in Άρθρα στα Ελληνικά

Πυρηνική μου ενέργεια

Μείναμε σαν χάνοι μπροστά από τις τηλεοράσεις μας να παρακολουθούμε το φιάσκο του Κυότο σε μεγέθυνση και να επιτρέπουμε να μας εξευτελίζουν προσπαθώντας να μας πείσουν ότι μπορούν να νοιαστούν για οτιδήποτε πέραν του εαυτού τους, πόσο μάλλον για το περιβάλλον που νομίζουν ότι λειτουργεί εις βάρος της τσέπης τους. Προσπαθούν να μας πείσουν ότι χρησιμοποιώντας πυρηνική ενέργεια θα λύσουμε το πρόβλημα της έλλειψης ενεργειακής εξασφάλισης.
Δε μας λένε ότι δεν υπάρχει τρόπος να καταστραφούν τα πυρηνικά απόβλητα και ότι οι υπόγειες υποδομές που αποθηκεύονται έχουν όριο ζωής μικρότερο της ραδιενεργούς διάρκειας των αποβλήτων.
Δε μας λένε ότι η επένδυση στην έρευνα για πυρηνική ενέργεια είναι πολλαπλάσια από την έρευνα για πιο πράσινες πηγές όπως ενέργεια από τον ήλιο, τα κύματα, τον αέρα και τον ήλιο.
Δε μας λένε ότι η εξέλιξη της χρήσης πυρηνικής ενέργειας, σημαίνει ότι για περίπου 50 χρόνια θα είμαστε εξαρτημένοι σε αυτή καθώς οι επενδυτές πρέπει να αποσβέσουν – στο πολλαπλάσιο ως είθισται – την επένδυση τους. Όπως δηλαδή συμβαίνει και με το πετρέλαιο. Γι’ αυτό οι ρητορείες περί παράλληλης έρευνας είναι απλά χαϊδεμα των αυτιών εμάς των αφελών.
Δε μας λένε ότι οι πλείστες επιστημονικές πηγές που υποστηρίζουν τη χρήση πυρηνικής ενέργειας είναι χρηματοδοτούμενες από τις ίδιες τις εταιρίες παραγωγής της.
Δε μας λένε τι θα γίνει σε περίπτωση ατυχήματος σε ένα από αυτούς τους σταθμούς. Τι θα γίνει αν το επόμενο αεροπλάνο καταλήξει σε ένα από αυτούς τους σταθμούς; Πως θα κοιτάξεις μετά το παραμορφωμένο νεογέννητο; Πως θα δεις τα παιδιά σου στα μάτια; Πόσα μάτια θα έχουν τα παιδιά σου;
Πριν ξεκινήσουμε να μιλάμε για το περιβάλλον, πρέπει πρώτα να αποφασίσουμε ότι θέλουμε να το σώσουμε, πρέπει να πρώτα να αλλάξουμε εμάς, για να αλλάξει το σύστημα. Ο «οικολογικός εκμοντερνισμός» (ecological modernization) όπως μας τον πλασάρουν, δεν είναι η λύση γιατί απλά συντηρεί το καταναλωτικό τέρας του συστήματος. Ας αφήσουμε τις προσπάθειες να αλλάξουμε τον κόσμο και ας επικεντρωθούμε στην προσπάθεια να αλλάξουμε τον εαυτό μας. Όταν γίνει αυτό, οι θύτες του κεφαλαίου θα αναγκαστούν να προσαρμοστούν στους νέους εαυτούς μας. Ο άνθρωπος, έστω υπό τον ρόλο του καταναλωτή, έχει τη δύναμη να αλλάξει τον κόσμο μέσω του εαυτού του, μέσω της ομάδας επιρροής του, μέσω της οικογένειας και της τοπικής του κοινότητας.

Μείναμε σαν χάνοι μπροστά από τις τηλεοράσεις μας να παρακολουθούμε το φιάσκο του Κυότο σε μεγέθυνση και να επιτρέπουμε να μας εξευτελίζουν προσπαθώντας να μας πείσουν ότι μπορούν να νοιαστούν για οτιδήποτε πέραν του εαυτού τους, πόσο μάλλον για το περιβάλλον που νομίζουν ότι λειτουργεί εις βάρος της τσέπης τους. Προσπαθούν να μας πείσουν ότι χρησιμοποιώντας πυρηνική ενέργεια θα λύσουμε το πρόβλημα της έλλειψης ενεργειακής εξασφάλισης.

