The dangers of nuclear tests
 

Welcome to our nuclear testing Archive. Have fun browsing!

 

Article #60: James Lovelock's Latest Book Trashes Renewables, Endorses Nuclear Energy

(Browse for more articles)

 
On the front page of the World Nuclear draws a large part of its energy needs
Association website prominently rests a from this source." How many of you know
quote from what some consider the world's that, while natural gas could cut carbon
leading environmentalist and among the dioxide emissions by half, if used
world's top scientists, Dr. James ubiquitously, some of the natural gas
Lovelock: leaks into the air before it burnt?
"There is no sensible alternative to According to the Society of Chemical
nuclear power if we are to sustain Industry's report (2004), this amounts to
civilization." about 2 to 4 percent of the gas used.
- James Lovelock, preeminent world leader Methane, the main constituent of natural
in the development of environmental gas is 24 times more potent a greenhouse
consciousness gas than carbon dioxide.
At age eighty-six, Dr. Lovelock has just Fusion sounded great in theory, but when
published his fourth book, The Revenge of I discussed it with Dr. Fred Begay, at
Gaia (Penguin Books, 2006). "Gaia" is Dr. the Los Alamos National Laboratories,
Lovelock's belief that earth is a living, this past November, he told me it may
evolving organism, not just a hunk of take fifty years to develop, if it ever
rock we all live upon. Through his book, could be developed as an energy source.
Lovelock refers to Gaia, when he is Lovelock explains in his book why Fusion
discussing our third planet from the sun. Energy would be wonderful, but he brought
His latest book is a MUST read for anyone up the one point, which stymies nuclear
who is following the renaissance in physicists (and which environmentalists
nuclear energy. Environmentalists won't won't even talk about), "... the nuclear
read this book. Perhaps their bosses will fusion of hydrogen yields millions of
BAN them from reading this book. Those times more energy than its mere
environmentalists who carefully read combustion, but to start the powerful
Lovelock's latest book may very well reaction requires some means of heating
become nuclear power lobbyists, if they the hydrogen to 150 million degrees."
would bathe, shave and spiff up a bit. How exactly go you go about heating
Chapter Five, "Sources of Energy," will something on earth up to 150 million
instantly disintegrate every ridiculous degrees, when the core of the sun has a
argument propounded by the naïve and temperature of a little more than 100
antediluvian anti-nuclear movements million degrees? Again, great theory and
across the world. work is being done in this arena to bring
Dr. Lovelock's credentials and about a solution sometime this century,
achievements are light years beyond those but this technology remains in an
of any environmental mouthpiece espousing incubation stage.
the "green" movement. More so than anyone The most shocking and disturbing
alive, Lovelock is first and foremost a discussion through Lovelock's book was
giant of the earth's environmentalist the problem with carbon dioxide
movement. Since 1974, Lovelock has been a emissions. The burning question these
Fellow of the Royal Society. Since 1994, days is "WHAT" to do with nuclear waste.
he has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow Lovelock believes we should start
of Green College, University of Oxford. worrying about what to do about carbon
New Scientist described him as "one of dioxide emissions waste, "The world's
the great thinkers of our time. The annual production of carbon dioxide is
London Observer has called him, "one of 27,000 million tons. If this much were
the environmental movement's most frozen into solid carbon dioxide at -80
influential figures." In 2003, he was degrees Centigrade, it would make a
made Companion of Honour by Her Majesty mountain one mile high and twelve miles
the Queen. Prospect magazine named Dr. in circumference. To sequester this much
Lovelock in September 2005, "one of the each year could not be achieved quickly -
world's top 100 global public probably not sooner than twenty years
intellectuals." from now." He added, "If only had
How does Dr. Lovelock respond to the developed and installed the equipment for
question of nuclear waste? He writes, "I removing carbon dioxide from power
have offered in public to accept all the stations and industry fifty years ago, we
high-level waste produced in a year from would now face surmountable problems."
a nuclear power station for deposit on my Another problem with carbon dioxide
small plot of land; it would occupy a should give you nightmares or reach for a
space about a cubic metre in size and fit gas mask. Carbon dioxide, according to
safely in a concrete pit, and I would use Dr. Lovelock, "has a complicated removal
the heat from its decaying radioactive with an effective residence time of
elements to heat my home. It would be a between fifty and a hundred years. About
waste not to use it. More important, it half of the carbon dioxide we have so far
would be no danger to me, my family or added to the air remains there." That
the wildlife." That should enlighten the means the carbon dioxide we add to our
yokels arguing against the Yucca Mountain existing air pollution will still be
nuclear waste depository. breathed by our children, grandchildren
Chapter Five, "Sources of Energy," and their children. How is that for a
concisely and cogently answers every legacy?
silly "theory" about renewable energy James Lovelock's Conclusion on Nuclear
sources hyped by the "green" movement. Energy
Let's take Biomass, which makes sense to How does James Lovelock feel about
any concerned citizen. Lovelock even nuclear energy? "I believe nuclear power
agrees with the theory of Biomass, is the only source of energy that will
writing, "Used sensibly and on a modest satisfy our demands and yet not be a
scale, burning wood or agricultural waste hazard to Gaia and interfere with its
for heat or energy is no threat to Gaia." capacity to sustain a comfortable climate
Please note that he modified his and atmospheric composition. This is
statement with "sensibly" and "modest." mainly because nuclear reactions are
In a nutshell, he explains why Biomass millions of times more energetic than
