Sustainabilty is a Hoax

[j_b]

Uranium is a finite resource and the cost of extracting and refining low grade ore is prohibitive (and energy intensive), and we still don't know what to do with waste. So, it doesn't seem too sustainable to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#World_peak_uranium

[Lucky Larry]

Source Wikipedia

 

Edited by me

 

Sustainability

 

Brundtland Commission of the United Nations on March 20, 1987: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

At the 2005 World Summit it was noted that this requires the reconciliation of environmental, social and economic demands - the "three pillars" of sustainability

For many environmentalists the idea of sustainable development is an oxymoron as development seems to entail environmental degradation

The Earth Charter[19] speaks of “a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace.”

It has also been described as a "dialogue of values that defies consensual definition".[24]

 

Population

 

Emerging economies like those of China and India aspire to the living standards of the Western world as does the non-industrialized world in general.[48] It is the combination of population increase in the developing world and unsustainable consumption levels in the developed world that poses a stark challenge to sustainability.[49]

 

Carrying capacity

 

More and more data are indicating that humans are not living within the carrying capacity of the planet.

The resulting ecological deficit must be met from unsustainable extra sources and these are obtained in three ways: embedded in the goods and services of world trade; taken from the past (e.g. fossil fuels); or borrowed from the future as unsustainable resource usage (e.g. by over exploiting forests and fisheries).

 

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. The assessment measures 24 ecosystem services concluding that only four have shown improvement over the last 50 years, 15 are in serious decline, and five are in a precarious condition.[55]

 

Environmental dimension

 

Herman Daly has suggested three broad criteria for ecological sustainability: renewable resources should provide a sustainable yield (the rate of harvest should not exceed the rate of regeneration); for non-renewable resources there should be equivalent development of renewable substitutes; waste generation should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment.[56]

 

Management of human consumption

 

Energy

 

developing less carbon-hungry technology and transport systems and attempts by individuals to lead carbon neutral lifestyles by monitoring the fossil fuel use embodied in all the goods and services they use.[79]

 

Water

 

Water security and food security are inextricably linked.Currently towards 35% of human water use is unsustainable, drawing on diminishing aquifers and reducing the flows of major rivers: this percentage is likely to increase if climate change impacts become more severe, populations increase, aquifers become progressively depleted and supplies become polluted and unsanitary

 

Food

 

The environmental effects of different dietary patterns depend on many factors, including the proportion of animal and plant foods consumed and the method of food production. ...World Health Assembly. It recommends the Mediterranean diet which is associated with health and longevity and is low in meat, rich in fruits and vegetables, low in added sugar and limited salt, and low in saturated fatty acids; the traditional source of fat in the Mediterranean is olive oil, rich in monounsaturated fat

 

Materials, toxic substances, waste

 

Synthetic chemical production has escalated following the stimulus it received during the second World War. Chemical production includes everything from herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers to domestic chemicals and hazardous substances. Apart from the build-up of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, chemicals of particular concern include: heavy metals, nuclear waste, chlorofluorocarbons, persistent organic pollutants and all harmful chemicals capable of bioaccumulation

 

Economic dimension

 

The challenge for sustainability is to curb and manage Western consumption while raising the standard of living of the developing world without increasing its resource use and environmental impact. This must be done by using strategies and technology that break the link between, on the one hand, economic growth and on the other, environmental damage and resource depletion.

 

Decoupling environmental degradation and economic growth

 

Historically there has been a close correlation between economic growth and environmental degradation: as communities grow, so the environment declines. Ecological economics includes the study of societal metabolism, the throughput of resources that enter and exit the economic system in relation to environmental quality.[115][116]

 

Nature as an economic externality

 

As ecosystem services are generally treated as economic externalities they are unpriced and therefore overused and degraded, a situation sometimes referred to as the Tragedy of the Commons.[117]

 

The global recession and a range of associated government policies are likely to bring the biggest annual fall in the world's carbon dioxide emissions in 40 years.[122]

 

 

Economic opportunity

 

Treating the environment as an externality may generate short-term profit at the expense of sustainability.[123] Sustainable business practices, on the other hand, integrate ecological concerns with social and economic ones (i.e., the triple bottom line).[124]

 

Social dimension

 

"The relationship between human rights and human development, corporate power and environmental justice, global poverty and citizen action, suggest that responsible global citizenship is an inescapable element of what may at first glance seem to be simply matters of personal consumer and moral choice."[132]

