On the front page of the planet Nuclear organisation web site prominently rests a quote from what some consider the planet’s leading environmentalist and among the planet’s top scientists, Dr. Lovelock has just released his 4th book, The Vengeance of Gaia ( Penguin Books, 2006 ). Gaia’ is Dr. Lovelock’s belief that earth is a living, developing organism, not only a hunk of rock we all live on. Thru his book, Lovelock makes reference to Gaia, when he’s deliberating our 3rd planet from the sun. Environment activists will not read this book. Maybe their bosses will BAN them from reading this book. Those conservationists who fastidiously read Lovelock’s latest book may actually become nuclear power lobbyists, if they might wash, shave and spiff up a bit. Lovelock’s certifications and feats are light years beyond those of any environmental mouthpiece espousing the green’ movement.
Way more than anybody alive, Lovelock is first and most important a giant of the earth’s environmentalist movement. Since 1974, Lovelock has been a Fellow of the Royal Society. Since 1994, he’s been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green University, College of Oxford.
New Scientist described him as one of the great thinkers of our time. The London Observer has called him, one of the environmental movement’s most influential figures.’ In 2003, he was made Companion of Honour by Her Majesty the Queen. Prospect mag named Dr.
Lovelock in Sep 2005, one of the Earth’s top a hundred worldwide public intellectuals.’ How does Dr.
Lovelock make a response to the issue of nuclear waste? He writes, I have offered in public to accept all of the high-level waste produced in a year from a nuclear power station for deposit on my little plot of land it might occupy a space about a cubic metre in size and fit safely in a concrete pit, and I might use the heat from its decaying radioactive elements to heat my home. More significant, it’d be no danger to me, my folks or the wildlife.’ That should enlighten the yokels disagreeing against the Yucca Mountain nuclear byproducts depository.
Chapter Five, Sources of Energy,’ concisely and cogently answers each daft theory’ about clean energy sources hyped by the green’ movement.
Lovelock even agrees with the idea of Biomass, writing, Used reasonably and on a modest scale, burning wood or rural waste for heat or energy is no threat to Gaia.’ Please note that he modified his statement with sensibly’ and modest.’ in brief, he explains why Biomass won’t become a leading power source, Bio fuels are particularly threatening as it is too simple to grow them as a replacement for ordinary fuel they’ll then demand an area of land or sea far larger than Gaia can afford we have already taken over 50% of the productive land to grow food for ourselves. These are the ‘bio fuels’, the much-applauded green energy sourceWe would need the land area of a few Earths solely to grow the bio fuel.’ wind energy gets shellacked too. For those environmental activists, for example Amory Lovins, who believe Wind Farms’ are going to be a major power source, they’re full of hot air.
According to the Royal Society of Engineers 2004 report, onshore EU wind power is 2 and a half times, and offshore wind power over 3 times, costlier per KW hour than gas or nuclear energy. Denmark, which pioneered wind farms, is regretting the choice. Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries asserted, In green terms windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense many folks thought wind was the 100-percent solution for the future, but we were wrong. Actually, taking all energy wants into account it’s just a three % solution.’ Lovelock writes, to supply the UK’s present electricity desires will require 276,000 wind generators, about 3 per square mile, if nationwide parks, urban, suburban and economic areas are excluded at best, energy is available from turbines only twenty-five p.c of the time.’ German conservationists, who have latterly led the charge for wind energy, should rethink. Lovelock writes, The most up to date report from Germany put wind power as available only sixteen p.c of the time.’ Certainly, solar energy must be the answer, right? Wrong! Lovelock writes, Solar cells aren’t yet OK for supplying electricity straight to houses or workplaces, typically because, in spite of over 30 years of development, they’re quite pricey to make. At the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales there’s an experimental house with a roof made nearly wholly of silicon photocells. Daylight, like wind, is random and would, without efficient storage, be an inconvenient energy source at these latitudes.’ sun and wind power were just 2 of the many power sources Lovelock sends to the bin. Wave and tidal energy, hydro-electricity, hydrogen, fusion energy, coal and oil and natural gas all suffer similar implications under Dr. Geothermal gets a partial endorsement, but Lovelock writes, Sadly there are few places where it is readily available. Iceland is one of them, and it draws an enormous part of its energy wants from this source.’ how many of you know that, while natural gas could cut carbon-dioxide emissions by half, if used ubiquitously, some of the natural gas leaks into the air before it burnt? According to the Society of Chemical Industry’s report ( 2004 ), this adds up to about two to four % of the gas used. Methane, the main constituent of natural gas is twenty-four times more strong a greenhouse gas than carbon-dioxide.
