comments about this or other TED videos, please go to http://support.ted.com
 

カテゴリ
科学と技術
 

===============================================================

Amory Lovins 



アップロード日: 2009/11/05

The cofounder, chairman and chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute opens the Dean's Duke and Environment Society Lecture Series with "Profitable Solutions for Climate, Oil and Proliferation" to a standing-room-only crowd.

カテゴリ
教育

===============================================================

Technology Management Program UCSB: Energy Summit 2007



アップロード日: 2008/02/07

This conference on Emerging Energies Technologies takes an unbiased look at how the United States can make the transition from dependency on carbon-based fuels to a sustainable alternative fuels-based future. In this program, Paul Roberts, author of The End of Oil and Amory Bloch Lovins, author of Winning the Oil Endgame, give the plenary addresses. Series: Technology Management Program [10/2007] [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 13285]

カテゴリ
教育
 

===============================================================

Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution 



アップロード日: 2008/12/04

Amory Lovins is Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute. Lovins is active in crafting policy around the world in the fields of energy, resource, environmental development, and security, chiefly in the private sector. Series: UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures [12/2008] [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 15123]

カテゴリ
教育

===============================================================

URI Fall 2001 Honors Colloquium: Amory Lovins (Part 1)



公開日: 2013/02/28

Amory Lovins gives his presentation, 'Living with Brownouts and Blackouts, or Creating a Sustainable Energy Policy', at the Fall 2001 Honors Colloquium. Part 1 of 3.

カテゴリ
教育

===============================================================

URI Fall 2001 Honors Colloquium: Amory Lovins (Part 2) 



公開日: 2013/02/28

Amory Lovins gives his presentation, 'Living with Brownouts and Blackouts, or Creating a Sustainable Energy Policy', at the Fall 2001 Honors Colloquium. Part 2 of 3

 

===============================================================

URI Fall 2001 Honors Colloquium: Amory Lovins (Part 3) 



公開日: 2013/02/28

Amory Lovins gives his presentation, 'Living with Brownouts and Blackouts, or Creating a Sustainable Energy Policy', at the Fall 2001 Honors Colloquium. Part 3 of 3

 

===============================================================

Amory Lovins on Energy Efficiency 



アップロード日: 2009/06/02

About this Event
08 May 2009
http://www.iiea.com/events/amory-lovi...

Profitable, Business-led solutions to oil, climate and proliferation

About the Speech:

Mr Lovins, demonstrated how Energy Efficiency and Climate Protection can create jobs, profits and a comparative advantage for Irish business moving forward.

About the Speaker:

Amory Lovins is Founder and Chief Scientist with the Rocky Mountatin Institute

please view for more:
http://www.iiea.com/

カテゴリ
ニュースと政治

===============================================================

Conversations with History - Amory Lovins 



アップロード日: 2008/11/03

"Natural Capitalism"
Amory Lovins
Cofounder, Chairman and Chief Scientist, Rocky Mountain Institute

Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes Amory Lovins for a discussion of Natural Capitalism ( http://www.natcap.org/ ). Lovins explains the origins and mission of Rocky Mountain Institute ( http://www.rmi.org/ ) and analyzes the opportunities and benefits of using the profit motive to redesign the relationship between the environment and capitalism. Drawing on his thirty year career as an innovator/consultant/scientist,he analyzes the mechanisms by which ideas can impact business practice and government policy with the goal of sustaining the environment.

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/iis/...
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conv...

Recorded 28 October 2008

カテゴリ
教育
 

===============================================================

Amory B Lovins Receives The Volvo Environment Prize


アップロード日: 2009/04/10

At a ceremony in Stockholm November 1st, Amory B. Lovins, chief scientist of RMI, received the Volvo Environment Prize, awarded for outstanding contribution to understanding or protecting the environment through scientific, socio-economic or technological innovation or discoveries of global or regional importance.

カテゴリ
教育

===============================================================