Nuclear power: a clarification 01 June 05

I think we do need to use nuclear power as a bridge & to drastically reduce CO2. However, environmentalists need to be ever vigilant re nuclear’s problems & need to keep shouting against nuclear (or at least raising its problems), just to help keep the purveyors of nuclear on their toes & doing their best to reduce hazards & risks.

Mark,

I think it is great that you are initiating this debate, & you never seem to be afraid of voicing your own opinion.

The information that I have (particularly from Boyle in his book “Renewable Energy”) indicates that there is far more potential with renewables than you seem to believe. Much of his references are from the DTI (Free publications on wind energy potential (UK citizens) from: http://www.dti.gov.uk/publications/ ).

For example, why do you think that wind could only produce a maximum of 20% of our electricity? Studies published by the DTI indicate the potential is far more than that (indeed, one study in 2002 indicated that the potential was 3213 TWh, around 10 times the UK current electricity consumption – see Boyle, p.291). Also, I believe people make far too much out of technical challenges such as wind intermintency, matching supply to demand etc. etc. With sufficient commitment, those things can be overcome.

I feel that with sufficient commitment, particularly led by governments (say, like the US did in the 1960s to send a man to the moon), we could crack this without nuclear.

But I do believe conviction is crucial. To a certain extent, the value of new technology is an act of faith (as illustrated by the following comments, which I was told, are true).

“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” Western Union internal memo, 1876.

“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Ken Olson, chairman\founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

“Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899.

So, I don’t think we need to go nuclear. But, of course, I could be wrong and would welcome other thoughts, information, arguments etc.

We’ve established GW is happening. We know something needs to be done. And, much as I welcome this debate on nuclear, I fear there is a new danger emerging. We are having a constructive debate here on Mark’s site and the same has been happening over at the other place – the Open Democracy site. Even the Oxford bloggers you’ve pointed us to are not that bad. Familiar arguments are being rehearsed. OK they swear a bit but nothing I’ve not heard before.

No, my worry is that key players in the debate or “movement” start to take up entrenched positions or fixate on their own hobby-horse. Some who’ve done this have already fallen by the way-side – Bellamy for instance.

What we absolutely do not need is a repeat of the sectarianism which we witnessed on the left in the UK especially during the 1970s. Then the “change the world” proponents (Communist Party, SWP, IMG et al) spent huge amounts of time and energy “debating” with each other. I know I was there!

I get the impression that among the “save the world” proponents there are at least rivalries, “personality clashes” and maybe even some hostility. Vigorous debate – fine. Pointless and repeated exchanging of entrenched views – not good.

What we need, to move forward, is to gather the best information available on solutions.

We need to pull together useful information on sources of energy (fossil, renewables and nuclear) focussing on current and potential contribution to meeting energy demand, lead time for bringing on-stream, costs (money and CO2), dangers and so on. With renewables we need to bear in mind we are talking about a “transition to” and the solution will be a menu of sources. We will not be putting all our eggs in one basket. I don’t know the official terminology for describing this process but I guess it’s some sort of project management!

To complement this we need to pull together all the best ideas on energy efficiency. The less energy we demand and use the better.

We need a review of that range of policies which facilitate this. We have Kyoto – what next? We have cap and trade – extend, deepen? There are proposals for carbon taxes, see the Green Party here and the New Zealand government’s policy. And rationing, sometimes referred to as domestic tradable quotas, might have a part to play.

We need to note and monitor what “enlightened capital” is doing. What will come of the recent industry chiefs’ environment plea to the government? (See Roger Harrabin’s recent BBC report). How much pressure will the insurance industry exert? They have serious concerns re GW/CC. (Google ABI for more). And there is Germana Canzi’s suggestion that employees lobby their employers to implement green measures. What effect will the £60m donated to Oxford University have? Presented as an attempt “to solve the world’s biggest problems, “climate change” is top of the list. For more link to an interview with Dr James Martin on Radio 4’s Today programme (1st June). Here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/wednesday.shtml

We have FoE’s “The Big Ask”. We have the Green Party. We have a range of campaigning organisations and websites. They need input and support.

But then we need to frame, package, persuade and sell. We need expertise on this. How do you win campaigns? (Rose, Winters – help!) We are working in a situation where big oil has spent millions creating a climate of doubt and many of us are in denial. (See “Ecological Debt” by Andrew Simms.)