 

Peace, security, social justice

 

Depletion of natural resources including fresh water[133] increases the likelihood of “resource wars”.[134] This aspect of sustainability has been referred to as environmental security and creates a clear need for global environmental agreements to manage resources such as aquifers and rivers which span political boundaries, and to protect global systems including oceans and the atmosphere.[135]

 

Human relationship to nature

 

Nature is thus treated as a commodity: “The plundering of the human spirit by the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital.”[136 Still more basically, Bookchin argued that most of the activities that consume energy and destroy the environment are senseless because they contribute little to quality of life and well being. The function of work is to legitimize, even create, hierarchy. For this reason understanding the transformation of organic into hierarchical societies is crucial to finding a way forward.[137]Social ecology, founded by Bookchin, is based on the conviction that nearly all of humanity's present ecological problems originate in, indeed are mere symptoms of, dysfunctional social arrangements.

 

Deep ecology establishes principles for the well-being of all life on Earth and the richness and diversity of life forms. This is only compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population and the end of human interference with the nonhuman world. To achieve this, deep ecologists advocate policies for basic economic, technological, and ideological structures that will improve the quality of life rather than the standard of living.

 

Human settlements

 

One approach to sustainable living, exemplified by small-scale urban transition towns and rural ecovillages, seeks to create self-reliant communities based on principles of simple living, The Worldwide Fund for Nature proposes a strategy for sustainability that goes beyond education to tackle underlying individualistic and materialistic societal values head-on and strengthen people's connections with the natural world.[148]

 

Sustainability principles

 

1.Reduce dependence upon fossil fuels,

underground metals, and minerals

2. Reduce dependence upon synthetic chemicals

and other unnatural substances

3. Reduce encroachment upon nature

4. Meet human needs fairly & efficiently[140]

 

It appears western society fails on all four sustainability principles. I predict that the western psyche will never value quality of life over standard of living.

 

My premise is that our western psyche perceives no difference between quality of life and standard of living.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Lucky Larry

[pink]

sustainability is an over used word for the most part...

[mkporwit]

sustainability is an over used word for the most part...

overuse is unsustainable...

[j_b]

[video:youtube]MeRTCepmkqQ

[tvashtarkatena]

Uranium is a finite resource and the cost of extracting and refining low grade ore is prohibitive (and energy intensive), and we still don't know what to do with waste. So, it doesn't seem too sustainable to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#World_peak_uranium

 

As an energy source for producing power to the grid, it's probably the most sustainable one we have at present.

 

I hope you're joking about extraction costs. 1 lb of uranium 235 has the equivalent energy of 3.7 MILLION lbs of coal. A mom and pop mining operation (common during the day) can extract a huge amount of ore, relatively speaking.

 

Are you arguing that refining energy is prohibitive for nuclear?

 

It's not. Not even close.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

Uranium is a finite resource and the cost of extracting and refining low grade ore is prohibitive (and energy intensive), and we still don't know what to do with waste. So, it doesn't seem too sustainable to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#World_peak_uranium

 

As an energy source for producing power to the grid, it's probably the most sustainable one we have at present.

 

plus, re: "we still don't know what to do w/ the waste", the storage solution is actually pretty simple - pour nevada a tall glass of shut the fuck up (okay, sure, harry reid probably will need to have croaked before that keg can get tapped) then use yucca mtn

[tvashtarkatena]

Buncha hot shit in one hole out in the middle of bum fuck nowhere versus a destroyed climate.

 

I choose door #1, thanks.

 

Most anti-nuclear rhetoric applies to a very dirty weapons program and mismanaged US commercial program, not a very clean, reliable French style nuclear program (or US Navy program, for that matter)

Edited January 13, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[Lucky Larry]

A misconception of tribes or primitives is that they spent all their time hunting and gathering. Now this my be wrong but I read that they actually spent only 3 hours per day in such sustainable activities. The rest of the time they spent doing nothing. Doing nothing is very hard, try it sometime.

 

 

But they didn't do "nothing". Art, dance, chants, special celebrations... making war - all outside of the basics of survival. And none of these are "doing nothing".

 

Agreed; however, if you framed it in a western psyche they are doing nothing--child's play, no intrinsic value, unless it's war.

 

Art, dance, chants, special celebrations...fun stuff. Statistically I wonder how much time per citizen is actually spent doing these things. I'm guessing more time and money is spent in the spectator sports industry.

