Insight and inspiration in turbulent times.
Imagine a nuclear reactor that runs on fuel that could power civilization for millennia; cannot melt down; resists weapons proliferation; can be built on a relatively small parcel of land; and produces little hazardous waste. It sounds like a good idea, and it was a well-tested reality in 1970 when it was abandoned for the current crop of reactors that subject society to the kinds of catastrophes now on display in Japan.
It is also slowly dawning on the Japanese that radioactivity is not something that can be scrubbed away with soapy water. It has a Midas touch. Everything it contacts becomes fiendishly toxic. So every drop of water, concrete, foam, rubber glove, fire hose, or anything else that comes into Fukushima’s arc becomes a lethal assassin.
With contaminated water from Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear complex continuing to pour into the Pacific, scientists are concerned about how that radioactivity might affect marine life. Although the ocean’s capacity to dilute radiation is huge, signs are that nuclear isotopes are already moving up the local food chain.
A new study from Cornell suggests that the production of natural gas from shale using fracking techniques generates more greenhouse gases than burning coal. The report has generated coverage by New York Times, BBC, Wall Street Journal, Houston Chronicle, as well as a response from the NG industry. (Article extracts and links)
UPDATE: Link to the embargoed report
A weekly roundup of peak oil news, including:
-Oil and the global economy
-Conflict in the Middle East and North Africa
-Japan
-The fear factor
-Quote of the week
-Briefs
Natural gas is being promoted as a "bridge fuel" to a clean energy future, and even as an abundant, long-term energy source. The claims are audacious, but do they match with reality?
Let’s start taking an honest look at the myths behind the demand for increased energy. We don’t need nukes, and we could cut our fossil fuel use just about in half, if not significantly more, today.
As the unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan has shown, the costs of cleanup after a nuclear meltdown are borne in large part by national governments and taxpayers rather than the industry. Paying for cleanup is just one of many hidden costs of nuclear energy that make judging the value of nuclear power difficult. Many countries, including the United States, are rushing to build a new generation of nuclear power plants to reduce carbon emissions. However, the disaster in Japan should force us to take into account the full costs of nuclear power (and other energy sources).
Let me repeat that: the U.S. imports more oil from Canada than (yes) Mexico, which ranks second, and (believe it or not) Saudi Arabia, which ranks only third. Tar sands are largely responsible for Canada’s new petro-status. Nearly a million barrels of tar sands oil arrive in the U.S. every day. By 2025, Canada is expected to be producing 3.5 million barrels of tar sands oil daily. Most of that, says Ryan Salmon of the National Wildlife Federation, will be imported to the U.S. And believe me, when it comes to energy ugly, tar sands could take the cake.
Japan’s crisis now reaches across the globe with significant disruptions in manufacturing supply-chains. It’s a cautionary tale on the need for resilience. Can this help prompt greater understanding for and interest in relocalization and the Transition movement?
A midweekly roundup of peak oil news, including:
-Developments this week
The second half of the oil age will be very, very different from the first half. The first half was awash with cheap, easy-to-find and easy-to-produce oil and gas. The second half will be the story of expensive-to-produce hydrocarbons, from increasingly inaccessible places … Unless we are able to break our addiction to hydrocarbons sooner rather than later, it will be a wretched and increasingly desperate time of squeezing fuel out of anything we can.