And all these suggestions need to be seen as interconnected. We need to co-ordinate and move to the next level. There needs to be some leadership. And that reminds me, we need to keep up the pressure on government.

I’m sure some good will come of this debate on nuclear. And in case anyone thinks all the above is an appeal for “more research”, remember I’m talking about the solutions. And I’m aware of the urgency and I know the dangers of pursuing perfection before acting. Here is a great phrase I’ve come across in more than one place recently. “The perfect is the enemy of the good”. Let’s get on with it.

Douglas Coker

PS Mark is the time ripe for your site to move to the next version?

I was talking to one of my collegues who works in the maintenance of several wind farms. (He is working with me on a different wind project).

He told me that there is a groing climate worry with regard to wind farms. It would apear that the tempreture down stream of a wind farm is hottter then in front. This is because of the wind turbulance created by the blades. They are pushing the hot air that is rising back down and as a result are causing a rise in tempreture.

He said that there had been some basic work done and the suggestion was that if we tried to use wind for all our (Global) energy needs that we would have a similar problem to GW that we have at the moment.

Perhaps that is why Mark is limiting it to 20%. Just a guess.

Cheers Ian.

While I’m sure the Nuclear Power industry will be revived big time here in the USA. I am seeing a big push for a rapid build up of fossil fuel use to generate electricity. I live in a depressed mining are, lots of men out of work and all that. Alot of waste land ruined from open pit iron mining. Well, we have been chosen as a sort of hot bed for development of new power plants. People hungery for work are a big plus to the industry getting clearance to build in former ore processing areas. The big push is for Coal Gasification plants. We have no coal withing 500 miles, but it will be brought in by rail. I know nothing about the gasification process. What can we expect to see with three or four new plants in our area? Fossil Fuels are going to be burnt like there is no tomorrow , coal making a BIG come back. I’ve heard of 100 new coal fired plants being built in China, god knows what India is doing. Are we going to drown ourselves in CO2 before we even start to make a dent in fossil fuel use. It is going up every day not down or even staying even. Does all this talk about doing something seem like taking a piss in a volcano! Industry is deciding our fate for us, not matter how much we agree on needed changes.

Many thanks to Mark for setting out his views in such a thoughtful manner; and to Peter for a similarly considered response.

My main worry with Nuclear is the legacy of the waste and decomissioned sites. It seems that the UK government is considering effectively writing a ‘blank cheque’ open-ended subsidy on behalf of nuclear generation by making the management of waste, reprocessing and disposal a permanent burden on the taxpayer whilst freeing the generating side from these costs to encourage private capital into a what will become a de facto protected market.

Has anyone made any kind of assessment of the costs of nuclear waste management over the next 25, 50, 100 years, let alone the half-life of the depleted fuel? I suspect the costs will be staggering.

I agree that renewables could yield far more than the 20% postulated as the ‘glass ceiling’ for the industry. The same thing is being said about recycling: local government and the large private sector waste management companies keep on with the dogmatic refrain that 25-28% of municipal waste is all that can be achieved (the rest having to be buried or burned), but we already know that Germany recycles 50% minimum and two of the (county-scale) community partnerships we are funding in Wales are well on their way to exceeding 50% diversion of household waste within three years. The experience we are seeing is that if you show householders an effective, easy to use recycling system , they take it up with alacrity. In Newport, South Wales, the operator Newport Wastesavers (a charitable social enterprise working in partnership with the local authority) is reporting 100% participation in the scheme in many areas of the city.

I suspect that the same experience will be had with renewables: the consumer demand for RE electricity is exceeding the capacity of generators to supply it at present. We know that our current centralised power generating and distribution system has significant in-built inefficiencies. Apart from densely populated urban areas, much of the country could be better served by local small to medium scale generating plant matched to localised buffer storage and far greater energy efficiency from appliances, lighting etc.

Surely the quest should be for everyone to come up with ways to cut energy usage whilst maintianing or improving productivity and quality of life. Businesses can do it because they can see a positive impact on their bottom line. In the wider economy, free-market economics are hampering power generators from promoting efficiencies because they will lose money. This requires a major policy fix and quickly.