[j_b]

As an energy source for producing power to the grid, it's probably the most sustainable one we have at present.

 

I hope you're joking about extraction costs. 1 lb of uranium 235 has the equivalent energy of 3.7 MILLION lbs of coal. A mom and pop mining operation (common during the day) can extract a huge amount of ore, relatively speaking.

 

Are you arguing that refining energy is prohibitive for nuclear?

 

It's not. Not even close.

 

I was pointing out that peak uranium might be not too far off and it'll get a lot more expensive when we have to mine and refine low grade ore.

[tvashtarkatena]

As an energy source for producing power to the grid, it's probably the most sustainable one we have at present.

 

I hope you're joking about extraction costs. 1 lb of uranium 235 has the equivalent energy of 3.7 MILLION lbs of coal. A mom and pop mining operation (common during the day) can extract a huge amount of ore, relatively speaking.

 

Are you arguing that refining energy is prohibitive for nuclear?

 

It's not. Not even close.

 

I was pointing out that peak uranium might be not too far off and it'll get a lot more expensive when we have to mine and refine low grade ore.

 

80 years is 'not too far off?'

 

That's with a fairly lax exploration program.

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

[j_b]

Buncha hot shit in one hole out in the middle of bum fuck nowhere versus a destroyed climate.

 

I choose door #1, thanks.

 

Most anti-nuclear rhetoric applies to a very dirty weapons program and mismanaged US commercial program, not a very clean, reliable French style nuclear program (or US Navy program, for that matter)

 

the French program is no cleaner than anybody else, except the Russian program of course. The French haven't had a major problem but they had numerous small leaks that were hidden from the public, like everybody else. In term of the centralization needed to control the risk involved in a a nuclear program, civilian programs have little to envy to military programs.

 

Climate change is not a valid reason to develop a nuclear program that entails risks much greater than renewable energy like solar, wind, hydrothermal, etc ...Especially, that nuclear centrals need river water to cool, which was notoriously a problem during the 2003 heat wave when river waters became so warm (due to heat wave and cooling reactors) as to threaten river ecosystems. Since summer heat waves are supposed to ~double in frequency over the past, it seems to be something we take into account. Finally, the costs involved in nuclear (including liability) are likely greater than that of clean energy programs as shown by having few private investors willing to invest in developing plants.

Edited January 13, 2011 by j_b

[j_b]

I was pointing out that peak uranium might be not too far off and it'll get a lot more expensive when we have to mine and refine low grade ore.

 

80 years is 'not too far off?'

 

That's with a fairly lax exploration program.

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

 

the wiki article I linked provides a range of estimates, some of which are considerably lesser than 80 years, and by organizations with less at stake than the one you cited.

Edited January 13, 2011 by j_b

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes, I'm sure your sources are completely unbiased, unlike mine.

 

Industry organizations, like it or not, tend to have the most accurate information regarding exploration and proven reserves for the resources they report on. Feel free to check your own sources, of course.

 

As uranium is ubiquitous and common, there are many other extraction alternatives, including directly from sea water, that have seen only rudimentary experimentation.

 

When you consider that a (French style) nuke plant will give you 60 years+ of service producing clean power using inexpensive and plentiful fuel that requires only relatively small mining operations (as compared to any fossil fuel), I think it clearly deserves a second look by America's environmental movement.

[Jim]

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

 

Why the Frenchies like nukes:

 

Part of their popularity comes from the fact that scientists and engineers have a much higher status in France than in America. Many high ranking civil servants and government officials trained as scientists and engineers (rather than lawyers, as in the United States), and, unlike in the U.S. where federal administrators are often looked down upon, these technocrats form a special elite.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yup. Obviously, the 'prestige of engineers', and easily measureable and repeatable...um...would that be a quantity or quality?...anyway, I'm sure that's the only reason why 80% of French power is generated by nukes. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the efficacy of that choice, in terms of efficiency, cost, and environmental concerns. It's all about how the French 'admire engineers more than lawyers'. If engineers weren't as respected, France would clearly be burning coal.

 

Yor posts are usually be less of a stretch than this, Jim.

Edited January 13, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

Climate change is not a valid reason to develop a nuclear program that entails risks much greater than renewable energy like solar, wind, hydrothermal, etc ...

 

I've been working on the natural resource/ecological assessment end of energy for some time now, and what I see is a resurgence of consideration of nuclear power - primarily because of climate change issues. Other factors include energy independence and land use isues such as ripping up vast areas of Canada for oil sands.

