Amory Lovins: energy visionary sees renewables revolution in full swing

[kristopher]

Amory Lovins: energy visionary sees renewables revolution in full swing
From the Hypercar to home insulation, the early visions of the influential physicist are becoming a reality
John Vidal
theguardian.com, Monday 17 February 2014 10.26 EST


Amory Lovins on a visit to the Caribbean, where he is working to help island states wean themselves off expensive diesel-generated electricity. Photograph: Jenny Bates


Amory Lovins last year harvested from his small garden more than 30 pounds of bananas, along with guava, mango, papaya, loquat, passion and other exotic fruit. Nothing remarkable in that, except that the energy analyst and chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) does not live in the tropics but in an unheated house 6,500 feet up a mountain near Aspen, Colorado, where the temperature falls to -44C and where last week more than two feet of snow fell in less than 24 hours.

The fruit is grown in a greenhouse that is part of the sprawling, experimental, super-insulated house at Old Snowmass, built 30 years ago for $500,000 (£300,000) and an inspiration for a generation of energy thinkers, designers and sustainable builders. Visited by 100,000 people, it was the archetype for the European Passivhaus movement.

"Heating systems are so 20th century," he says. "We have found you actually save money by not putting in a heating system. It's cheaper. The monitoring system uses more energy than the lights."

On a visit to the Caribbean where the RMI is working with Carbon War Room NGO to help island states wean themselves off expensive diesel-generated electricity, Lovins recalls a visit in the mid-1980s from the originators of the Passivhaus idea, Bo Adamson of Sweden and Wolfgang Feist from Germany. "They realised that you could make heating systems far smaller but they hadn't realised that you could save energy by eliminating the heating kit completely."

Lovins has always maintained...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/17/amory-lovins-renewable-energy

[madokie]

1. I would venture to say that Lovins

has done more to cut down on the amount of CO2 spewed into our atmosphere than any other one person.
I've read a lot about him working with a lot of companies helping them to cut down on their carbon foot print.
Some of his earlier writings encouraged me to take the steps I've taken to lessen my carbon foot print too. Its something that we all can do and actually save money in the process and its pretty painless to boot.

[diane in sf]

2. I love the book he, Hunter Lovins, and Paul Hawken wrote, Natural Capitalism.

It's been my guiding light since it was first published in 1999. My earlier light in this direction was Buckminster Fuller, who reasoned that by the 70s we had enough technical know how to adequately feed, clothe, house, and educate everyone on earth without trashing the planet. In fact we could help heal it. The forces of capital concentration and 19th century industries that don't want to die are attempting to stand in the way (eg. oil companies, nukes, koch roaches), but economics and ecology will eventually shove them aside.

[cprise]

3. "Natural Capitalism" is roadkill, circa 2000

...or an oxymoron. Take your pick.

For reference of what can happen to a capitalist system that tentatively "accepts" sustainability, see "Al Gore, 200 presidential election". The corporate media unanimously sneered (even snarled) at Gore, standard-bearer for the "Natural Caplitalism" concept, and swept the vote fraud under the rug (with a repeat performance in 2004, no less).

Now capitalism--'natural' or not--is referred to as 'Late Capitalism' by just about any scholar or analyst with an ounce of critical thought left in their grey matter. Personal responsibility doesn't exist for the money-changers at the top, and what the plutocrats say...goes; They are extremely good at finding pretexts and manipulating people to turn against any form of democratic, distributed power.

If I seem off-base to you, just look at what they have done to the justice system (20% of adults pushed through the jails) what they're doing to public education (turning it over to McSchools). If you traveled back in time 40 years and described these trends people would have thought your were MAD.

[kristopher]

4. What does any of that have to do with the economics of natural capitalism?

And how you come to the conclusion that the 2000 election was a statement on the merits of the concept is simply incomprehensible.

[cprise]

5. The capitalists revolted

...after having 8 years of pro-capital, pro-environment Clinton/Gore government. The concept of 'Natural Capitalism' places too much faith and power in the capitalists, allowing them to make the judgements. They decisively moved to gut all forms of regulation, reducing them to an after-image maintained by revolving-door regulators and CSR Public Relations departments.

You show me how 'Natural Capitalism' fundamentally cuts the capitalists down to size. I don't want to hear how their priorities are going to change; We already went through that charm offensive in the 90s with all the sweet-talk designed to disarm counter-culture types. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that "business has learned its lesson" and has changed now that the ex-hippies are in the boardroom. I don't give a damn if its normal now for billionaires to wear bluejeans; that is fake change.

[kristopher]

6. You don't understand even the basics of what you're ranting about

Apparently you see the word "capital" and a set of canned responses kick in whether they are actually relevant to the topic at hand or not.

You show me that you have even a rudimentary understanding of what "natural capital" (the root of natural capitalism) means and its implications as seen by Lovins and we'll have a place to start a discussion. So far you've shown definitively you have no idea what it is you're railing against.

[cprise]

7. I know intimately what its like to be classified as "human capital"

As someone who has worked within "forward-thinking" corporations during the past 20 years. I understand it better than you, sir.

[kristopher]

8. So you don't like where you work?

Your are engaging in knee-jerk rhetorical bomb throwing that shows you haven't a clue about either the field of economics or what Lovins is talking about. I've tried to have reasonable discussions with you a number of times but all you have to offer is either silence or tossing out random unrelated junk like you've been using here.

If, contrary to the evidence you do indeed know the topic, let's talk.

If you don't, then take the time to learn.

Your current approach is doing little more than proving you are prone to being a bias blinded reactionary. I know you're capable of much more, so why not put the effort into some actual study?

[cprise]

10. Justify the ideology you're pitching

Don't just level accusations of ignorance and claim that your POV is "misunderstood".

You may think I'm being lazy, but at this point in history I don't see why anyone (especially here) should be patient with *any* stripe of capitalist propaganda.

AFAIK, this is dressing-up the core monetary profit motive by trying to surround it with all of the nice things in life. But with capitalism there will always be the peculiar kind of individual initiative that holds "If I don't do it somebody else will, and I'm more responsible and deserving of the profits than 'they' are".

Furthermore, "capital" is inherently subject to extraction, re-engineering, write-offs, split-second re-sale and gambling, incorporation into "novel financial products" and other forms of manipulation. And is must be concentrate-able into relatively few hands. An object cannot even be "capital" otherwise, which makes this "Natural Capital" neologism a pile of Third Way corporatist bullsh*t. These people need to figure out what will come of their brand of "green" when the public grab them by their lapels and give them an object lesson on the limits to herding their "human capital".

