NEI Nuclear Notes

This brought us up short: In Britain, environmentalist patron saint James Lovelock now tells the BBC he suspects climate scientists have "[fudged] the data" and that if the planet is going to be saved, "it will save itself, as it always has done." This comes from an op-ed by Wall Street Journal editor Bret Stephens (behind a pay wall, so transcribed by us) that takes the premise that global warming is a hoax. What Stephens means to say here is that Lovelock agrees with this. We think Stephens’s op-ed is utter tosh, as Lovelock might say, riddled with poor logic and a bad marshalling of facts. But we were interested in pursuing Lovelock’s current views and found, as usual, that parsing his words can lead to tears pretty fast. In a recent interview, he observed: The good skeptics have done a good service, but some of the mad ones I think have not done anyone any favors. You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic."...

Climate Scientist James Lovelock , who spoke here in Washington last Friday night , was interviewed by Andrew Revkin of the New York Times for today's edition of the newspaper . It's required reading: Q. Can you explain why you think nuclear power is so vital? A. The really bad thing we did way back when was starting to burn things in the atmosphere to get energy. We started with fire, just cooking food, and probably could have gotten away with that. But once we started burning forests to drive the animals out as a cheap way of hunting, then we started on our downward course. What we're doing now with fossil fuels is just as bad. We live in a nuclear-powered universe. We're the oddballs by getting energy from burning carbon. My justification of nuclear power is that we've reached a stage now where the dire things that threaten us are so great that even the results of an all-out nuclear war pale into insignificance as unimportant compared to what'’s going to ha...

In Tuesday's edition of the Washington Post , Australian environmentalist Tim Flannery reviewed James Lovelock's new book about global warming, The Revenge of Gaia : Lovelock's principal motivation in penning his latest work is not to better define Gaia (although he does that) but to warn us that, if nothing is done, Earth is on the brink of moving into a "hot state" -- and if it does, "most of us, and our descendants, will die" prematurely and needlessly. The cause of the heating, he writes, is the greenhouse gases released by our fossil-fuel-driven economy. So yes, "The Revenge of Gaia" is another book about global warming. Yet this is a wondrous and novel essay, both for what it has to say and for the insight it affords into one of the most ingenious, if eccentric, minds of our age. [...] In this crisis, however, Lovelock believes he does know what must be done. And his prescription -- develop nuclear power as swiftly and effectively as poss...

James Lovelock's book, The Revenge of Gaia is being translated into German, which is why Der Speigel got around to interviewing the venerable climate scientist . I'm guessing most environmental radicals won't like what he has to say: Lovelock has nothing but ridicule for environmentalists' favorite issues, such as "sustainable development" and "renewable energy," calling them "well-meaning nonsense." He is convinced that wind and solar energy will never be even remotely capable of meeting worldwide energy needs. In China alone, for example, a new large coal power plant is put into operation every five days, imposing additional burdens on the atmosphere. The only solution, according to Lovelock, is the massive expansion of nuclear energy worldwide. A reliable supply of electricity, says Lovelock, is the key issue when it comes to survival on a warmer planet. He loses no sleep over the risks of nuclear power. "Show me the mass graves o...

Today in Opinion Journal , Ron Bailey pays tribute to the winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, Norman Borlaug . He is the Iowa native that cross-bred thousands of types of wheat to create "dwarf" wheat, a strain resistant to fungi that produced far larger yields than traditional varieties: In the late 1960s, lest we forget, most experts were speaking of imminent global famines in which billions of people would perish. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," biologist Paul Ehrlich famously wrote in "The Population Bomb," his 1968 best seller. "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." As Mr. Ehrlich was making his dark predictions, Mr. Borlaug was embarking on just such a crash program. Working with scientists and administrators in India and Pakistan, he succeeded in getting his highly productive dwarf wheat varieties to hundreds of thousands of South Asian...