The analolgy I was thinking of was of the householder who has remortgaged their home to fund a consumer lifestyle above that which their regular income can afford. An all too familiar story these days; well now interest rates are going up, the extra capital has all been spent and we have to continue to fund the lifestyle and pay the bills. The temptation is to borrow more to keep the party going, and Nuclear power is the loanshark on the doorstep: promising a respite from the pain in the short term but with a very, very long and unpleasant pay-back period to follow.

So which way do we go? do we make the decision that the 42” plasma screen TV and the outdoor hot tub are not essential to our happiness and well-being and make adjustments to a way of life where we start to value people rather than posessions, and life’s other pleasures: sport, music, art, good food, conversation, family activities; or do we continue on the road to personal and planetary bankruptcy?

Making the changes required will be difficult, but that is because of our resistance to change, not because a lower-consumption economy is bad for us. I believe it will NOT inevitably result in poverty, hunger, illiteracy and economic ruin. People are cleverer and more resourceful than that, but change we must and if we have to use Nuclear power as a stop gap because resistance to change prevents a realistic level of committment and investement in renewables NOW, then we will pay the price for that evasion of our responsibility for generations to come.

I look forward to this debate continuing

kind regards to all

Colin

Hello Ian,

what did your friend feel was happening as the ‘temperature rise’ down stream from turbines was observed? Was it because naturally occurring convection caused by solar radiation was being re-directed horizontally backwards, rather than rising normally? Or was there a rise in air temperature due to mechanical interference with the airstream: heat as well as vibration being a common energy loss during conversion from one energy phase to another.

What scale of temperature rise are we talking about? Wind energy is generated by imbalances in air pressure as a result of direct and indirect solar gain on land and in sea water, there is a complex interaction between ocean currents and the atmosphere above them. My first thought is that if part of this mechanical energy (wind) is being lost at the conversion stage (the wind turbine) to heat and vibration, then there should be no net gain in global atmospheric warming, but rather a localised effect that could affect humidity and evaporation from land downstream of the turbine.

Any more information your friend has would be welcomed.

best

Colin

Does anyone know what the potential supply of global uranium is? And how well that could supply future energy demand?

On May 27th on this site (see previous thread):

I think you should read John Busby’s article at http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=805

I think it says all that needs to be said on the matter. Good site.

regards

Colin

This article argues well that expanding use of fission globally is a non-starter due to lack of high enough concentration uranium deposits:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6897&AuthKey=197b957d4f467697379f31e4394a01f3&issue=506

I wrote this on the UK energy situation:

http://www.vitaltrivia.co.uk/energy-crisis-in-the-uk/

I think you should check you numbers on UK nuclear plants, I think it’s 14 rather than 23.

The UK faces a huge electricity supply problem, I’m tempted to say it’s impossible for the UK to maintain it’s existing electricity supply over the next ~20 years.

The answer lies on the demand side. Addressing the demand side involves reducing the electricity we demand, this could be by replacing incandescent light bulbs (a complete manufacture/sale ban would reduce electricity demand by 10% over 5 years), adopting new regulations on appliance efficiency (all white goods should be A-grade efficiency, manufactures shouldn’t be allowed to make and sell anything less, standby modes on TV etc that use 10W doing nothing should be banned etc). Banning shops from leaving 1kw of lighting on in the windows 24/7.

The other demand side point is mitigating intermittency. Intermittency is one of the biggest problems with renewable energy. Today we demand 100% availability of supply. It’s either on (and we can do whatever we want with it, or off and we’re sitting in the dark). I would like to see information on the instantaneous network load communicated over the power lines to appliances. Appliances would then be able to make decisions based on instantiations network load. For example the 3Kw kettle could have a logic circuit in it and then depending on network load it would either operate at 1Kw or 3Kw. At high load all appliances would switch to a lower power state. Okay, the kettle would take longer to boil but a blackout would have been averted. With this information about instantaneous load electricity price could also vary dynamically with load, appliances could then be programmed to use power when cheapest… There’s huge potential to be smarter with our electricity demand.

I think it’s easier and cheaper to reduce demand by 10GW than it is to bring on an additional 10GW of supply. The effect is identical. This is why I say we should concentrate more on demand side solution than we seem to be doing.

Colin,

I dont have the answers to your question’s. I am seeing Mark (my friend) at a dinner party next wednesday. I shall ask the questions and post the answers then.

Sorry not to have been smart enough to ask them myself.

Cheers Ian.

Douglas,

whats the url.

Cheers Ian.