-

FWIW, that was where I used to work. We went from "valuable human capital" that the company had a "long-term" interest in preserving to training our replacements from India within the space of 18 months and one large merger. This company was famous for its level-headed empiricism and CSR, by the way, but it didn't stop them handing out thousands of copies of "Who Moved My Cheese" cartoon books.

[kristopher]

13. It isn't an "ideology"

Unless you want to consider reason, fact based analysis and hard science derived data to be ideological.

I'm sorry you've had the shit end of the stick handed to you, but that doesn't inform the discussion we are engaged in AT ALL. Paraphrasing something I wrote earlier, I would agree with criticisms of the way the system is structured to shift power into fewer and fewer hands, but I need to add another point I made earlier - the solution to THAT problem is largely to be found in implementing the approaches developed from their thinking about the impact our view of "natural capital" is having on our entire system.

If all you do is yell and scream in mindless anger, all you are going to be is a mindless person yelling and screaming. If you stop, take a breath and invest some time in learning some basics, then you become an agent of change.

[cprise]

14. "Scream... mindless", OK whatever

If there comes a time when you can succinctly point to an explanation as to why human beings and the natural world can be properly and humanely conceptualized as "capital", then I'll happily read and digest it. Until then, the underpinnings of "Natural Capitalism" are complete nonsense.

BTW, I can think of at least one other school of economists who claimed to be, above all else, "scientific". They even had a groundswell of impressive economic activity adjoining their movements, which they wore as badges of validation.

[kristopher]

15. Comments like that are where you show you aren't interested in discussion

"If there comes a time when you can succinctly point to an explanation as to why human beings and the natural world can be properly and humanely conceptualized as "capital", then I'll happily read and digest it. Until then, the underpinnings of "Natural Capitalism" are complete nonsense."

You've made the judgement that "the underpinnings of "Natural Capitalism" are complete nonsense".

For that to be an expression from an open, rational mind, it would require you to know what those underpinnings are, wouldn't it? Yet the statement comes immediately after you deny having that knowledge:

"If there comes a time when you can succinctly point to an explanation as to why human beings and the natural world can be properly and humanely conceptualized as "capital", then I'll happily read and digest it."

The idea of "natural capital" and its implications are the core of the book/program/proposal titled "Natural Capitalism".
The fact that you've asked the question you did means you don't know what it is - for if you did you'd know that it is formed improperly and completely off the target concept.

How can you expect me to take you seriously when you do the same sort of thing over and over again?

I would challenge you to tell me how your question is off the target, but you've shown you aren't interested in learning anything that might go against your knee-jerk Pavlovian response to the word capital. So instead let me ask you these questions.

1) Are you opposed to radically improved efficiency in the use of our natural resources?
2) What about improving and expanding recycling to the point where "waste" nearly ceases to exist; would you oppose doing that?
3) Do you think it would horrible if we moved economies to systems that had us renting services instead of buying products (think public trans as example)?
4) Would it anger you if we were able to structure so that "profit" came from restoring and sustaining the integrity of our ecosystems?

If you answered yes to those questions then you're right, you hate natural capitalism.

[cprise]

16. NC purveyors want me to think the secret is "in the book"

As if Lovins and Hawken live in a cave somewhere and communicated once via that book.

Their book has a lot of establishment cache. There is scads of reviews, contextual references, online lectures about (and riffing off of) the book and the concept.

So just perhaps I am ignorant for not reading the book... There is still the oft-withheld secret lurking within. But if so, then Lovins et al are doing a terrible job of spreading their message these last 15 years.

...maybe they are forming a cult...

[kristopher]

17. First things first - did you answer yes or no to those 4 questions?

"...maybe they are forming a cult..."

Or maybe you are just on a mission to try and discredit an idea you don't know anything about.

So just perhaps I am ignorant for not reading the book... There is still the oft-withheld secret lurking within. But if so, then Lovins et al are doing a terrible job of spreading their message these last 15 years.

Yes, perhaps you are, as you say, "ignorant for not reading the book". Especially when it's free to read online or download by chapter AT THEIR WEBSITE.

http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid20.php

Chapter 1
The Next Industrial Revolution

<snip>


(This book) is about the possibilities that will arise from the birth of a new type of industrialism, one that differs in its philosophy, goals, and fundamental processes from the industrial system that is the standard today. In the next century, as human population doubles and the resources available per person drop by one-half to three-fourths, a remarkable transformation of industry and commerce can occur. Through this transformation, society will be able to create a vital economy that uses radically less material and energy. This economy can free up resources, reduce taxes on personal income, increase per-capita spending on social ills (while simultaneously reducing those ills), and begin to restore the damaged environment of the earth. These necessary changes done properly can promote economic efficiency, ecological conservation, and social equity.

The industrial revolution that gave rise to modern capitalism greatly expanded the possibilities for the material development of humankind. It continues to do so today, but at a severe price. Since the mid-eighteenth century, more of nature has been destroyed than in all prior history. While industrial systems have reached pinnacles of success, able to muster and accumulate human-made capital on vast levels, natural capital, on which civilization depends to create economic prosperity, is rapidly declining, and the rate of loss is increasing proportionate to gains in material well-being. Natural capital includes all the familiar resources used by humankind: water, minerals, oil, trees, fish, soil, air, et cetera. But it also encompasses living systems, which include grasslands, savannas, wetlands, estuaries, oceans, coral reefs, riparian corridors, tundras, and rainforests. These are deteriorating worldwide at an unprecedented rate. Within these ecological communities are the fungi, ponds, mammals, humus, amphibians, bacteria, trees, flagellates, insects, songbirds, ferns, starfish, and flowers that make life possible and worth living on this planet.

As more people and businesses place greater strain on living systems, limits to prosperity are coming to be determined by natural capital rather than industrial prowess. This is not to say that the world is running out of commodities in the near future. The prices for most raw materials are at a twenty-eight-year low and are still falling. Supplies are cheap and appear to be abundant, due to a number of reasons: the collapse of the Asian economies, globalization of trade, cheaper transport costs, imbalances in market power that enable commodity traders and middlemen to squeeze producers, and in large measure the success of powerful new extractive technologies, whose correspondingly extensive damage to ecosystems is seldom given a monetary value. After richer ores are exhausted, skilled mining companies can now level and grind up whole mountains of poorer-quality ores to extract the metals desired. But while technology keeps ahead of depletion, providing what appear to be ever-cheaper metals, they only appear cheap, because the stripped rainforest and the mountain of toxic tailings spilling into rivers, the impoverished villages and eroded indigenous cultures--all the consequences they leave in their wake--are not factored into the cost of production.