Fusion sounded great in principle, but when I debated it with Dr. The most surprising and upsetting discourse thru Lovelock’s book was the issue with CO2 emissions. The vital question these days is WHAT’ to do with radioactive byproducts.
Lovelock believes we should begin worrying about what to do about carbon dioxide emissions waste, the planet’s yearly production of CO2 is 27,000 million tons. If this much were frozen into solid carbon-dioxide at -80 degrees Centigrade, it would make a mountain one mile high and 12 miles in rim. To sequester this much every year couldn’t be achieved quickly possibly not earlier than 20 years from now.’ He added, if only had developed and installed the gear for removing carbon-dioxide from power stations and industry 50 years back, we might now face surmountable problems.’ Another difficulty with carbon-dioxide should give you nightmares or reach for a gas mask. Lovelock, has a difficult removal with an efficient residence time of between fifty and 100 years. About 1/2 the CO2 we have so far added to the air remains there.’ that implies the carbon-dioxide we add to our existing air pollution will continue to be breathed by our youngsters, grandkids and their kids.
How is that for a legacy? James Lovelock’s Conclusion on Nuclear Energy How does James Lovelock feel about nuclear energy? I suspect nuclear power is the sole power source that may satisfy our demands and yet not be a jeopardy to Gaia and meddle with its capacity to keep up a cosy climate and atmospheric composition. This is because nuclear reactions are millions of times more invigorated than chemical reactions. The most energy available from a chemical reaction, for example burning carbon in oxygen, is about 9 KW hours per kilogram.
If you puzzled about radiation and cancer, Lovelock answers that too. You’ll jump up, after reading those pages, and start faxing them off to each environmentalist group you can contact.
It could be the most classic research into the disconnect the media and the greens have about nuclear energy and its effect on our health that you’ve ever read. Lovelock concludes, The determined distortion of the honest truth about the health dangers of nuclear energy should make us wonder whether the other statements about nuclear energy are similarly flawed.’ One exact question which has confused me, for a period of years, was this : what number of people die to provide each of our energy sources? The table below answered that question . The relative safety of the different power sources comes from the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland in a 2001 report, which Lovelock reproduces on page 102 of his book. The Institute inspected all the world’s big sources of energy and compared them against their safety records. A terrawatt year ( TTY ) is 1,000,000 million watts of electricity made and steadily used throughout a year. Fuel Deaths Who Deaths per TTY Coal 6400 Employees 342 Hydro four thousand Public 883 Natural Gas 1200 Employees and Public 85 Nuclear 31 Employees eight Lovelock doesn’t simply advocate nuclear, as an idle thought. He’s keen about nuclear energy as a life-saving measure, My powerful pleas for nuclear energy come from a growing sense that we have little time left in which to install a trustworthy and secure supply of electricity. All the alternatives, including fusion energy, need decades of development before they can be employed on a scale that would noticeably reduce emissions.’ He concludes his masterwork of Chapter Five of The Vengeance of Gaia by writing : In the meantime at the planet’s climate centers the barometer continues to fall and tell of the forthcoming danger of a climate hurricane whose severity the Earth hasn’t endured for fifty-five million years.
