Lovelock's positive writing on nuclear power

[Bigmack]

Would appreciate informed opinion on James Lovelock's positive take on nuclear
energy as argued-discussed in his new(er) book - The Vanishing Face of Gaia. He is an independent scientist for whom I have great respect. He argues that nuclear power is the BEST alternative that we now have available to carbon-based fuels and that it's dangers have been overstated by the media. I found his evidence persuasive. Any reactions?

[zipplewrath]

1. They are over stated

However, the problem becomes, if they are "correctly" stated, does it change the conclusion. I can poke alot of holes in the standard arguments against nuclear power.

However, there are remaining arguments that are solid and won't easily go away.

#1 What countries/infrastructures should and should not be able to have nuclear power, and what types of nuclear? The biggest problem with nuclear power/weapons over the last 20 years has been the collapse of the Soviet Union. How does one make an argument for nuclear power that can address the total collapse of a governmental structure? Look at what the history of nuclear power in Pakistan has brought us. Does Mr. Lovelock address these questions?

[Bigmack]

6. Only about 2/3's thru the book

but not so far, and I'm doubting he will. You raise VERY pregnant point, tho.

[kristopher]

2. Here is the Sourcewatch entry for Lovelock

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Lovelock

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Lovelock#Links_to_the_nuclear_industry

[Bigmack]

7. Thanks for the link

Read thru it, and while old James is HARDLY lily white and virgin pure, and I'll admit that the info there has colored my sense of the scientist, it hasn't destroyed my overall rather positive sense of the man. Having been married for some years to a research physicist, I'm well aware that decent people make questionable choices of associates in order to receive funding and access. While it's clear from the sourcewatch data that SOME of Lovelock's claims about the safety of nuclear power are regrettable, I'm still intrigued by other parts of his reasoning.....and his arguments about more "acceptable" power sources being the largely unrecognized source of death and health problems DO intrigue me, and made me think about "stuff" I'd not thought much about. Should have noted - originally - that this is old Ms Bigmack's post - and not the Bigmack's!

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Last I knew, Lovelock advocated "biochar" as our only hope

http://www.google.com/search?q=lovelock+biochar

However, he is also an advocate of nuclear power.

[Bigmack]

8. Think I'll go with Monbiot on this one

[texastoast]

4. All I know is this about the South Texas Project

The word nuclear was removed for image purposes. It was initially the South Texas Nuclear Project (Bush never could pronounce the first version.)

I had a bunch of friends working on the project when it was being built in the 1970s and got first-hand reports that many of the concrete workers and welders were showing up fo work freaking high as a kite (this was before the days of drug testing).

When the X-rays of the concrete and welds came back full of faults, the goldhats made an executive decision to let just a whole lot of those faults go. They had to, because to fix it right, the entire project would have needed to be torn down and started over. At the time I was told about this, the project was already $600 million in cost overruns, so understandably Brown & Root was a little concerned about profit.

I'm SURE that nothing like this could ever happen again.

:eyes:

The best alternative is to move toward minimalism and renewables.

[Bigmack]

9. While I tend to agree with your last observation

Alas, I just don't think it's gonna catch on with the Great Unwashed. And I sure agree that shoddy construction poses a MAJOR obstacle to "safe" nuclear power, but then that is a problem with virtually ALL humankind's current power sources.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Shoddy construction may be a problem with virtually all power sources, but

A catastrophic failure of a nuclear fission plant is much worse than the catastrophic failure of a wind turbine (for example.)

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Most all the reactions are likely to be ... intense

If you want a serious, intellectual dialog on nuclear energy, you won't find it here. Just wait a few hours. You'll see.

You just waded into our (the left's) Culture War.

Flames. Misinformation. 1970s nostalgia. Fear-mongering. Ego. Snark-a-rama. Everything but the plastic dead-fetus dolls. It's a shame, really, considering that most of the Democrats now SUPPORT nuclear energy, and even most of the opponents prefer knowledge-based dialog. And when the antis amp up the pressure to teabagger intensity, all it will do will be to push people the other way.

Lovelock found this out first-hand, and literally overnight was "discovered" to be the most horrible person since Pol Pot. Al Gore got the same treatment in the 1980s and 1990s; fortunately for him, the election in 2000 and An Inconvenient Truth hit the Reset button. He learned how to walk on nuclear eggshells with great agility.

Good luck!

--d!
"The life of a repo man is always intense." (Miller)

[Bigmack]

10. Oh hell, one of the GREAT consolations of

old age is that a person comes to really not give a damn about verbal hazardous waters. One seldom drowns in them.