It is not the supplies of oil or copper that are beginning to limit our development but life itself. Today, our continuing progress is restricted not by the number of fishing boats but by the decreasing numbers of fish; not by the power of pumps but by the depletion of aquifers; not by the number of chainsaws but by the disappearance of primary forests. While living systems are the source of such desired materials as wood, fish, or food, of utmost importance are the services that they offer, services that are far more critical to human prosperity than are nonrenewable resources. A forest provides not only the resource of wood but also the services of water storage and flood management. A healthy environment automatically supplies not only clean air and water, rainfall, ocean productivity, fertile soil, and watershed resilience but also such less-appreciated functions as waste processing (both natural and industrial), buffering against the extremes of weather, and regeneration of the atmosphere.

Humankind has inherited a 3.8-billion-year store of natural capital....

[cprise]

20. ...

You lot are awfully (delusionally) selective in how you apply your own terms in a debate.

How about transforming housing to a completely rent-based model, and forcing human resources to become ever more efficient?

And think of the possibilities for recycling...

Oh, wait, that was a prank. This, however, is serious...

Nobel Prize Winning Economist: Legalize Sale of Human Organs

[NNadir]

9. He's been soaking up lots and lots and lots of oil and gas money, while hawking the same dumb line..

...he was handing out in 1976, with new dates substituted.

This is the ass who wrote in 1976 the following piece of horseshit:

And, at the further end of the spectrum, projections for 2000 being considered by the "Demand Panel" of a major U.S. National Research Council study, as of mid-1976, ranged as low as about 54 quads of fuels (plus
16 of solar energy).

Lovins, Amory, ENERGY STRATEGY: THE ROAD NOT TAKEN? Foreign Affairs October 1976, pp 65-96 excerpt on page 76.

Predictably, being a cultist with no scientific ability or background, he produced no references for his hand waving claim.

Since 1976, the solar scam has sucked almost a trillion bucks out of the world economy - robbing the poor to enrich the rich - with the result that it doesn't produce 16 quads in the United States, nor, in fact on the entire planet. In fact it doesn't produce 1 quad on the entire planet. It does however produce oodles of pollution, with about 10% of Chinese agricultural land, for instance, now contaminated with cadmium.

For no meaningful result...except for poverty...but not for Lovins.

On the previous page he wrote this incredible whopper:

My own view of the evidence is, first, that we are adaptable enough to use technical fixes alone to double,
in the next few decades, the amount of social benefit we wring from each unit of end-use energy; and second, that value changes which could either replace or supplement those technical changes are also occurring rapidly. If either of these views is right, or if both are partly right, we should be able to double end-use efficiency by the turn of the century or shortly thereafter, with minor or no changes in life-styles or values save increasing comfort for modestly increasing numbers. Then over the period 2010-40, we should be able to shrink per capita primary energy use to perhaps a third or a quarter of today's.'

Note that being a bourgeois consumer brat, he didn't give a fuck about the existence of Chinese people, roughly a billion of them, who were then living in relative poverty, and who, didn't agree to remain impoverished so rich dickheads could carry on about their solar McMansions.

As for no changes in lifestyle, his lifestyle has certainly changed. He's living in an enclave of billionaires and millionaires while handing off oracles, just like any carny style big tent evangelist cult leader should.

The "renewables will save us" ass is proudly soaking up bucks from dangerous fossil fuel companies, including the oil sands people at Suncor, this to pay for his stupid, immoral McMansion in Snowmass, close to where he used to tool around in his SUV to meet Jeff Skilling at Little Nell's in Aspen.

Famous Anti-nuke Amory Lovins describes his revenue sources:

Mr. Lovins’s other clients have included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, HP Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, CLSA, ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, Equitable, GM, HP, Invensys, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Petrobras, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell, Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Suncor, Texas Instruments, UBS, Unilever, Westinghouse, Xerox, major developers, and over 100 energy utilities. His public-sector clients have included the OECD, the UN, and RFF; the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments; 13 states; Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Departments.

In reality, tragically as the atmosphere collapses under an assault of fear and ignorance from intellectual lightweights still worshiping this snake oil saleman is that the "Road not traveled" is the road where shit for brains flakes like Amory Lovins were never taken seriously for a New York minute.

Regrettably, stupidity prevailed and he was taken seriously, with the result that huge tragic fossil fuel mines - which pay him to consult - exist all over the planet, and the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste is racing to new heights at an accelerating rate.

If history ever sets a jaundiced eye on this cretin - should history survive this ongoing tragedy - it will do so with the contempt he surely deserves.

[cprise]

11. Yes, you posted about his corporate ties before

That doesn't make solar a scam. The pressures of Finance can try to turn it into one, but I doubt they'll succeed to the degree they did with nuclear.

[NNadir]

21. I would argue that anything that has soaked up nearly a trillion dollars without...

...producing even one exajoule of energy in a year, this after more than half a century of faith based promotion, is very clearly a scam.

It's a scam people still are willing to invest in, despite all reason, but it is clearly a scam.

As for repetition, I note, with due contempt, that Amory Lovins has been handing out the same line of bullshit, unchanged, for his entire adult life, calling himself a "physicist" without ever writing a paper with even a basic appeal to mathematical physics, fronting for dangerous fossil fuel and other dubious corporate entities.

I note that people continue to appeal to this worthless cultist as an oracle, and I thus have no compunctions whatsoever about linking to his own words about who pays him (off) as often as it is appropriate.

Have a nice weekend.

[kristopher]

12. So how is your move out of the US with your molten salt reactor going?

You remember I'm sure, how you were trying to make some money with your MSR so you could flee this "third world" country? You were CERTAIN that everyone would be turing to nuclear power because, well, you were just sure and that was all the proof you needed.

Which is just like your overtly false criticisms of Lovins - a man hated by all of those within the nuclear industry because he correctly identified not only their lies and distortions, but also how those lies and distortions are in inevitable part of the technology that infects democratic society by working to concentrate the incredible economic and political power related to control of the global energy supply into the hands of a small sliver crackpots (my word, not his).

So when you say this physicist who is so brilliant that Oxford waved him though most of his advanced program there has "no scientific ability or background" or that his work on energy efficiency with these entities is not to be listened to, I believe any reasonable person can't help but think you're a bit off. You do know that Mitsubishi and Westinghouse are nuclear vendors, don't you?

Accenture,
Allstate,
AMD,
Anglo American,
Anheuser-Busch,
Bank of America,
Baxter,
Borg-Warner,
BP,
HP Bulmer,
Carrier,
Chevron,
Ciba-Geigy,
CLSA,
ConocoPhillips,
Corning,
Dow,
Equitable,
GM,
HP,
Invensys,
Lockheed Martin,
Mitsubishi,
Monsanto,
Motorola,
Norsk Hydro,
Petrobras,
Prudential,
Rio Tinto,
Royal Dutch/Shell,
Shearson Lehman Amex,
STMicroelectronics,
Sun Oil,
Suncor,
Texas Instruments,
UBS,
Unilever,
Westinghouse,
Xerox,
over 100 energy utilities.
the OECD,
the UN,
RFF;

Govts:
Australian,
Canadian,
Dutch,
German,
Italian
13 states;
Congress, and the
U.S. Energy and Defense Departments.

