Skip to main content

James Lovelock on Germany's Nuclear Phaseout

By Eric McErlain
James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia Theory and a prominent pro-nuclear environmentalist was interviewed by the Guardian today. He was as provocative as always, and had this to say about Germany's planned phase-out of nuclear energy:
"It looks to me as if the green ideas they have picked up now could be just as damaging. They are burning lignite now to try to make up for switching off nuclear. They call themselves green, but to me this is utter madness."
How mad is it? Click here for a piece from Brad Plumer of the Washington Post.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Good for Germany!
I too once thought nuclear power was the only way forward and then Fukushima happened...
I would sooner let fairly harmless co2 become more abundant rather than radiation kill every life form on this planet. Historic evidence shows co2 rises and falls regardless if it is created by man or not.
Albert Einstein warned us about Uranium, we’ve ignored him and now we will all die as a result!
Power from Uranium is floored through and through but we still plough head-on into extinction.
Shut down ALL of these non-stoppable death machines (if we can) before it is too late!
June 18, 2012 at 9:29 AM
mf said…
then you should know this: burning coal is the most significant source of man-made radiation in the atmosphere. Ans not just any radiation, but alpha emitters that you inhale.
June 18, 2012 at 10:53 PM
jimwg said…
Anonymous, do some non-Greenpeace recommended research, uh?
Sigh!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
June 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM
david llewellyn foster said…
It's all very well to be wise after the event. James Lovelock may be very wise but not necessarily right. What we have to ask ourselves is whether the historical record of nuclear power has sufficient empirical data to prove it is within a statistically reliable level of reasonable risk. It only takes one catastrophic event to render these speculative hypotheses utterly unacceptable, so since Fukushima may already be that event, we have no other choice than to seek alternative means of energy procurement. It may be unwelcome but it is necessary. Fukushima remains an enormous threat since even the gravity of the health "fallout" from Chernobyl is still disputed. We are playing with dice, without the instinctive skills to read the warning signs. The problem is basically twofold: the first is the abject precocity of our pretensions to knowledge, but the second is the level of PR disinformation spun out by the international nuclear-weapons cartel. We need to heed the most reliable data on Fukushima, and ignore the blandishments of those vested interests that could destroy our biospheric habitat, endangering all life on earth from sheer ignorance and hubris. Who are these authorities? They are not gods, but children playing with forces they cannot possibly understand nor control...
June 30, 2012 at 4:17 PM
moriarty said…
Germany's only right in scrapping conventional nuclear power; she needs to replace it with thorium though as this is the safe form. Meltdown proof and leaves no long lived waste. Replacing nuclear with fossil fuels is indeed madness.
October 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM
moriarty said…
Nuclear power is indeed the only way forward, but it needs to be liquid fluoride thorium reactors instead of conventional nuclear power. Germany's current stance is madness indeed to be scrapping nuclear power altogether.
October 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more