Last week, we told you about how James Lovelock was headed to Washington to deliver a lecture on his latest book, The Revenge of Gaia . Yesterday, The Democratic Daily took a closer look at the book and Lovelock's theories. Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy , Environment , Energy , Politics , Technology , Electricity , Nuclear Power , James Lovelock , Climate Change , Global Warming , GHG

First Science just posted an interview with climate scientist James Lovelock that includes a rather ringing endorsement of nuclear energy: Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy , Nuclear Power , Environment , Energy , Politics , Technology , Economics , Gaia , James Lovelock

James Lovelock , the originator of the Gaia Theory, will be in Washington on Friday, September 8 at 7 P.M. to lecture and sign his most recent book, The Revenge of Gaia . The event is sponsored by The Audubon Naturalist Society , The Wilderness Society , The Carnegie Institution and Politics and Prose bookstore. The lecture will be at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. The specific location is below, and directions are available from the Carnegie Institution website, www.dtm.ciw.edu : Carnegie Institution of Washington Department of Terrestrial Magnetism 5241 Broad Branch Road, NW Washington, DC 20015 There is no charge for the event, but reservations are required through Politics and Prose. Email Bonnie Kogod at bkogod-at-politics-prose.com or call her at 202-0363-7738. Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy , Environment , Energy , Politics , Technology , Electricity , Nuclear Power , James Lovelock , Climate Change , Global Warming , GHG

Scientist and climate expert James Lovelock, who has been warning for the past two years that the world must turn toward nuclear energy in order to lower greenhouse gas emissions and stave off the effects of global warming, is raising the alarm once again in the pages of the Independent (U.K.): The climate centres around the world, which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth's physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth's family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger. On February 2, Lovelock's next book, The Revenge of Gaia will be published. For a preview, click here . Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy , Environment , Energy , Politics , Technology , Electricity , Nuclear Power , James Lovelock

Over at Gristmill , the reflexively anti-nuclear David Roberts is upset that environmentalists like Patrick Moore, James Lovelock and Stewart Brand come out in favor of an expanded use of nuclear energy : An equally irksome tic is the notion that Brand represents some sort of next-gen environmentalism. There are basically three of these guys, these new nuclear proponents: Brand, Patrick Moore, and James Lovelock. Every story about one of these guys -- and there are plenty -- tries to spin the next-gen angle. Finally environmentalists are letting go of their old ideas, right? But I don't see anything new here, much less any brave new environmentalism. I see three guys approaching their twilight years, worn down from a lifetime of fighting, making a desperate bet based on fear. As someone who just saw An Inconvenient Truth for the first time a few weeks ago, I had to laugh when I read that last line. Talk about a lack of self-awareness. There's a lot that's just plain wrong...

At the end of last week, we linked to a number of bloggers who took issue with the decision of the High Court in London to scuttle the U.K. government's energy review that called for an increase in new nuclear build. Yesterday, James Lovelock, the father of the Gaia Theory, joined the chorus condemning Greenpeace, who filed the lawsuit, and continues to work to block the progress of the industry globally : What an incredible mistake Greenpeace made when it took the government to court in an attempt to delay the building of new nuclear power stations. By so doing it increases the burden of carbon dioxide (C02) the Earth has to bear; nuclear is the only large-scale energy source that is emissions free. Why don’t we wake up and emulate the French, who make almost all their electricity from nuclear energy? French trains are legendary, especially the TGV. One of these bound for Marseilles was standing at the Gare de Lyon; it seemed like any other train except that it was double decked...

A Gaia Theory conference held this weekend at George Mason University's Law School drew nearly 200 environmentalists, educators, policymakers ... and the nuclear energy industry. Our message: Nuclear energy has a role to play in addressing climate change. James Lovelock , a British environmental scientist who postulated the Gaia Theory as a way of understanding the planet as a self-regulating entity, would agree. Essentially, his theory asserts that living organisms and their inorganic surroundings have evolved together as a single living system that greatly affects the chemistry and conditions of Earth’s surface. In his latest book, " The Revenge of Gaia ," Lovelock writes, "There is no alternative but nuclear fission until fusion energy and sensible forms of renewable energy arrive as a truly long-term provider. Nuclear energy is free of emissions and independent of imports from what will be a disturbed world." I staffed a booth for the Nuclear Energy Instit...