It's beyond funny that you, a person who claims to be working on his own nuclear reactor "to make a lot of money" (and who is also obviously failing) is accusing an energy efficiency expert of corruption for "GASP" working with energy companies.

I guess I can see why you'd hate Lovins so much since you probably blame your personal failure on the way acceptance by the world of his work has completely altered the trajectory of growth in energy demand.

Poor Nnads, I mean, what kind of world is inside your mind when you believe you've created a legitimate argument only to have it look like this:

This is the ass who wrote in 1976 the following piece of horseshit:

And, at the further end of the spectrum, projections for 2000 being considered by the "Demand Panel" of a major U.S. National Research Council study, as of mid-1976, ranged as low as about 54 quads of fuels (plus
16 of solar energy).

Lovins, Amory, ENERGY STRATEGY: THE ROAD NOT TAKEN? Foreign Affairs October 1976, pp 65-96 excerpt on page 76.
Predictably, being a cultist with no scientific ability or background, he produced no references for his hand waving claim.

In your mind including the projection of a major National Research Council as the lower boundary for projections regarding energy consumption in the year 2000 is "horses shit"?
Why am I not surprised.

Here is the context:

If one assumes that by resolute technical fixes and modest social innovation we can double our end-use efficiency by shortly after 2000, then we could be twice as affluent as now with today's level of energy use, or as affluent as now while using only half the end-use energy we use today. Or we might be somewhere in between—significantly more affluent (and equitable) than today but with less end-use energy.

Many analysts now regard modest, zero or negative growth in our rate of energy use as a realistic long-term goal. Present annual U.S. primary energy demand is about 75 quadrillion BTU ("quads&quot , and most official projections for 2000 envisage growth to 130–170 quads. However, recent work at the Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge, under the direction of Dr. Alvin Weinberg, suggests that standard projections of energy demand are far too high because they do not take account of changes in demographic and economic trends. In June 1976 the Institute considered that with a conservation program far more modest than that contemplated in this article, the likely range of U.S. primary energy demand in the year 2000 would be about 101–126 quads, with the lower end of the range more probable and end-use energy being about 60–65 quads. And, at the further end of the spectrum, projections for 2000 being considered by the "Demand Panel" of a major U.S. National Research Council study, as of mid-1976, ranged as low as about 54 quads of fuels (plus 16 of solar energy).

As the basis for a coherent alternative to the path shown in Figure I earlier, a primary energy demand of about 95 quads for 2000 is sketched in Figure 2. Total energy demand would gradually decline thereafter as inefficient buildings, machines, cars and energy systems are slowly modified or replaced. Let us now explore the other ingredients of such a path—starting with the "soft" supply technologies which, spurned in Figure I as insignificant, now assume great importance.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

Note the underlined section by Weinberg. He was right in his observation that the estimates were far too high, but he didn't go nearly low enough. According to LLNL in 2012 (when the numbers from the sources cited were supposed to be far higher than those of 2000) the final energy consumption in the US was 37 quads, roughly half of what Weinberg predicted for 2000. Of course, because of our dependence on thermal sources like nuclear, petroleum and coal we still wasted 58 quads by ejecting their unusable heat into a warming world.

I strongly encourage everyone to read the paper by Lovins that caused the global nuclear industry to put his face on every dartboard in every nuclear control and board room in the world.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E77-01_EnergyStrategyRoadNotTaken

You might want to make a note of the link so you can include it in your next screed.

[madokie]

18. I wonder what credentials

he brings to the table? I've done some serious internet searches and all I can come up with is inane screeds of total bullshit thats been posted here at DU and over at DKO, where he's been banned since 10/13/12 btw. Calls them Diaries even
Does not bring anything to any discussion other than holier than thou, I'm me, I know it all and you're stupid cause I say you are. Who really gives a flying fuck how important he feels he is to himself, that is not a very good position to argue from yet he feels its his ace in a hole. His trump card if you will.
My mother had a saying about people like him. Buy him for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth and you'll never have another worry in the world


Kristopher just think what our world would be like if we got 75, 80, 90, hell 100% or our energy from nuclear. Think about that for a while then tell me that that doesn't make you shudder.

Here is a link if anyone cares to peruse some of the shit

Lovins has done more to cut down on the amount of CO2 being spewed into our atmosphere than any one man alive, hell, or dead even.

Nnadir, Lets see some of these peer reviewed works of yours. Lets see what the scientist think of you and your diatribes. After all you're the all knowing one around here, or you try to pass yourself off as that anyway.

[NNadir]

22. Thanks for the link to my blog work.

Among bloggers, I claim to be somewhat unusual as I usually link to the primary scientific literature and discuss its contents. This is my style, and if nothing else, it differentiates me from the type of blogger who issues platitudes based on lazy googling to the vast circle jerk of anti-nuke websites citing one another.

My blogging is just that, blogging and anyone with an ounce of sense can figure out what's required to be a blogger.

What bloggers say pretty much speaks for itself; no peer review is required. That's why completely ignorant people can make stupid statements about who has and who has not done something to address climate change, a snake oil salesman who greenwashes oil sands companies as Amory Lovins, or, say, Jim Hansen, widely acknowledged as one of the world's leading authorities on climate change.

Hansen's 2013 publication on the relationship between nuclear energy, climate gases avoided, and lives saved was the most widely read publication in Environmental Science and Technology - one of the world's premier Environmental scientific journals - last year.

EST, most read articles, please see #1

His scientific record speaks for itself.

Now, blogging is anonymous, and for good reason. I have no intention of discussing my private life with anyone who I have not contacted off line, because frankly, one should doubt the sanity of people who like to do victory laps about the "success" of dipshits like Amory Lovins in fighting climate change when it's very, very, very, very, very clear - again, to sane people - that nothing effective has been done to address the issue.

I could be a Walmart clerk, or a fat assed ex-construction worker picking lint out of his navel while railing against the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy, and I would be allowed to publish here. If I am a Walmart clerk - it would have no bearing on my commentary - which speaks for itself.



It's very clear to me from my tenure here that most of the anti-nukes writing here are incompetent to adjudge the value of the scientific literature, having clearly never been exposed to it. This is my clear opinion and I stand by it. I need no "credentials" whatsoever to hold it.

