Climate Crisis: Our Last Chance
- This topic has 904 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
My apologies. And your observations is on the ball…adaptation takes time
But I note France which is nuclear power-oriented is stalled on the production of new power stations. While there has been an increase in present usage, i read this
French Environment Minister Francois de Rugy said he expected there would be fewer nuclear reactors in ten years, but gave no indication on how and when France would reduce its reliance on nuclear energy.
His predecessor Nicolas Hulot repeatedly said state-owned EDF should shut down up to a third of its 58 nuclear reactors – de Rugy has shied away from specifying how France will reduce its reliance on nuclear for electricity from the current 75 percent share. But it is believed that the government will likely emphasise the battle against climate change in order justify a decision to keep 56 of France’s 58 reactors, which emit very almost no CO2, in service until 2029
53% of French people said they were now opposed to nuclear power. This is compared to 67% who said they were in favour, five years’ ago. Greenpeace, said: “We have gone from a world in which French society believed that nuclear was the only choice. The public thought it was bad, but a necessary evil. But now, with the rise in renewable energy, with sun and wind, we can bypass nuclear completely.”
However,
“…Given that renewables currently account for only 8 percent of France’s electricity production, nuclear is the nation’s only choice to avoid any significant energy deficit in the forthcoming years… At some point in the future, when wind capacity has grown sufficiently – both in terms of overall number of wind farms commissioned and their profitability – it might make sense to curtail further nuclear usage, however, under current conditions, it is much more reasonable to get finally rid of coal (which France stopped producing in 2004, so the fuel is imported) and rely on the combination of nuclear, hydro and wind power. Imposing ill-judged restrictions has rarely proven to be the right energy policy tenet, the French nuclear example proves that rationality will prevail in the end, in one way or another…”
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Can-France-Move-Away-From-Nuclear-Energy.html
But globally nuclear power production will grow by about 46 percent by 2040 — more than 90 percent of the increase will come from China and India, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
That illustrates my point perfectly about the impossibility of adopting a rational energy policy under capitalism, let alone a rational approach to the threat of global warming.
Given that there is such a threat and that there’s an urgent need to drastically cut back on generating energy from other sources than burning fossil fuels, the only technologically feasible quick replacement (even in socialism) capable of producing a steady flow of electricity on the scale required would seem to be nuclear power. Yet, because it is currently more expensive than burning some fossil fuel, nuclear power stations are being closed down and new ones not being built.
I know nuclear power has its own dangers and Greens don’t like it either, but in the circumstances might it not be the lesser evil?
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/nuclear-called-a-lesser-evil-than-fossil-fuels
However, there is the high level waste (low level waste is a less problem. Who would stop the medical use of radiation?)
After decades of nuclear power, there has been no solution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
But i think when it comes to lesser evils, as you say, it is better than other lesser evil options. Nevertheless, for capitalism, the investment costs of nuclear could easily be diverted to solar, wind etc etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants
“If you ask me whether the BBC or ExxonMobil has done more to frustrate environmental action in this country, I would say the BBC.” – George Monbiot.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/07/david-attenborough-world-environment-bbc-films
Not a great fan of Monbiot but i tend to agree with him and especially on his criticism of David Attenborough’s distortions on over-population. Just during the week i had an over-populationist link to an Attenborough video and to another video by yet another zoologist, David Suzuki.
And people here know i have very much a bug-bear about the BBC.
Just happened across this which kinda reflects my point made earlier about the rich avoiding climate change…..
https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/survival-of-the-richest-9ef6cddd0cc1
Letter in the Guardian supporting nuclear power as a green alternative.
scroll down
Yes, there does seem to be an attempt to get a bandwagon rolling that nuclear power is the obvious immediate alternative to burning fossil fuels so as to reduce CO2 emissions. There’s an article in the latest issue (November/December) of the Skeptical Inquirer on the “ecomodernists”, a group which argues that embracing, not criticising, modern technology is the way to deal with the threat of too rapid global warming.
The article says of Germany:
In 2011, Germany made the rash political decision to phase out its seventeen emission-free nuclear power plants, which at the time accounted for 25 percent of the country’s electricity generation, In doing so, Germany has remained strongly dependent on some of the dirtiest coal power plants in the world for more than 40 percent of its electricity.
If true, this would mean that the Greens, who were at the forefront of the anti-nuclear campaign, would have made things worse.
Of the US, it says that fracking
lowered the cost of generating electricity from cleaner burning natural gas power plants, putting many dirtier and more expensive coal power plants out of business.
So generating electricity from burning natural gas from fracking is a “lesser evil” than generating it from burning coal. Nuclear power is a “lesser evil” than burning natural gas, but
A glut of cheap natural gas also threatens the country’s 100 emission-free nuclear power stations, which generate 20 percent of U.S. electricity.
This shows once again that, since what method is adopted to generate electricity is a matter of changing, relative prices, capitalism is incapable of implementing a rational energy policy.
For the record, what the “ecomodernists” advocate is a combination of nuclear and natural gas (but whose plants have effective means of capturing CO2 and burying it instead of releasing it into the atmosphere — not sure that this technolog exists yet, does it?) See: http://www.ecomodernism.org for their manifesto.
I note that one of the signatories is Mark Lynas who in 2007 published Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet which raised the rather alarmist prospect of Earth ending up like Venus, i.e the extinction of all life. It was reviewed in the August 2007 <i>Socialist Standard</i> (scroll down):
Perhaps he has scared himself into supporting nuclear as the only alternative.
