[Updated Feb 20, 2007]
I was inspired by richardbelldc's diary, "The Biggest Market Failure the World Has Ever Seen", but I was disappointed by what I did not see in the comments. I started to write a comment, but then I decided it would make more sense to just write a separate diary altogether.
There is a war going on in the Green Party about the best way to address our future energy needs and how to go about solving global warming. (See the article, Nuclear energy can't solve global warming, Other remedies 7 times more beneficial) The issues are deep and complex. Further complicating matters, people inevitably become emotionally involved in the issues surrounding nuclear energy, without understanding the full scope of the opposing point of view.
Moreover, the addiction to oil goes much deeper than global warming. If someone were to ask me, "Could you sum up in one word, all the of the problems we face today, whether it is politics, war, the economy, or the environment?", I would have to answer, "Yes: oil."
The debate always seems to break down along the lines of Nuclear Energy and what role, if any, it should play in our future energy needs. But before passing hasty judgment and commenting below, I implore everyone to hear all sides of the issues before drawing a conclusion. Please read the two articles I have linked to. They do an outstanding job investigating the facts.
Caution: If you do comment about nuclear energy and have not read the articles, it will become immediately apparently.
Let A 1000 Reactors Bloom Wired News Explosive growth has made the People's Republic of China the most power-hungry nation on earth. Get ready for the mass-produced, meltdown-proof future of nuclear energy.
Nuclear Now Wired News The environmental movement, once staunchly antinuclear, is facing resistance from within.
IMO, Greens need to re evaluate their position using hard data, not an emotional gut feel about what Nuclear Energy USED TO BE like back in the seventies. Currently, green energy sources cannot maintain or even sustain the gigawatt needs of our society. These two articles go through the issues surrounding Nuclear Energy and very clearly define why Generation IV reactors are needed and why pre-Generation I reactors built in the US should come off line. These articles are not too technical in nature and debunk many of the emotional myths (which in the seventies were justly founded and based upon facts) that continue to surround this tremendous resource.
1 gram of Uranium-235 releases 22, 800 Kw-hrs of heat; or the equivalent of 3 tons of coal or 13 barrels of oil.
1 gram = 3 tons of coal = 13 barrels of oil
1 pound of U-235 releases 10,700,000 Kw-hrs of heat; or the equivalent of 1400 metric tons of coal or 6000 barrels of oil.
1 pound = 1400 metric tons of coal = 6000 barrels of oil
Another way to think of it is that the energy released from Uranium equivalent to the weight of a 12 oz can of pop is the same as the energy released from 4600 barrels of oil. Without a doubt, this is a tremendous source of power and cannot simply be dismissed and ignored. IMO, whatever the problems are surrounding it, we are smart enough to overcome these problems. koryannder, a long time commenter on John Conyers Blog who is a scientist and was a member of the Manhattan Project, also agrees with me on this point. He however the solution a step further by advocating that we need to stop wasting oil because of its important uses in organic chemistry. (See point number 10)
IMO, Greens need to get their act together before amongst themselves before they can be in a position to reasonably influence debate.
Please do not get me wrong. I am a strong advocate of maxing out the development of green sustainable resources. But I think it is disingenuous and foolish of people to just dismiss a whole resource and technology because of what they think it is and not for what it truly is. I believe the bitter argument would be over quickly if people were to read and understand the facts (See the two articles referenced above). Then afterwards, they will be in a better position to judge why Diamond, Lovelace, et al do advocate for using the resource and be able to reach their own conclusions on a much more informed basis.
Currently green technologies sources fall short of society’s needs, period. Better technologies are being developed, but do we have the time and the will to develop and employ them? Global warming is no longer a theory, but an imminent reality. How bad it gets will be determined by how quickly the entire international community begins to cooperate.
Overshadowing this debate and the lack of a sense of urgency, the news gets even worse. It is becoming apparent to many scientists that the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, understated the dangers. (REF). There are factors that are not addressed in the movie that act as tipping points. That is to say, after a certain point is reached, the process rapidly accelerates. One factor is the 400 gigatons of methane frozen and fixed in the Arctic on the ocean floor and in the tundra. Another is the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2, which acts as a capacitor, temporarily holding CO2.
Regardless of what possibilities lie ahead, one thing is abundantly clear; by our continued use of fossil fuels, we are releasing more and more carbon that was once fixed into the earth's crust and introducing it as freely available carbon, mostly in the form of carbon dioxide. Any energy source that does not contribute to this process should be explored and used. But because there is no "one right way" to go about this, and because one solution will fit all situation, care must be taken in finding individual solutions that are right. In order to allow for the needed time developing green sustainable renewable energy sources, nuw nuclear technologies should be considered as a bridge to spanning the demand and time gap.
Moreover, the issue of energy and oil addiction goes much deeper then just global warming. The phenomenon of peak oil was known in government and corporate circles since 1956, yet the facts were largely kept a secret from the public. The basic gist of peak oil is that around the year 2000, give or take a few years, world oil production will reach it's apex. After the point when half of the available oil reserves are produced, production rates will forever decline. This quickly becomes a supply and demand problem.
Therefore, is it any coincidence that oil man GWB was selected to the presidency by the Supreme Court in a stolen election in the year 2000, the very same year of Hubbert's original predicted world peak production year? Is it any coincidence that we detoured from Al Qaeda and into Iraq and the Middle East? Is it any coincidence that we are controlling the supply and distribution of oil? Is it any coincidence that Exxon profits are unprecedented? And is it any coincidence that Iran appears to be our next target?
The US and oilmen are using this phenomenon by controlling the supply and distribution of energy to tyrannical and selfish ends. A monopoly on the most precious and needed commodity, oil, translates to power: Oil translates to Money which in turn translates to Profits which then in turn translates to Power. One of the pillars in this fight against fascism in America needs to be the breaking our addiction to oil and dismantling the big oil monopoly. By converting to alternative energy sources, not only will we begin solving the looming specter of global warming, we will start to undermine Bush and Cheney's base of power: Oil. It only makes sense that the quicker we stop debating about how we should do it, and start acting upon what we already know; the quicker we will start to erode their base of power. We need to move with a sense of urgency in this because the clock is running and time is running out.
Update Feb 20, 2007
Leaked Iraq bill proposes restructuring the Iraqi National Oil Co. Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! interviews Raed Jarrar.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain what it says, now that you’ve finished translating it.
RAED JARRAR: It said so many things. I don’t think we can summarize it this short, because it’s a very long document, around thirty pages. But majorly, there are three major points that I think we should talk about. Financially, it legalizes very unfair types of contracts that will put Iraq in very long-term contracts that can go up to thirty-five years and cause the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars from Iraqis for no cause.
And the second point is concerning Iraq's sovereignty. Iraq will not be capable of controlling the levels -- the limits of production, which means that Iraq cannot be a part of OPEC anymore. And Iraq will have this very complicated institution called the Federal Oil and Gas Council, that will have representatives from the foreign oil companies on the board of it, so representatives from, let’s say, ExxonMobil and Shell and British Petroleum will be on the federal board of Iraq approving their own contracts.
And the third point is the point about keeping Iraq’s unity. The law is seen by many Iraqi analysts as a separation for Iraq fund. The law will authorize all of the regional and small provinces’ authorities. It will give them the final say to deal with the oil, instead of giving this final say to central federal government, so it will open the doors for splitting Iraq into three regions or even maybe three states in the very near future.
Like the Patriot Act many members of the Iraq central parliment have not yet had a chance to read this bill. Three separate states? Where have I seen that....oh yeah. It was in the Armed Forces Journal. Just click on the second map.