I obviously, by virtue of my writings, have been exposed to the primary scientific literature, which anyone who was to read any ten random postings of mine on the internet can easily discern. Here's a recent example of which I am proud.

Have a nice and enjoyable weekend.

[madokie]

23. I think this gentleman gets it

Mr. Edo says:

1. If you think nuclear energy is safe then you may be either under-informed or ignoring any information that doesn't make nuclear energy sound rosy.

2. Stop comparing nuclear to coal or oil.

Let's compare nuclear to nuclear:

(a) nuclear power plants release dangerous radiation into the environment during their daily operations

(b) nuclear power plants use up to 200 highly polluting chemicals during the nuclear process

(c) nuclear energy creates dangerous nuclear waste of which there is no solution and which is the longest form of long-term debt any country who has nuclear energy faces.

(d) nuclear energy uses as much energy as it makes and less if you factor in uranium mining, etc.

(e) nuclear energy is the most expensive form of energy on earth

(f) nuclear power plants each use 30 million gallons of water an hour

(g) doctors and researchers not on the nuclear payroll have shown millions of deaths and horrible birth defects due to nuclear energy:

*watch "The Legacy of Chernobyl"

(h) Even from the Fukushima meltdown alone, where 80% of the radiation blew out to sea, the World Health Organization still predicts:

* a 70% increase thyroid cancer risk in females exposed as infants
* 6% higher risk in breast cancer in females exposed as infants
* 7% higher leukemia risk in males exposed as infants

(i) nuclear energy can kill humans through deadly radiation and makes land uninhabitable due to deadly radiation.

There are already many proven sources of energy that don't kill humans with radiation and don't pollute the land forever.

Solar, Wind, Hot Rock Dry Geothermal, Biomass, etc.

As a matter of fact, Renewable Energy use in the United States is now 16% of the energy mix; whereas nuclear energy is only 8%.

So your statement that it's impossible to make any energy with the sustainability of nuclear energy is obviously wrong.

To broaden your thinking, you may want to read:

Nuclear Energy: The Truth About the Most Dangerous Energy Source on Earth

Watch: the award winning youtube video "Three Mile Island Revisited"

Watch: The Symposium on the Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident available on ENENEWS (dot) com

Thank you.

One of the replies to your screed you linked to

[NNadir]

19. He was not "waved through." He dropped out.

There is not a single cultist who worships this useless piece of shit who knows any science whatsoever, and thus they believe, as credulously as they believe everything else, that he was "waved through."

This is because Lovins cultists are spectacularly unaware of what a serious scientific curriculum involves.

His "ideas" - they weren't really "ideas" so much as hand waving preaching - were failures for humanity, although he rakes in big bucks personally, just like every other big tent carny cultist who has managed to hawk his faith based horseshit.

The failure of his ideas is clearly and unambiguously recorded in the planetary atmosphere, to wit:

Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2

The failure is also recorded in the dire lives of the more than two billion people on this planet who have no access to decent sanitation, and of course, the more than six million who die each year from air pollution, some of it produced by gas bags who want to burn oil, coal and gas to carry on endlessly about a radioactive atom in a tuna fish:

Some Remarks On the PNAS Radioactive Tuna Paper.

Let me know when Amory Lovins hands over some his Suncor "consulting fees" to the lung association.

The Lancet, Volume 380, Issue 9859, Pages 2224 - 2260, 15 December 2012: More than six million deaths per year from air pollution

[madokie]

24. You really like to pull wool over peoples eyes don't you

Read that last link and tell me you're being honest. You're assuming that we will think that those deaths are because we don't embrace nuclear energy when that couldn't be further from the truth. What an intellectually dishonest person. No qualms with misleading to try to quantify your point. My o my

What a farce.

Lovins has done more to cut down on the amount of co2 being spewed into our atmosphere than any one person alive today. That just tears you up don't it

[kristopher]

25. What tears him up is that he can't sell his molten salt reactor and get rich.

That why all the nuclear plantophiles hate Lovins; he showed convincingly that it's an either or choice between nuclear/fossil or renewables/efficiency. For most people, that choice is a no brainer.

Flash back to 2006 in the UK and events there mirrored events in the US around 2001.

The climate-change deniers have now gone nuclear
When the rightwing tradition of bad science comes onside, it's time to look seriously at other energy technologies

Polly Toynbee
The Guardian, Monday 17 July 2006

Murderous mayhem in the Middle East sends oil prices through the roof - $78 a barrel and climbing. Electricity prices are up 35% in two years, gas prices up 53%. So the government launched its energy review last week in a turbulent market. With no certainty on price, all estimates of the costs of various energy technologies are equally back-of-the-envelope guesses.

So political predilection guides this whole debate: the pro-business right is instinctively pro-nuclear, the left is anti. Without verifiable forecasts, one expert's envelope flap vies with another's. That allows political passions on all sides to masquerade as pure science or economics.

The old right has been on an arduous journey, with most finally converted to the truth universally acknowledged, except by flat-earthers: the world is warming at life-on-earth threatening speed. When the climate-deniers' case collapsed, they retreated to an ideological redoubt claiming global warming was a natural phenomenon, not amenable to man-made remedy. But that fortress crumbled too, and even George Bush, last of the deniers, conceded.

For some reason the old deniers, barely batting an eyelid, shifted over to nuclear as the only salvation, though those who have been so wrong owe a little humility when it comes to next steps. Many hail from a bizarre tradition of rightwing bad science: remember Andrew Neill as Sunday Times editor running a dangerous campaign that denied HIV caused Aids, branding the latter as a disease only of gays and the wildly promiscuous. Consider the continuing claim of the Mail and Melanie Phillips that the MMR vaccine causes autism, panicking mothers into failing to immunise babies. Posing as hard-headed realists, those on the right are more prone to pit their ideology against the weight of science. Seat belts? Motorbike helmets? Chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer? Smoking bans? Advertising junk food to children? The science-based realos tend to be on the left, conviction fundis on the right.

Climate change leaves no doubt that nuclear power is infinitely better than roasting to death. New stations are likely to be safer and better built, but will still produce a lot of radioactive waste, if less than before. The energy review still has no idea what to do with it. Even so, nuclear is better than baking.

But why are nuclear enthusiasts so sure there is no better alternative...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jul/18/comment.politics3#

[NNadir]

26. Thank you for your response. I am perfectly satisfied that this exchange...

...obviates the clear distinction between us, and I trust, that the more simple minded participants. given their low level of sophistication, will see it as so too.

Enjoy the coming weekend.