Two thoughts,

Light bulbs in domestic energy requirments are between 17 and 24%. So a ban on manufacture, sale and distribution would save more then 10%.

Television when on stand by use 50% of the energy that they do when being used. It is possible to greatly reduce this. The technology is there. I am told it could be reduced to about 6%

All that is requred is the political will to push these ideas on to the legislature book’s.

It would help if a few big names got together and showed some unity on this. I am sure that even Bjorn Lomborg would agree with some of this.

Cheers Ian.

Ian

I didn’t burden that post with half-a-dozen or so links. Here is the link to the oD climate change page, http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/forum.jspa?forumID=179 . Just use the first bit if you want to go in thro’ the front door and then navigate a bit.

Cheers

Douglas Coker

It is clear that this discussion is needed as the seriousness of global warming changes our circumstances.

I disagree with mark on a number of points he uses to back up his argument. Firstly, there is no 20% limit on the contribution that wind power can contribute. In Denmark they already have this amount and expect to reach 35% within 10 years. It is true that this requires some adaptions in the way the national grid is managed: but that can be done. See link here

Secondly, there is the idea that the nuclear industry is lobbying for nuclear power as part of a mix. On a level playing field nuclear power is a non-starter: it is far too expensive and will never happen without substantial Government subsidy.

Thirdly, there is the idea that increasing wellbeing must be linked with increasing energy consumption. Cutting waste can lead directly to improved quality of live. For example, commuting in an efficient light rail system is better than sitting in a traffic jam. The trouble is that conventional politicians do not like the messy business of trying to add up lots of small savings. They would rather just buy a shiny new nuclear power station and let future generations deal with the problems.

Fourthly, do nuclear power stations really generate power over a full life cycle? This might sound like a silly question, but the truth is that we still have no idea how long the waste will need monitoring, or what it will cost to clear up the inevitable spills.

Fifthly, we need a global solution. We should be developing technology that can be exported without hesitation to all parts of the world. Nuclear power is, again, a non-starter.

This question is not easy to answer. Current reactor “burn” 235 Uranium. The 235 isotope occurs very rarely in uranium in general, but it is more dense in some ores than in others. The process of extracting the 235 is fairly carbon intensive – to the extent that a current nuclear power station is responsible for about 1/3 of the GHG emissions per unit energy as a gas power station. The less 235 dense the Uranium, the more carbon it emitts. If all the worlds electricity at current demand was produced in nuclear power stations, then within 3 years, the uranium ore being used would be such low density that it would be more carbon intensive than burning gas. However, we will never produce all the worlds electricity with nuclear, so the exact time frame depends upon how much we use. I think that third world countries may well need to use nuclear power to produce electricity (At least the stable democratic ones) but that for western countries to do so would mean that they would avoid their (our) duty to develop renewables as far as possible for use in the third world, and would also prevent third world countries from being able to use the same uranium, forcing them to use other energy sources. My greatest fear is that China start to burn their enormous coal supplies.

I would agree that the UK will hit an energy crisis. However, when compared with energy crises in other countries, I think the effects will be minimal. There has been much debate over hether or not nuclear power is a viable option. However, everyone agrees that the resource is limited. If nuclear power is a viable, safe technology, then who needs this short term boost more, the UK, or Brazil or India (which are both democratric and stable, and India already has the weapons anyway)? Surely even the strongest suporter of nuclear power has to accept that we should not have it in the UK. Conversely, if it is not economically viable, then we still should not build them in the UK. We should be developing renewable technologies for use in the third world, and if nuclear alows the market to stick its head back in the sand for a few years, then it won’t be helping at all.

I like your summary of some of the key reasons not to go nuclear; and I particularly like the last point about global solutions.

Just today I received, from the DTI, the Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources : Atlas Pages – Published December 2004. I ordered it online from the DTI – & there is no charge. Good for them!!

There are many useful maps of the UK showing Tidal, Wave and Offshore wind resources. It also shows variation by season.

What is striking is just how much stronger the wind is in winter than it is in summer. The offshore wind speeds off the North West of Scotland are off-the-scale in winter. (We should remember that the wind-speed power curve inceases dramatically upto the shut-down wind speed – i.e. depending on the turbine, the principle is that a doubling of wind speed would much more than double the power.)