Germany has been making rapid progress on re-newables focusing a lot on windpower
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-about-100-german-power-use-first-time-ever
As I was flying over it last year on a clear day using fossil fuel you couldn’t help noticing the huge number of turbines.
The cost of production and efficiency of that kind of thing has improved recently.
As has solar so grid electricity produced by solar is a lot lower than that obtainable by fossil fuel in lots of places like California so much so that the capitalists themselves are getting into it for profit.
Although I agree with most of the climate change people that is probably too late as we have gone beyond the tipping point with runaway effects.
Methane emissions from tundra and reduction in light reflecting and thus cooling ice sheets.
It is probably brace for impact and all, a bit unfortunately, just too late.
And just a bit too much easily extractable fossil fuel; otherwise its price would have risen more sharply and made alternatives more economic.
The idea of capturing Co2 and burying is a load of bollocks when you look into it.
The idea of capturing Co2 and burying is a load of bollocks when you look into it.
Yes, it does seem an odd thing to do. Isn’t there anything else that can be done with CO2? And of course we don’t want to completely eliminate CO2 emissions, otherwise what would plants “breathe” in? To do that we would have to suppress us and other animals as that is what we emit, i.e. breathe out. Just need to keep it down to a level that’s not going to lead to a too rapid global warming, i.e to a level that the rest of Nature can absorb.
We have in fact tried to engage the Greens and can predict what their answer will be (once they’ve finished dealing with relative minutae such as more cycle lanes, more 20 mph roads and more vegetarian choices in schools): “Socialism is a long way off and the problem of global overwarming is so urgent that we can’t wait for that. We must do something now.” This of course begs the question that something effective and lasting can be done “now”, i.e within capitalism.
ALL THE REFORMISTS WILL GIVE YOU THE SAME ANSWER
Like the Anti-Trump, their problem is Donald Trump instead of capitalism, but it would be preferable to keep Trump instead of a religious fanatic Taliban like Mike Pence
Is this a sign of things to come in mounting militancy.
Saturday is Extinction Rebellion Day
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46172661
Nope, not very militant, imho. Just business-as-usual with a bit more urgency….
“The protesters’ short-term aims are to cancel what they call “contradictory” projects they say will actually increase emissions in the UK, such as the third runway at Heathrow, fracking and the £30bn roads programme.
Their long-term aims are to:
<ul class=”story-body__unordered-list”>
<li class=”story-body__list-item”>Oblige cabinet members to “tell the truth” about the seriousness of the environmental crisis
<li class=”story-body__list-item”>Make the UK carbon neutral by 2025 (the government is considering 2050 as a date for that)
<li class=”story-body__list-item”>Set up a People’s Assembly of ordinary citizens to decide priorities for reshaping the economy so that protecting the climate becomes Number One priorityThe aim of persuading some cabinet members to speak out may possibly be achievable.
But experts say achieving a zero-emissions economy by 2025 isn’t in any scenario. It would need a revolution in transport, home insulation, energy efficiency, agriculture and more.
Setting up an assembly of mostly randomly selected citizens to take charge of the great economic shift will surely not be accepted by politicians.”
And they have some academic support (i always wonder about their actual professional credentials)
“We therefore declare our support for Extinction Rebellion, launching on 31 October 2018. We fully stand behind the demands for the government to tell the hard truth to its citizens. We call for a Citizens’ Assembly to work with scientists on the basis of the extant evidence and in accordance with the precautionary principle, to urgently develop a credible plan for rapid total decarbonisation of the economy.”
“to a level that the rest of Nature can absorb.”
This is the reason emphasis is laid on forests carbon sinks
Up to 80% of global forest loss is driven by agribusiness
Is gas a lesser evil?
“Australia’s carbon footprint has expanded for the last three years straight – and the coal industry is not to blame. The biggest driver has been liquefied natural gas, known as LNG.
Science and policy institute Climate Analytics found that between 2015 and 2020 the emissions growth from LNG will effectively wipe out the carbon pollution avoided through the 23% renewable energy target.
“It’s been incredible that until now this industry has gotten away with being such a massive source of carbon dioxide – and particularly carbon dioxide growth – while barely being acknowledged,” says Piers Verstegen, the director of the Conservation Council of Western Australia.
Bill Hare, the managing director of Climate Analytics and an adviser to developing countries at United Nations climate negotiations explains, “This industry is now responsible for what is a globally significant increase in emissions…”
The industry says this makes good environmental sense. Gas-fired electricity emits about 50% less carbon dioxide than coal. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association argues this makes it a good substitute, particularly in Asia, where it can drive economic development and cut emissions. The association points to International Energy Agency (IEA) projections suggesting demand for natural gas will grow.
But some analysts say evidence that gas is being substituted for coal is mixed at best, and the argument does not hold when it is substituted for emissions-free nuclear power or preferred to renewable energy. While it is true that gas burns cleaner than coal and is expected to have a longer life if the world acts on climate change as promised, LNG production is an emissions-intensive game. Carbon dioxide is emitted when gas is extracted from the reservoir and particularly during compression and decompression. The process also requires plenty of electricity.
Tony Wood, the director of the Grattan Institute energy program, says, “It is a sleeper issue. The industry has been fortunate in the sense that no one has been paying attention to it, but the tonnes [of carbon dioxide] involved with it are significant. “
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.