[kristopher]

27. The American Physical Society says Lovins' approach is correct

Founded in 1899, the American Physical Society (APS) is the largest organization of professional physicists in the United States. Its 46,000 members are drawn from universities, industry and national laboratories. The APS is one of the premier publishers of international physics research, maintaining print and on-line publications, as well as electronically searchable archives dating back to 1893.
For more than forty years, APS has also devoted resources and expertise to a number of public policy areas, including education, energy, innovation and competitiveness, national security and science research programs. As part of its policy work, APS periodically prepares technical analyses on subjects of significant public interest. This report follows in the tradition of past APS studies and represents a fresh look at the subject of energy efficiency, which the Society first examined in 1975.

HOW AMERICA CAN LOOK WITHIN TO ACHIEVE ENERGY SECURITY AND REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING
September 2008 http://www.aps.org/energyefficiencyreport/

Introduction

Whether you want the United States to achieve greater energy security by weaning itself off foreign oil, sustain strong economic growth in the face of worldwide competition or reduce global warming by decreasing carbon emissions, energy efficiency is where you need to start. Thirty-five years ago the U.S. adopted national strategies, implemented policies and developed technol- ogies that significantly improved energy efficiency. More than three decades have passed since then, and science and technology have progressed considerably, but U.S. energy policy has not. It is time to revisit the issue.
In this report we examine the scientific and technological oppor- tunities and policy actions that can make the United States more energy efficient, increase its security and reduce its impact on global warming. We believe the findings and recommendations will help Congress and the next administration to realize these goals. Our focus is on the transportation and buildings sectors of the economy. The opportunities are huge and the costs are small.

http://www.aps.org/energyefficiencyreport/report/aps-energyreport.pdf

From their website:

Energy = Future
Think Efficiency

A Different Kind of Energy Efficiency Report
Scientific and Technological Emphasis

Energy Future: Think Efficiency differs from other energy efficiency reports in its emphasis on scientific and technological options and analysis. Developed by a panel of leading experts in energy policy with backgrounds in physics, engineering, economics, and policy, Energy Future: Think Efficiency examines what works, what can work soon, and what is feasible for the future. Based on emerging technologies, this report targets which research and development gives America the best return for its dollars.


The News is Good
Key Energy Efficiency Conclusions

After scientifically evaluating a wide variety of energy-saving ideas and alternative energy sources, such as hybrid cars, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, solar power, and wind power, the report recommends many short term and long term goals. The good news is that the news is good.

Improving energy efficiency is relatively easy and inexpensive.
Numerous technologies already exist to increase energy efficiency and save consumers money.

Buildings and Transportation
Highlighting Highest Consumption

Focusing on transportation and buildings, two areas that consume two-thirds of our energy, Energy Future: Think Efficiency specifically outlines priorities for the next administration’s energy policies—for the immediate future and decades ahead.

http://www.aps.org/energyefficiencyreport/index.cfm

[NNadir]

35. Producing cherry picked cut and paste quotes, none of which mentions Lovins...

... from an organization that is beyond the purview of the silly anti-nuke community, as this is a community of people who hate science since they know none, a community that wallows it's fantasies and indifference to anything but apologetics for their cars and trucks is not does not award the oil sands apologist and greenwasher, Lovins, with a patina of sanity.

On a planetary scale, per capita consumption of energy is rising, not falling. Ignoring reality in favor of holding dogmatically to a cherished theory is not science, it's religion.

World wide energy consumption per capita

Now maybe you don't give a fuck about the Chinese, and the Indians, both of whom outnumber the small clique of provincial Prius drivers by five orders of magnitude, but it matters not a whit for the climate that the US has managed to wiggle a few million joules of energy off their annual consumption by changing light bulbs.

There are many critics of Lovin's facile and glib ignorance, including many prominent researchers, my personal favorite being the broadly published and widely respected Vaclav Smil. I assure you that the Oxford dropout (by his own admission) could never, no matter how long his long and stupid life lasts, produce a publication list in the primary scientific literature comparable to Smil's:

Vaclav Smil, publication list

Smil's maceration of the tiresome fool Lovins is hilarious, when he reviewed the very, very, very, very insipid book "Natural Capitalism."

http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/smil-article-2000-pdr2000.pdf

Smil is no tent carny preacher like Lovins, he's a serious scientist.

Note that Smil was calling Lovins a fool in 2000, the year that Lovins declared, in 1976, by which we'd be living in Nirvana with "fused salt" tanks in our backyards, etc.

Lovins has continued, despite the clear and absolute degradation of the atmosphere (much of it caused by the people for whom he "consults" to hand out insipid wishful thinking which has the only the effect of delaying serious action.

I note that nowhere in your derivative cherry picking, which predictably lacks an original thought do you cite a major scientific authority who mentions Lovins with the devotion of his togaed acolytes.

Here's a real physicist who comments on Lovins claim to be a physicist: Nuclear Expertise of Amory Lovins. It points to the fact about Lovins that is obvious about every dumb assed anti-nuke I've ever encountered in my life: They hate a science they know nothing about.

Lovins, like the anti-nukes here, knows nothing at all about nuclear energy except that he hates it. He is thus totally and unequivocally incompetent to discuss the subject.

His other bull is equally incompetent, as is evidenced on inspection, by the EIA figures for world wide energy efficiency, the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel wastes in the planetary atmosphere, the consumption figures for oil, gas, and coal worldwide, and the results of the ill fated 1.27 trillion dollars foolishly invested since 2004 - for no meaningful result - in the so called "renewable energy" industry. This "investment" - it's really a Ponzi scheme - was primarily the wind and solar industry's which combined have yet to produce one percent of the worldwide annual energy consumption, which would be about 5.4 exajoules out of 540.

Lovins is a pop cultist, the equivalent to serious energy thought that Britney Spears is to serious music.

It's not surprising that anti-nukes worship him. They're senseless people, provincials, who apparently do not give enough of a fuck about humanity to see what's really happening to it.

Here's something that'sreally happening to humanity: The Lancet, Volume 380, Issue 9859, Pages 2224 - 2260, 15 December 2012: More than six million deaths per year from air pollution

Now why don't you tell me again, in case I missed it, how many people died from Fukushima radiation? Care to speculate on how many people have died from the dangerous fossil fuel emissions since Japan's reactors were shut to find out if they're "safe?"

Nuclear energy saves lives. You, and the fool Lovins hate it.

[kristopher]

36. If you actually had a case for nuclear you wouldn't need to fabricate so much garbage

I'll once again start at the beginning of your dishonest, nonsensical screed and cover just the first few points to make clear your lack of integrity. It won't be necessary to address the entire putrid mess once your strategy is laid bare.

1) The American Physics Society doesn't need to mention Lovins since their work is an unquestionable affirmation of precisely what he has advocated since the mid70s.