will not become a leading energy source, chemical reactions. The most energy
"Bio fuels are especially dangerous available from a chemical reaction, such
because it is too easy to grow them as a as burning carbon in oxygen, is about
replacement for fossil fuel; they will nine kilowatt hours per kilogram. The
then demand an area of land or ocean far nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms to form
larger than Gaia can afford... We have helium gives several million times as
already taken more than half of the much, and the energy from splitting
productive land to grow food for uranium is greater still."
ourselves. How can we expect Gaia to Through his book, Lovelock reminds us
manage the Earth if we try to take the that nuclear power is the single answer
rest of the land for fuel production?" He for this century, "We need emission-free
added poignantly, "Just imagine that we energy sources immediately, and there is
tried to power our present civilization no serious contender to nuclear fission."
on crops grown specifically for fuel, Lovelock addresses Three Mile Island,
such as coppice woodland, fields of Chernobyl, nuclear testing in the 1960s,
oilseed rape, and so on. These are the and many other events over the past fifty
'bio fuels', the much-applauded renewable years, as nuclear energy has developed.
energy source...We would need the land If you wondered about radiation and
area of several Earths just to grow the cancer, Lovelock answers that as well.
bio fuel." You may leap up, after reading those
Wind power gets shellacked as well. For pages, and start faxing them off to every
those environmentalists, such as Amory environmentalist group you can contact.
Lovins, who believe "Wind Farms" are It may be the most definitive analysis of
going to become a significant energy the disconnect the media and the greens
source, they are full of hot air. have about nuclear energy and its impact
According to the Royal Society of on our health that you have ever read.
Engineers 2004 report, onshore European Lovelock concludes, "The persistent
wind energy is two and a half times, and distortion of the truth about the health
offshore wind energy over three times, risks of nuclear energy should make us
more expensive per kilowatt hour than gas wonder if the other statements about
or nuclear energy. Denmark, which nuclear energy are equally flawed."
pioneered wind farms, is regretting the One specific question that has puzzled
decision. Niels Gram of the Danish me, for a number of years, was this: How
Federation of Industries said, "In green many people die to produce each of our
terms windmills are a mistake and energy sources? The table below answered
economically make no sense... Many of us that question. The comparative safety of
thought wind was the 100-percent solution the different energy sources comes from
for the future, but we were wrong. In the Paul Scherrer Institute in
fact, taking all energy needs into Switzerland in a 2001 report, which
account it is only a 3 percent solution." Lovelock reproduces on page 102 of his
Lovelock writes, "To supply the UK's book. The Institute examined all of the
present electricity needs would require world's large-scale energy sources and
276,000 wind generators, about three per compared them against their safety
square mile, if national parks, urban, records. The numbers of deaths were
suburban and industrial areas are expressed in terms of terrawatt year of
excluded... at best, energy is available energy made, between 1970 and 1992. A
from wind turbines only 25 percent of the terrawatt year (TTY) is one million
time." German environmentalists, who have million watts of electricity made and
recently led the charge for Wind Power, continuously used throughout a year.
should reconsider. Lovelock writes, "The Fuel Fatalities Who Deaths per TTY
most recent report from Germany put wind Coal 6400 Workers 342
energy as available only 16 percent of Hydro 4000 Public 883
the time." Natural Gas 1200 Workers and Public 85
Surely, solar power must be the answer, Nuclear 31 Workers 8
right? Wrong! Lovelock writes, "Solar Lovelock does not simply endorse nuclear,
cells are not yet suitable for supplying as an idle thought. He is passionate
electricity directly to homes or about nuclear energy as a life-saving
workplaces, mostly because, despite over measure, "My strong pleas for nuclear
thirty years of development, they are energy come from a growing sense that we
quite expensive to make. At the Centre have little time left in which to install
for Alternative Technology in Wales there a reliable and secure supply of
is an experimental house with a roof made electricity.... The important and
almost entirely of silicon photocells. In overriding consideration is time; we have
summer it provides about three kilowatts nuclear power now, and new nuclear
of electricity, but the cost of building should be started immediately.
installation was comparable with the All of the alternatives, including fusion
house itself, and the expected life of energy, require decades of development
the cells is about ten years. Sunlight, before they can be employed on a scale
like wind, is intermittent and would, that would significantly reduce
without efficient storage, be an emissions."
inconvenient energy source at these He concludes his masterpiece of Chapter
latitudes." Five of The Revenge of Gaia by writing:
Solar and wind power were just two of the "Meanwhile at the world's climate centres
many energy sources Lovelock sends to the the barometer continues to fall and tell
dumpster. Wave and tidal energy, of the imminent danger of a climate storm
hydro-electricity, hydrogen, fusion whose severity the Earth has not endured
energy, coal and oil and natural gas all for fifty-five million years. But in the
suffer similar consequences under Dr. cities the party goes on; how much longer
Lovelock's scientific microscope. before reality enters our minds?
Geothermal gets a partial endorsement, ************************************
but Lovelock writes, "Unfortunately there James Finch contributes to and other
are few places where it is freely publications.
available. Iceland is one of them, and it






1- A- B- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- 30- 31- 32- 33- 34- 35- 36- 37- 38- 39- 40- 41- 42- 43-