Δε μας λένε ότι δεν υπάρχει τρόπος να καταστραφούν τα πυρηνικά απόβλητα και ότι οι υπόγειες υποδομές που αποθηκεύονται έχουν όριο ζωής μικρότερο της ραδιενεργούς διάρκειας των αποβλήτων.

Δε μας λένε ότι η επένδυση στην έρευνα για πυρηνική ενέργεια είναι πολλαπλάσια από την έρευνα για πιο πράσινες πηγές όπως ενέργεια από τον ήλιο, τα κύματα, τον αέρα και τον ήλιο.

Δε μας λένε ότι η εξέλιξη της χρήσης πυρηνικής ενέργειας, σημαίνει ότι για περίπου 50 χρόνια θα είμαστε εξαρτημένοι σε αυτή καθώς οι επενδυτές πρέπει να αποσβέσουν – στο πολλαπλάσιο ως είθισται – την επένδυση τους. Όπως δηλαδή συμβαίνει και με το πετρέλαιο. Γι’ αυτό οι ρητορείες περί παράλληλης έρευνας είναι απλά χαϊδεμα των αυτιών εμάς των αφελών.

Δε μας λένε ότι οι πλείστες επιστημονικές πηγές που υποστηρίζουν τη χρήση πυρηνικής ενέργειας είναι χρηματοδοτούμενες από τις ίδιες τις εταιρίες παραγωγής της.

Δε μας λένε τι θα γίνει σε περίπτωση ατυχήματος σε ένα από αυτούς τους σταθμούς. Τι θα γίνει αν το επόμενο αεροπλάνο καταλήξει σε ένα από αυτούς τους σταθμούς; Πως θα κοιτάξεις μετά το παραμορφωμένο νεογέννητο; Πως θα δεις τα παιδιά σου στα μάτια; Πόσα μάτια θα έχουν τα παιδιά σου;

Πριν ξεκινήσουμε να μιλάμε για το περιβάλλον, πρέπει πρώτα να αποφασίσουμε ότι θέλουμε να το σώσουμε, πρέπει να πρώτα να αλλάξουμε εμάς, για να αλλάξει το σύστημα. Ο «οικολογικός εκμοντερνισμός» (ecological modernization) όπως μας τον πλασάρουν, δεν είναι η λύση γιατί απλά συντηρεί το καταναλωτικό τέρας του συστήματος. Ας αφήσουμε τις προσπάθειες να αλλάξουμε τον κόσμο και ας επικεντρωθούμε στην προσπάθεια να αλλάξουμε τον εαυτό μας. Όταν γίνει αυτό, οι θύτες του κεφαλαίου θα αναγκαστούν να προσαρμοστούν στους νέους εαυτούς μας. Ο άνθρωπος, έστω υπό τον ρόλο του καταναλωτή, έχει τη δύναμη να αλλάξει τον κόσμο μέσω του εαυτού του, μέσω της ομάδας επιρροής του, μέσω της οικογένειας και της τοπικής του κοινότητας.

Leave a Reply

11 Comments

  1. First of all, take a step back and see the whole picture. Don't just close your eyes and see part of it.

    Wind turbines output is unpredictable; they are great for supplementary power, but you can not run it as a primary source — you simply do not know when its going to be windy! You also have sun energy only during the day, how are you going to power everything during night? Buy batteries?

    Everything looks really nice on a youtube video.

    Green energy is more expensive than nuclear. Take a look at the figures here: http://www.claverton-energy.com/?dl_id=314

    Additionally, you are greatly mistaken about the research going on in nuclear energy. There are two ways of producing nuclear energy: Nuclear Fission (the current commercially deployed method) and Nuclear Fusion. In fission you split a heavy atom producing energy and byproducts which then you'll have to get rid of. In Nuclear Fusion you take lighter atoms like Hydrogen and you combine them together, producing energy and a heavier element, in this case Helium, which is not radioactive and it can be reused in the reaction.

    Nuclear Fusion is the cleanest form energy form you can have. Its the same form of reaction our Sun does. Currently this form of producing energy is still extremely experimental, but its not getting commercial until somebody pays for it.