2) No cherry picking was required. I identified the APS. I posted the beginning of the beginning (otherwise known as the "introduction&quot and I posted the entirety of the text on their webpage for the study.

4) The fact that global per capita energy consumption is rising is a meaningless statistic in and of itself. It can help us when we relate it to other indicators such as energy intensity and standards of living, but your use of it in isolation as a supposed rebuttal to a point you didn't identify is nothing more than empty posturing and meaningless rhetoric. Exactly the kind of "science" you are notorious for sharing on DU.

5) Money is the religion of far too many people. Since you are clearly on the record saying you "plan to get rich" with nuclear power and since there is virtually no support anywhere outside of the nuclear power industry for wasting money on nuclear power, it is obvious that you engage in a classic case of projection when correctly write, "Ignoring reality in favor of holding dogmatically to a cherished theory is not science, it's religion."

6) I'm sure you, like the noted environmentalist Bill Gates, are a fan Vaclav Smil. His message (that has not once been peer reviewed and is usually riddled with inaccurate data and straw man arguments) is that renewables are not able to meet the demands of climate change. For the record let me point out that Smil started producing a series of articles, all saying virtually the same thing, while the American Enterprise institute was offering their $10,000 fee for academics who would produce work to question climate change or the solutions to climate change. The earliest iteration of that "renewables can't do it" work coincidently appeared in the magazine "The American", a publication of the American Enterprise Institute.
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/november-december-magazine/moore2019s-curse-and-the-great-energy-delusion/

So when you point to this lone, retired scholar as a refutation of an extremely comprehensive work by the largest group of physicists in the US, the American Physical Society, it's pretty evident you are grasping at straws.

PS: It is also appropriate to note for those who aren't aware, Bill Gates is heavily invested in trying to bring nuclear technology to market.


That's enough. Your commitment to dishonest argumentation should be clear by now.

[Altair_IV]

37. AMEN to that!!

NNadir,

As a physicist, myself, and a member in good standing of the American Physical Society; I thought it comical that anyone would claim that the APS was allied with Amory Lovins. Lovins is famous for being opposed to nuclear power, while the APS is staunchly in favor of nuclear power. Something like 99% of the APS member Physicists support continued and expanded use of nuclear power.

The APS website features this Statement as part of the "Policy & Advocacy" initiatives of the APS:

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/93_7.cfm

A balanced energy policy, however, also requires that the Department of Energy have strong programs to keep the nuclear energy option open, through: (a) the continued development of nuclear reactors which can be built, operated, and eventually decommissioned in a manner which is simple, safe, environmentally sound and cost-effective; (b) the development and implementation of programs for the safe disposal of spent fuel and radioactive wastes; and (c) the development of an effective public education program to allow a more informed debate on the strengths and weaknesses of nuclear power. The American Physical Society is deeply concerned that the current progress in these areas is inadequate.

Altair_IV

[madokie]

38. A physicist huh

Nuclear energy will do nothing for the fix we're in right now. it would take too many and it takes too long to come on line. What we need right now is a whole lot of smaller quicker to come on line power plants whether it be solar, wind or geothermal.

You sure sound like someone else who used to ply these pages

[Altair_IV]

39. How long do you think it takes?

madokie,

How long do you think it takes to build a nuclear power plant?

Based on what I've read of your postings so far; I'd hazard to guess that you've gotten the vast majority of your information about nuclear power from the antinuclear websites or the antinuclear propagandists. If that's where you are getting your information, I can see why you would think that it actually takes a long time to actually build the nuclear power plant. The antinuclear propagandists keep making these claims that it takes 26 years or more to actually build the nuclear power plant. It only takes 26 years to bring a nuclear power plant online if the antinuclear propagandists are allowed to file endless lawsuits, one after another after another. Some of the nuclear power plants in this nation were built under those conditions; and it's really disgraceful how a small minority can so effectively thwart the will of the majority. Nuclear power still enjoys the support of the majority of the people, and its been that way for decades.

However, our elected leaders can control this abuse of the Courts. For example, one of the main problems in the past was the fact that the USA had a "two step" licensing process. The utility had to get one license to build the plant, and that could take years with all the Court challenges. Then they would build the plant. However, before they could operate it; the utility needed a second license, the operating license. It was then another many years battle in the Courts before they could operate the plant.

A few years ago, Congress did away the two step licensing process, and immensely decreased the ability of the antinuclear people to hold up a nuclear power plant. The new process called a Combined Construction / Operating License. The utility may have to fight in the Courts for the license before they start spending real money. However, once they get a "COL" from the NRC, they can build the plant.

As soon as that plant is built, and finished, the utility can fire it up because they are already licensed to operate it. They don't need another permit from the Government that the antinuclear people can challenge in Court. There's no Court hearing; the utility is in possession of a valid operating license.

So if one does away with all the obstructionism from the antinuclear movement, which Congress can effectively do; how long does it take to do the actual building of a plant. For that; check out this entry for one such nuclear power plant:

http://www.palisadespowerplant.com/about-us.html

Look under the heading "Milestones"; construction started in 1966, and the plant was placed into commercial service in 1971. So if you don't have the antinuclear people creating obstructions; it only takes about 5 years to build a nuclear power plant.

The people of South Haven welcomed the plant instead of obstructing the plant. The area is fairly rural; and consists of a lot of blueberry farms. In fact the bulk of the blueberries consumed in the USA are grown within a few miles of the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant.

When you build a nuclear power plant; you get a lot of power capacity. Didn't Al Gore once joke that nuclear power plants came in only one size; "extra large"? So one gets major chunks of energy generating capacity when one builds a nuclear power plant; whereas solar and wind installations get much less energy capacity per unit time because of their lower "per unit" power capacity. Add in the fact that both solar and thermal have capacity factors far, far lower than nuclear and you see that nuclear is actually the fast track. ( It would be an absolute scandal reflecting extremely poorly on an operator if a nuclear power plant had a capacity factor of only 50%. However, a 50% capacity factor is the absolute best that a solar power plant can achieve. )

As a Physicist, I join 99% of the other Physicists who are members of the American Physical Society who are very staunch supporters of continued and expanded use of nuclear power. It's really our only hope.

Altair_IV

[madokie]

40. Its pretty much a known how long it takes and its a long fucking time

if you don't know that then why are you bothering me in the first place.
From 7 to 12 years is how long it takes

Of course its someone else's fault that it takes so long to build them, thats part of the nuclear power industries MO, blame others for their shortcomings. If fukushima and Chernobyl before that hasn't shown why the steps taken are taken then you are way out of the in the know loop.

I swear I've read your screeds around here before.