 

Solar and wind power are great supplements but they do little to assist with base load - dependable foundation energy requirements. If you know anything about energy mangement you know that large utilities, locally such as BPA, are having fits trying to figure out how to manage wind energy because it is so undependable and unpredicable. And often when you needed it most - winter and cold - is when it is not windy because a high pressure system is parked over you.

 

Solar is not without land impacts either - you need to sacrafice quite a bit of desert land to get a cost-benefit scale. And wind turbines - many of the easy sites are already built out, the terrestrial issues mainly deal with chopping up bats and raptors. Off-shore wind has some potential as does marine energy - tidal and wave - but we are so behind the Europeans because of the byzantaine regulatory environment.

 

The French took an early and conservative approach to nukes. The vetted designs and came up with two certified options. If you are a utility you have no choice but to use one of these designs. In the U.S. we do need to do something similar and yes, just move ahead with Yucca already.

[Jim]

Yup. Obviously, the 'prestige of engineers', and easily measureable and repeatable...um...would that be a quantity or quality?...anyway, I'm sure that's the only reason why 80% of French power is generated by nukes. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the efficacy of that choice, in terms of efficiency, cost, and environmental concerns. It's all about how the French 'admire engineers more than lawyers'. If engineers weren't as respected, France would clearly be burning coal.

 

Yor posts are usually be less of a stretch than this, Jim.

 

Did you even bother to read the article? I wasn't implying that was a chief reason - one of many.

 

But yea - it is a factor because the French have folks in leadership positions who actually understand the technology and can discuss it with their people - and the people appaear to appreciate and respect folks with knowledge about the subject. Thus they understand the tradeoffs and are making fully informed decisions.

[tvashtarkatena]

Buncha hot shit in one hole out in the middle of bum fuck nowhere versus a destroyed climate.

 

I choose door #1, thanks.

 

Most anti-nuclear rhetoric applies to a very dirty weapons program and mismanaged US commercial program, not a very clean, reliable French style nuclear program (or US Navy program, for that matter)

 

the French program is no cleaner than anybody else, except the Russian program of course. The French haven't had a major problem but they had numerous small leaks that were hidden from the public, like everybody else. In term of the centralization needed to control the risk involved in a a nuclear program, civilian programs have little to envy to military programs.

 

Climate change is not a valid reason to develop a nuclear program that entails risks much greater than renewable energy like solar, wind, hydrothermal, etc ...Especially, that nuclear centrals need river water to cool, which was notoriously a problem during the 2003 heat wave when river waters became so warm (due to heat wave and cooling reactors) as to threaten river ecosystems. Since summer heat waves are supposed to ~double in frequency over the past, it seems to be something we take into account. Finally, the costs involved in nuclear (including liability) are likely greater than that of clean energy programs as shown by having few private investors willing to invest in developing plants.

 

Considering that TMI and Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accidents in history, could hardly be classified as major disasters, what have been the actual consequences of these 'numerous small leaks?'. I'd wager...little to nothing.

 

Legal costs for nuclear are an American problem related to our combined commercial/military program and are completely solvable. Not an argument against the technology, sorry: the French have proven that already.

 

Intermittent power generation is fine, but only if combined with a steady power source.

 

When one considers the life cycle cost of wind generation, it's far from 'free' - windmills last less than 20 years and have an enormous amount of embodied energy, particularly when one considers decommissioning them (they are typically left up to rot, of course...taking up a valuable land and wind generation space in addition to being an eyesore). Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it.

 

Distributed passive solar water and building heat is awesome, PV is pretty much bullshit when you consider the life cycle and resource limitation of the materials involved to make the panels. It's great for wealthy off the grid homes, remote weather stations, and satellites, and calculators, though.

 

That leaves hydro - yeah, we needn't go into the environmental/life cycle issues there at this point, I hope.

 

This is all assuming a robust, comprehensive conservation program, of course.

 

Visiting the oil sands pretty much sold me on nuclear for life. We need transport powered by the grid, plain and simple.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yup. Obviously, the 'prestige of engineers', and easily measureable and repeatable...um...would that be a quantity or quality?...anyway, I'm sure that's the only reason why 80% of French power is generated by nukes. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the efficacy of that choice, in terms of efficiency, cost, and environmental concerns. It's all about how the French 'admire engineers more than lawyers'. If engineers weren't as respected, France would clearly be burning coal.

 

Yor posts are usually be less of a stretch than this, Jim.