    Finally, they know that Uranium deposits are log-normal: high-quality uranium ore is getting harder to find, with low-quality getting easier. They can not continue burning Uranium for more, as it would get uneconomically to purify it.

    You can not control the increasing demand for energy. Even if devices are getting more efficient, earth's population will still grow requiring more energy. You need to solve the energy issue once, not prolong it with solutions that seem to be green for now.

    I will not even comment about a plane falling into a nuclear station — what is the statistical possibility, considering that these areas are no-fly zones? Also, have you seen a nuclear accident in the last 15 years?

    For me “green” is just a buzzword created by politicians. Step a bit back, take a good look at the facts, review whats possible, whats feasible, whats efficient, and then start condemning solutions.

    • Andrea,

      I disagree with your approach and on two different levels. Firstly, it relies solely on scientific proof. Environmental scientists are famous for their miscalculations (the most popular one being the club of rome report in the 60's). The problem of the environment cannot rely entirely on scientists. The technocratic approach is part of the solution, not the solution itself.

      Secondly, and this is why I suggested that you have not even seen the video I posted, you argue that green energy sources are unstable and not secure enough for countries to count on them; this may be the outcome but the cause is the research and development funds allocated to nuclear energy research versus those that are allocated for green energy research. Such large scale investments cannot – and as we can see, do not – run parallel.

      As far as the nuclear accident argument that you so superficially over passed, I can recall a recent accident (couple of months ago) with a leakage that killed some workers. In addition to that, if you look at the british white papers on the matter, you will see that it is a major matter of concern. The British gov, famously and stupidly argued that the workers' whereabouts will be taken into consideration. In other words they will only employ white guys without beard.

      Anyway, since I'm on my way to the airport I will end it here. Your arguments do not lack evidence, but your angle of analysis is short sided. Investment in Green sources can guarantee an end to the energy security problem.

  2. First of all, take a step back and see the whole picture. Don’t just close your eyes and see part of it.

    Wind turbines output is unpredictable; they are great for supplementary power, but you can not run it as a primary source — you simply do not know when its going to be windy! You also have sun energy only during the day, how are you going to power everything during night? Buy batteries?

    Everything looks really nice on a youtube video.

    Green energy is more expensive than nuclear. Take a look at the figures here: http://www.claverton-energy.com/?dl_id=314

    Additionally, you are greatly mistaken about the research going on in nuclear energy. There are two ways of producing nuclear energy: Nuclear Fission (the current commercially deployed method) and Nuclear Fusion. In fission you split a heavy atom producing energy and byproducts which then you’ll have to get rid of. In Nuclear Fusion you take lighter atoms like Hydrogen and you combine them together, producing energy and a heavier element, in this case Helium, which is not radioactive and it can be reused in the reaction.

    Nuclear Fusion is the cleanest form energy form you can have. Its the same form of reaction our Sun does. Currently this form of producing energy is still extremely experimental, but its not getting commercial until somebody pays for it.

    Finally, they know that Uranium deposits are log-normal: high-quality uranium ore is getting harder to find, with low-quality getting easier. They can not continue burning Uranium for more, as it would get uneconomically to purify it.

    You can not control the increasing demand for energy. Even if devices are getting more efficient, earth’s population will still grow requiring more energy. You need to solve the energy issue once, not prolong it with solutions that seem to be green for now.

    I will not even comment about a plane falling into a nuclear station — what is the statistical possibility, considering that these areas are no-fly zones? Also, have you seen a nuclear accident in the last 15 years?

    For me “green” is just a buzzword created by politicians. Step a bit back, take a good look at the facts, review whats possible, whats feasible, whats efficient, and then start condemning solutions.

    • Andrea,

      I disagree with your approach and on two different levels. Firstly, it relies solely on scientific proof. Environmental scientists are famous for their miscalculations (the most popular one being the club of rome report in the 60’s). The problem of the environment cannot rely entirely on scientists. The technocratic approach is part of the solution, not the solution itself.

      Secondly, and this is why I suggested that you have not even seen the video I posted, you argue that green energy sources are unstable and not secure enough for countries to count on them; this may be the outcome but the cause is the research and development funds allocated to nuclear energy research versus those that are allocated for green energy research. Such large scale investments cannot – and as we can see, do not – run parallel.