British newspaper The Independent has published a Q-and-A session with environmentalist James Lovelock (author of the Gaia theory) during which he answered a couple of queries from readers about nuclear waste: Q: What should we do with all this nuclear waste that we do not know how to keep safe? A: There is more nonsense and downright lies told about nuclear waste than any other topic. To start with, there is very little of it; it is far, far less dangerous than the carbon dioxide waste that will, if we don't take care, kill nearly all of us. Much is made of the fact that it will still be there in a thousand years; what nonsense, we are lucky that it decays at all. If it were like mercury waste, which is equally deadly, it would be there for ever. Incidentally, why are there not government commissions for the disposal of mercury or carbon dioxide waste? Q: Why did you say that you would be happy to bury nuclear waste in your back garden? A: I would be happy to have the nuclea...

Pete Geddes, program director for the Foundation for research on Economics and the Environment , had this to say about nuclear energy in a recent issue of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle : All energy production has environmental impacts. For example, wind farms cause visual and noise pollution and kill birds. Our choices involve trading off among imperfect alternatives. Is it time we rethink opposition to nuclear power? James Lovelock, promoter of the Gaia hypothesis, believes so. He writes: “Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media.… [N]uclear energy… has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. I entreat my friends… to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy.” For more on James Lovelock, click here . For a previous post on Dr. Lovelock's recent speech at the Canadian Nuclear Association, click...

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 .

I just started reading James Lovelock's new book, The Revenge of Gaia , and I've already tripped over some interesting passages in his chapter on energy sources. It was in that chapter that I read about a BBC program that aired in 2004 entitled, If ... The Lights Go Out . Here's a description : In the first episode, set in the winter of 2010, Britain is struggling to generate enough electricity to cope with demand. Most of our gas reserves in the North Sea have been used up and the country is already heavily dependent on imported gas to generate electricity, most of which we buy from Russia. At that time gas fuels almost 60% of UK electricity generation, and renewables (mostly wind) 10%. Coal and nuclear have fallen to about 16% each. A terrorist attack on a gas pipeline in Russia cuts off much of the UK’s gas supply. This incident coincides with prolonged cold and calm weather, causing massive power cuts in the East and South of England with devastating effects. [...] Suc...

Earlier this year, author Peter Asmus took to the pages of the Washington Post to attack the idea that new nuclear build could help provide affordable electricity in an environmentally sensitive manner. And though NEI Vice President Scott Peterson responded via a letter to the editor , Asmus is back again, this time in the pages of Alternet , making the same old arguments with the same old bad data. Here's Asmus: The underlying assumption of those now clamoring for a major expansion of nuclear power is that the threat of global climate change is so great, that we have no other choice. What a bunch of baloney! Wind and solar power have been the fastest growing power sources globally over the past several years, and we have barely begin to tap these abundant non-polluting and increasingly cost-effective sources of power. First of all, while concerns over greenhouse gas emissions have played a significant role in nuclear energy getting a second look from the public and policymakers,...

On the most recent edition of Science Friday , James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia Theory, talked about what the world can do to begin to constrain the emission of greenhouse gases. And as long-time readers already know, nuclear energy is one of those solutions. For more from Lovelock, check out our archive .

In Sunday's edition of the Guardian (U.K.), pioneering environmental scientist James Lovelock took on his former confederates in the global environmental movement over their opposition to nuclear energy: 'To phase out nuclear energy just when we need it most to combat global warming is madness,' he said. 'The anti-nuclear agenda is pushed by groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth and by Green Party politicians. They are pursuing goals in which neither environmental good sense nor science play a part - a strange way to defend the earth,' he writes in Reader's Digest. To read Lovelock's piece from the U.K. edition of Reader's Digest , click here (PDF). Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy , Environment , Energy , Politics , Technology , Economics

Four of the world’s top climate scientists issued an open letter urging environmental groups and politicians worldwide to support nuclear energy as a primary way to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions known to contribute to global warming. James Hansen of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and formerly at NASA, Ken Caldeira , senior scientist in the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology , Kerry Emanuel , professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Tom Wigley, a climate scientist at Australia’s University of Adelaide, wrote that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy cannot by themselves stem the threat of global warming. The letter agrees that: Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While the authors say that ...