Some thoughts:

a) for the UK at least, there is a natural complement between wind-power , which is stronger in winter, and solar power, which is stronger in the summer.

b) I can imagine that more power is required in the winter (home heating etc.), so winter wind power is particularly useful.

c) We ought to think, at least, at a European level. Perhaps the UK could export electricity to France, Germany etc. during the winter, and they could provide the UK with PV electricity in the summer??

d) I think it encouraging that the DTI is under-taking this exploratory work; and making it freely available to the public to allow informed debate.

For all those following this thread on renewable energy sources have a look at this http://www.campaignstrategy.org/house_1.html It’s that campaign man Chris Rose again! OK we don’t all live in an old house suitable for upgrading but some of us might have some scope for pursuing some of these improvements. It all helps.

The Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales is another source of ideas and information and they run courses. http://www.cat.org.uk

Douglas Coker

I think your estimate of 20% maximum for wind energy is rather low given that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution put the potential for off-shore wind alone at 3x our current electricity demand. Of course once you get to high levels of penetration from wind power into the overall grid mix then the problems of variability and back up tend to become greater, but that doesn’t mean that these can’t be overcome, it just implies greater costs. Furthermore there are synergies with other low carbon and renewable technologies such as combined heat and power and PV.

Your comment on PV being “less efficient” in the UK than Australia is not strictly correct. PV is generally more efficient in colder climates. The higher the temperature of the panel, the lower the conversion efficiency. Of course the overall level of “insolation” per square metre is higher in Australia (ie there’s more sunshine). So the overall impact is that you get more electricity from a square metre of panel in Australia even though the efficiency is in fact lower.

But the fact that solar technologies will inevitably be less cost effective in less sunny climates has often little relation to the take up of these technologies. Taking the European market for solar thermal for example, the largest take up is from Germany, Austria and Greece, which together have more than eighty per cent of Europe’s installed capacity. Greece clearly has a climatic advantage but why has Austria achieved almost two million square metres of solar collectors by 2004 – more than twice as much as sunnier Spain, Portugal and Italy combined? Denmark has managed 45m2 per 1000 inhabitants while the UK has managed just 5m2.

The message is surely that if you put the right policy measures in place then you can make it happen. The UK is falling behind because it has a crap set of policies to incentivise renewable energy, CHP and energy efficiency.

For more in this vein I thought you would be interested in the article below from one of the (voluntary) directors of the not-for-profit organisation that I work for.

Nukes not necessary Godfrey Boyle The Times Higher . Published: 10 June 2005 We don’t need nuclear power to reverse climate change – just ask Germany, says Godfrey Boyle