      As far as the nuclear accident argument that you so superficially over passed, I can recall a recent accident (couple of months ago) with a leakage that killed some workers. In addition to that, if you look at the british white papers on the matter, you will see that it is a major matter of concern. The British gov, famously and stupidly argued that the workers’ whereabouts will be taken into consideration. In other words they will only employ white guys without beard.

      Anyway, since I’m on my way to the airport I will end it here. Your arguments do not lack evidence, but your angle of analysis is short sided. Investment in Green sources can guarantee an end to the energy security problem.

  3. But you HAVE to rely on science to provide solutions. Discussing in a meeting does ABSOLUTELY nothing. Even if you discuss it for days, the ultimate solution will not be found by itself. The political decision goes as far as allocating the money for research.

    Green depends on your point of view. How much CO2 is produced when you're constructing photovoltaic cells? Or how much waste is generated by the machining process? Does it really pays off and when? Have you looked into that?

    Green energy sources do not run in parallel, never said they did. The question here is predictability. You can not base a country's energy based on unpredictable energy sources. How can you predict a worst case scenario? No sun and no wind? Can you afford sending a whole country into darkness when this scenario occurs?

    Regarding accidents, please cite your sources. My source is the NRC (nrc.gov).

    In the energy debate and solution there is only the scientific evidence and research. If you talk about it for 10 years with your fellow bureaucrats wont create a solution.

  4. But you HAVE to rely on science to provide solutions. Discussing in a meeting does ABSOLUTELY nothing. Even if you discuss it for days, the ultimate solution will not be found by itself. The political decision goes as far as allocating the money for research.

    Green depends on your point of view. How much CO2 is produced when you’re constructing photovoltaic cells? Or how much waste is generated by the machining process? Does it really pays off and when? Have you looked into that?

    Green energy sources do not run in parallel, never said they did. The question here is predictability. You can not base a country’s energy based on unpredictable energy sources. How can you predict a worst case scenario? No sun and no wind? Can you afford sending a whole country into darkness when this scenario occurs?

    Regarding accidents, please cite your sources. My source is the NRC (nrc.gov).

    In the energy debate and solution there is only the scientific evidence and research. If you talk about it for 10 years with your fellow bureaucrats wont create a solution.

  5. Andrea,

    I disagree with your approach and on two different levels. Firstly, it relies solely on scientific proof. Environmental scientists are famous for their miscalculations (the most popular one being the club of rome report in the 60's). The problem of the environment cannot rely entirely on scientists. The technocratic approach is part of the solution, not the solution itself.

    Secondly, and this is why I suggested that you have not even seen the video I posted, you argue that green energy sources are unstable and not secure enough for countries to count on them; this may be the outcome but the cause is the research and development funds allocated to nuclear energy research versus those that are allocated for green energy research. Such large scale investments cannot – and as we can see, do not – run parallel.

    As far as the nuclear accident argument that you so superficially over passed, I can recall a recent accident (couple of months ago) with a leakage that killed some workers. In addition to that, if you look at the british white papers on the matter, you will see that it is a major matter of concern. The British gov, famously and stupidly argued that the workers' whereabouts will be taken into consideration. In other words they will only employ white guys without beard.

    Anyway, since I'm on my way to the airport I will end it here. Your arguments do not lack evidence, but your angle of analysis is short sided. Investment in Green sources can guarantee an end to the energy security problem.

  6. But you HAVE to rely on science to provide solutions. Discussing in a meeting does ABSOLUTELY nothing. Even if you discuss it for days, the ultimate solution will not be found by itself. The political decision goes as far as allocating the money for research.

    Green depends on your point of view. How much CO2 is produced when you're constructing photovoltaic cells? Or how much waste is generated by the machining process? Does it really pays off and when? Have you looked into that?

    Green energy sources do not run in parallel, never said they did. The question here is predictability. You can not base a country's energy based on unpredictable energy sources. How can you predict a worst case scenario? No sun and no wind? Can you afford sending a whole country into darkness when this scenario occurs?

    Regarding accidents, please cite your sources. My source is the NRC (nrc.gov).

    In the energy debate and solution there is only the scientific evidence and research. If you talk about it for 10 years with your fellow bureaucrats wont create a solution.