[Altair_IV]

41. That's what it used to take...

That's what it used to take in the past when we had the two-tier licensing system. The US Congress changed that to minimize the degree of obstructionism. We have yet to have a nuclear plant completed under the new rules; so "all bets are off".

However, if the question is "how long does it take to physically put the plant together; absent obstruction from the antinuclear movement; then the answer to that is 5 years. If your claim is that it takes "7 to 12 years" to put a plant together, then how did Bechtel put the Palisades Nuclear Plant together in 5 years since construction started in 1966 and the plant was up and running in 1971.

The Palisades case is called a "counterexample" and logically demolishes claims to the contrary.

Altair_IV

[GliderGuider]

42. Mmmm! It's popcorn time...

[jpak]

28. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!1111

[hunter]

33. Why?

[hunter]

32. I'm against fossil fuels, indifferent to nuclear.

Nuclear is a viable solution to maintaining the sort of society we have now and certainly less dangerous than coal and other fossil fuels, including so-called "natural" gas. ("Natural???" Bloody hell, talk about propaganda!!!)

I like French movies too.

But I don't like the U.S.A. society we have now.

In my utopia people walk to work and they don't work especially hard except for the teachers, farmworkers, and medical people. Thirty hour work weeks, two month vacations, etc.. Many "personal" and "parent" days. Kid sick, crisis with crazy old mom? No problem, someone will cover for you, long as it takes.

Most of what we call "productivity" is bad for the earth and bad for the environment. 95% of what people do these days is crud any coworker could do and there's a backlog of unemployed people who could do it too.

It's a rare opportunity to be a human. Most of the time we should be enjoying the ride, smelling the flowers, even if we have to walk.

I like my shoes, hate my car. (Mid 'eighties $800 Volvo with a salvage title, should anyone ask. The odometer is broken, it's probably got 300,000+ miles on it now, mostly not mine. My cars don't die to spite me. It makes us all happy.)

[NNadir]

34. Well, since we're discussing walking, I note with some amusement that Amory Lovins...

...gas and oil green washer didn't build his stupid suburban offices in Snowmass in a "walkable" community.

http://local.theoildrum.com/node/2902

I wasn't much of a reader of "The Oil Drum" when it was running, but whatever went on there, that was a fun thread. I loved it and was very grateful to have been directed there, mostly because I have been long aware of what a shit Lovins is.

Many other people of course know this; my favorite is the very witty Vaclav Smil, who actually is something of a genius, although I don't always agree with Smil. His very funny review of Natural Capitalism is, I believe, on line, and does not require a journal subscription or access to a library. It's hilarious.

This is a thread in which my entire participation has involved pointing out that Lovins is a hypocritical car CULTure bourgeois twit, which is true not only of him, but also of his twit bourgeois supporters, who are always carrying on about things like, for instance, BMW electric cars, each of which has a price equivalent to the per capita income of about 100 Cambodians...

No matter.

But on a deeper level, to address your point:

I have no problem with the value of walking, or bicycling as transport. Many Cambodians, of course, walk everywhere, having no other option. I wouldn't personally call that a "utopia," although there is nothing wrong with the choice of asceticism. What I object to is class stratification designed to provide for a permanent underclass - some underclasses are entire nations - with no access to the tools for self realization.

(I personally love walking. I wrote about a particularly beautiful winter walk I took some years back on another website where I used to write: Um, My Compact Fluorescent Bulb Is Hot. (Places and Times NOT to Conserve Electricity.))

The somewhat mystical physicists Frank Tipler and John Barrow seemed to argue in their somewhat convoluted book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle that the universe exists to be contemplated.

I'm not sure I accept this; but that said, the last century has allowed humanity to see farther and deeper than ever before. This of course is a beautiful thing; and it is clearly and wholly a benefit of high technology.

I'm not a "back to nature" type. In any case, nature has already been irrevocably destroyed; as has been popularly noted in several places, we are now undergoing the 6th mass extinction. All true environmentalists feel the pain of this.

Ironically, despite much malignity from stupid people addressed toward it, nuclear energy has been the largest check on that process of destruction, albeit a very weak check on that process, given the fear and ignorance that surrounded it and successfully prevented from doing what it might have done. Nuclear energy is, of course, not perfect, but with all of its imperfections, it is vastly superior to everything else, which in a rational world would be enough.

I have recently calculated, crudely, based on some publications I'd read, that this planet contains in its upper 10% of its layered mass, about 3 trillion tons of uranium, and I have argued that over vast stretches of geological time, this uranium is accessible, and thus, essentially inexhaustible, given its extreme energy density.

On Plutonium, Nuclear War, and Nuclear Peace

I have no idea why life on this planet exists. There may be no intrinsic reason whatsoever; it may be pure chance. But the fact that so called "intelligent life" came to exist on a planet with so much uranium, and thus with so much possibility to have constructed deep vision, thrills the imagination.

Enjoy the weekend, and do take a nice walk.

[hunter]

29. This thread explains a lot to me.

I'm some kind of Luddite. If you can't make it in your shop or grow it in your garden, then something is probably wrong.





I am an internet dog. Like somehow I imagine I can save the world...



Most likely nuclear is not the answer, and fossil fuels SUCK FAR, FAR, WORSE, even the darling "natural" gas.

What we need is more birth control and much less of the "ecomomic productivity" that is breaking this planet's ecosystems.

[madokie]

30. There's going to be a population explosion

as long as fucking is more enjoyable than dying

[hunter]

31. Will be? We're riding the explosion now.

Only question left is how hard we hit the ground...

Environmental and Evolutionary Biology ought to be perquisites for both Economics and Engineering.

A few billion years of genetic experience, life on earth, that's not anything to be ignored.

The universe is very, very big, and time is very, very deep.

The odds humans or this civilization are anything special in the history of life are pretty remote.

If we don't recognize this, if we continue to act as if we are somehow unique, some god's chosen, then collapse is imminent. We will be a thin layer of trash in the geologic record on a tiny speck of a planet in one galaxy among endless galaxies and uncountable stars.

Have a nice day.

[cprise]

43. Interesting take

Environmental and Evolutionary Biology ought to be perquisites for both Economics and Engineering.

It reminds me of some of Nate Hagens' posts around the web.

If it doesn't concern you that humans and our chattel are almost 50x the weight of all wild vertebrates, well then we just share different philosophies. I swear. The Crusades of 21st century will not be between Christians and Muslims but between businessmen and ecologists.

http://theoildrum.com/node/8402

[GliderGuider]

44. I'd add Thermodynamics, Systems Science and Cybernetics to that list. nt

For us to survive this, it would be essential that economists and politicians get their heads back out in the fresh air of the real world, and get an education in how it works. But they won't, so we won't.