In Britain, an increasingly vociferous minority has been arguing recently that we must reopen the nuclear energy option. Renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, they say, cannot make a big enough contribution to achieving the 60 per cent cut in fossil-fuel carbon emissions that will be needed by mid-century to avert catastrophic climate change. Yet Germany – a larger and wealthier nation than Britain that consumes more electricity and has more nuclear power stations but has poorer fossil and renewable energy resources – is on course to phase out nuclear energy by 2020. It is introducing renewable energy many times faster than the UK, and it has detailed plans to cut emissions by not just 60 per cent but 80 per cent by 2050. Last month, the Royal Society called on the Government to address the difficult issue of how Britain can achieve an affordable energy supply while cutting carbon emissions. Next week, a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Select Committee, chaired by Lord Broers, will debate the nuclear option. As I will tell that meeting, there are lessons we can learn from Germany. The UK’s renewable energy sources contributed only 1.3 per cent of the country’s primary energy (including coal, oil and gas, as well as electricity) and 3.5 per cent of its electricity in 2003-04. By contrast, renewables in Germany contributed 3 per cent of primary energy and 7.9 per cent of electricity in 2003 – more than twice as much as in the UK. Premium prices are paid for renewable power in Germany, but the additional costs are added to electricity bills, not paid by taxpayers. The costs are modest: e1 per month per household. Not surprisingly, the renewable energy sector in Germany is booming. In 2003, it had a turnover of €10 billion (£6.76 billion) and employed 120,000 people. Long-term investment is predicted to reach €18 billion to E20 billion a year, and by 2020 the sector is expected to be employing 400,000 people. Alongside measures to promote renewables, Germany has also been encouraging more efficient use of energy through incentives for combined heat and power generation and increasingly stringent regulations on the energy performance of buildings. So how do Germany’s and Britain’s plans for the rest of this decade and beyond compare? The UK Government plans to increase the renewable electricity contribution to 10 per cent by 2010 and to 15 per cent by 2015 as part of its Kyoto Protocol commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions. By the end of 2004, the Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent cut by 2012 had been reached, though there are concerns that emissions may rise again. Germany’s renewable electricity targets are similar: 12.5 per cent by 2010 and 20 per cent by 2020. But it also aims by 2010 to achieve a 10 per cent contribution of renewables to primary energy. Germany’s Kyoto target is for a 21 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions: by 2004, it had reached 19 per cent. Germany’s massive expansion of wind power has aroused much less controversy than in Britain. And a recent study by the German Energy Agency showed that, contrary to reports in an often-alarmist press, it is entirely feasible for the country to integrate into its electricity grid the 37,000MW of wind power, generated offshore as well as onshore, that will be needed to supply some 20 per cent of electricity by 2015-20. Germany has ambitious plans for the rest of this century. By 2050, it envisages primary energy use falling to about half of current levels despite continuing economic growth and rising prosperity, as a result of major improvements in energy efficiency and increasing use of combined heat and power. By then, renewables should be supplying 65 per cent of Germany’s electricity, 45 per cent of its heat and 30 per cent of its transport fuel. Nuclear power will have been phased out for three decades, and fossil fuel use will have been cut to about 20 per cent of today’s levels. This “ecologically optimised” energy system will allow Germany to achieve an 80 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions, setting an example to other wealthy nations. Germany is the living refutation of the argument that we need nuclear power to combat climate change because renewables and energy efficiency cannot deliver the necessary cuts in fossil-fuel emissions. Other industrialised countries such as Britain would do well to follow Germany’s lead. Godfrey Boyle is director of the Open University Energy and Environment Research Unit. An extended version of this article will appear in the July-August issue of Resurgence magazine. [ http://www.resurgence.org ]www.resurgence.org

Hello Mark,

Lovely site, and very nice use of optima typeface, which webmasters should use more.

I am, though, picking my jaw off the floor, not at your ambivalence/openness on nuclear fission, but at your cheesy and entirely unscientific treatment of energy effficiency.

Efficiency is just boring, that’s why you haven’t gone and got the numbers on it! You are writing a new book, supposedly (I have no doubt, but I haven’t seen it yet) based on ‘scores of peer-reviewed articles’ and yet how much peer-reviewed stuff on efficiency are you reading! Clearly: not much!

It’s just the same with biotech and ‘hunger’. The supposed demand problem is entirely moot until the distribution and waste problems are solved.

Surely this is 101 stuff, Mark? I find it very disappointing that you aren’t on top of the efficiency literature before you opine – from a pedestal you have richly deserved and constructed on your own merits – about the ‘possible need’ for fission.

I’ve not studied this myself, but I have a strong sense that the efficiency solution is colossal (close reading of Lovins’ work helps – start by (re-)reading ‘Natural Capitalism’ and ‘Factor Four’, Mark!) in potential:

- insultating homes properly: 30% + savings in household heating? - changing light fights, positioning, bulbs: 40% + savings? - cooking, washing, cleaning machinery, heating: major technological savings, even better if washing/heating switch to local services such as CHP. - etc etc. I think I need to look all this up, but the main thing is just the mega yawn-factor of climate grandstanders (of which you are obviously one, not without merits, etc) banging on about nuclear with no clear take on efficiency.

If nothing else, the cost and immediacy profile – which are stupendous for efficiency – demand its attention.

You are also definitely wrong on two things:

1. Lovins is [em]much[/em] more interested in efficiency savings than in renewable generation techs; 2. Per unit of computing power, computers are almost incalculably more energy efficient, I think (need to check this too – but you haven’t either!), than previously; and with the shift from desktops to laptops, and CRTs to TFT flat-panels, the trend is definitely in the right direction.

But then, someone writing through HarperCollins and selling through Amazon is maybe more oriented these days to ‘production’ anyway? (Cheap shot, but a neat way to raise the question of just [em]why[/em] you are in the keep of Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Bezos? Have all you A-list campaigners, George M, Mike Moore, etc, just decided to ride that one out, getting whatever cash and coverage you can for the cause?)

Turbines mix the stratified air up like ceiling fans,

they don’t genertae any more heat!

See: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6608

cheers

Colin