 

Did you even bother to read the article? I wasn't implying that was a chief reason - one of many.

 

But yea - it is a factor because the French have folks in leadership positions who actually understand the technology and can discuss it with their people - and the people appaear to appreciate and respect folks with knowledge about the subject. Thus they understand the tradeoffs and are making fully informed decisions.

 

OK, sorry. The French do seem to have a far superior public policy making process, considering the undeniable superiority of both their grid, public transportation, and health care system over our clusterfuck attempts at the same.

[j_b]

too many points to answer considering I am quite busy today so it'll be a quicky.

 

I provided a link to ~8 estimates of peak uranium, some of which are further into the future than the one you cited. It seems a more balanced approach than relying entirely on on one estimate that appears to be the work of the nuclear lobby.

 

Chernobyl was a disaster with huge consequences that were covered up. The WHO report for Chernobyl cited something like 43 casualties, which is a total joke as there were likely more casualties among the workers who buried the reactor in the weeks following the 'accident'. Ukrainian medical researchers have shown there were/will be 100,000 of cases over the decades following the melt down, huge areas unusable for decades because of contamination. Also, check out how close we came to a major melt down at 3 miles Island in 1979 to understand the risks, and epidemiology reports are always controversial.

 

a French technocrat elite played a role but so did the bottomless pit that is military nuclear research, their total lack of oil resource, the 80's recession forcing the closure of almost all coal mines, and their not being in control of the dollar printing press (like us)

 

I'd reconsider nuclear if we didn't have a limitless potential of clean energy at a fraction of the problems and likely cost.

 

if I have time, later I'll address base load, energy grid and renewables, which I agree is the most difficult aspect of relying entirely on renewable energy.

Edited January 13, 2011 by j_b

[tvashtarkatena]

too many points to answer considering I am quite busy today so it'll be a quicky.

 

I provided a link to ~8 estimates of peak uranium, some of which are further into the future than the one you cited. It seems a more balanced approach than relying entirely on on one estimate that appears to be the work of the nuclear lobby.

 

Chernobyl was a disaster with huge consequences that were covered up. The WHO report for Chernobyl cited something like 43 casualties, which is a total joke as there were likely more casualties among the workers who buried the reactor in the weeks following the 'accident'. Ukrainian medical researchers have shown there were/will be 100,000 of cases over the decades following the melt down, huge areas unusable for decades because of contamination. Also, check out how close we came to a major melt down at 3 miles Island in 1979 to understand the risks, and epidemiology reports are always controversial.

 

a French technocrat elite played a role but so did the bottomless pit that is military nuclear research, their total lack of oil resource, the 80's recession forcing the closure of almost all coal mines, and their not being in control of the dollar printing press (like us)

 

I'd reconsider nuclear if we didn't have a limitless potential of clean energy at a fraction of the problems and likely cost.

 

if I have time, later I'll address base load, energy grid and renewables, which I agree is the most difficult aspect of relying entirely on renewable energy.

 

Oh...OK, Chernobyl was 'covered up'. My recollection was that it's been one of the most scrutinized, studied, and publicized industrial accidents, if not THE MOST, in history. The 'huge areas' claim is pure crap. Sorry.

 

TMI produced...no cancer deaths. None.

 

The New Yorker has a very good article (within the past year) on the evacuation and closure of Uravan, a U mining town in CO, that covers a lot of the mis information put out there by the anti nuke movement.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

I said the consequences of Chernobyl were covered up. Can you tell the differences with what you wrote?

 

It appears that TMI didn't cause any cancer, although we aren't certain, but we came within 20 minutes of a serious melt down with major consequences.

 

I see a lot of misinformation about nuclear and most of it comes from the nuclear lobby.

[j_b]

here is a map of the region concerned at Chernobyl, to put your "complete crap" in perspective:

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I said the consequences of Chernobyl were covered up. Can you tell the differences with what you wrote?

 

It appears that TMI didn't cause any cancer, although we aren't certain, but we came within 20 minutes of a serious melt down with major consequences.

 

I see a lot of misinformation about nuclear and most of it comes from the nuclear lobby.

 

If you think I'm going to defend the clusterfuck that was the American nuclear program....

 

Fortunately, we have at least one functioning model that we can copy.

 

I don't have a bullshit scale for comparison, but suffice to say that the anti nuke movement has been no slouch in the misinformation department.

 

BTW, 20% of the American grid is supplied by nuclear. It never went away.