Dear Fil,
Is NIMBYism always evil? I don't want lots of things in my backyard, nuclear wastes included, but does this mean that I am automatically mean-spirited to my neighbors because I do not condone nuclear wastes? Would anyone of us (dare to) say this differently? Can anyone of us possibly accept--in the spirit of acceptance and generousity and perhaps compassion--to take in nuclear wastes on behalf of our neighbors? Since no one is quite ready to take on the high risks of radiation sickness on behalf of this 'neighbor', then not only should we not avoid this topic, but NIMBYism is not a "greater evil" as you have posited. Quite on the contrary, it is a rational human response in this instance. No one should accept nuclear wastes--and this solidarity can hopefully prompt a response from those who support this technology to think otherwise, and to stop the exercise of pushing this waste upon the weakest political constituency they could find. In this sense, NIMBYism as solidarity on nuclear wastes does make the world a better place, and not a more evil place as you have suggested.
I understand the physicist's logic behind your arguments. But public logic works differently. I raised the example of water recycling to underscore my point: the psychological war has to be won for this energy harvesting to be publicly accepted and adopted. Because this energy harvesting is understood differently, energy being the same is perceived differently, unless you suggest that social construction of risk is irrelevant. This is where such psychological perceptions make it different--whether we care or not. I can see your point, but I don't think I am legitimizing anyone's position: I am merely stating a possible reaction from the public. Besides, if we care to think about it, there are a whole lot of problematic issues and unintended externalities when we decide to operate on radioactive decay of nuclear wastes (e.g., who do we send in when it fails? Robots?). As a technique it is simply unsound and unsafe.
"This is just the way things are" is simply an untenable position. In fact, you are quite right: all the other technologies you have mentioned have unknown and unknowable long term consequences, but perhaps with a hierarchy implied in their order and magnitude of risks to the human species. But this does not mean that we should accept them as your position suggests. Can we really compare the long term use of computers with the long term use of nuclear energy? One produces a mountain of e-wastes, which we know are slowly poisoning alot of people in places on Earth that thrive on scavenging operations, and the other produces something in which a little concentrated amounts will kill us either directly or indirectly upon close contact. They are incommensurable; nuclear energy by fission of highly radioactive matter is simply not tenable.
You seemed to only offer polar alternatives: either we go back to the cave or we have to embrace nuclear energy by fission. But there is so much middle-ground that we miss if we take on this polar extremes of choices. What about wind mills? Or geothermal energy? Or smarter and more efficient energy usages? Or the outright banning and rationing of energy? All politically unpopular I am afraid.
The choice to go nuclear as you probably know is neither innocent nor presumed; they are deliberate political, and design choices, that a small group of people make on our behalf. If every nuclear policy is up for popular referendum, I dare to say all would be struck down if people are aware of the long term consequences of this technology.
That said, I must clarify: I am not against nuclear energy as a category; only as a technique practiced now and against our limited control over this technique and the 'residues' that it produces. As raised by another participant, nuclear fusion is something else.
Best,
Jeff
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 04:18:47 -0400
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to Fil
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Jeffrey,
>
> NIMBYism is one of society's greater evils, a staggeringly arrogant
> position usually taken by those without the wits to see how
> mean-spirited they're being to their "neighbours." I don't deny
> NIMBYism exists, I just deny its place at the table of discussion.
>
> Sorry but energy gained is energy gained. I don't much care what the
> psychological impact is. This is why we're supposed to listen to
> experts. The psychological impact you speak of certainly exists, but
> it's wrong. The facts tell us otherwise. The way you write sounds
> like you actually believe that
> > energy gained
> > through radioactive decay is simply not the same as energy gained from
> > burning organic fuel
>
> Do you honestly believe that? I hope not. And if not, then why are
> you assuming the voice of those who are wrong? Don't you see that as
> legitimizing their position?
>
> You also wrote:
> > I agree with the previous participant's comment that to rely on nuclear
> > energy in view of rising prices of fossil fuels is an extremely short term
> > measure that has large future unknowable and unknown repercussions.
>
> Why? And how so? And how are the "large future unknowable and unknown
> repercussions" of nuclear energy any different from all kinds of other
> technologies, including petroleum, plastics, GM foods, rampant use of
> computers, etc. This is just the way things are. We can hope to
> someday achieve the enlightenment necessary to make sense of it all,
> but we can't just go back to living in caves while we wait for that
> enlightenment, can we?
>
> > It looks
> > like it is the market that is driving us to nuclear energy, and this drive
> > is usually and erroneously--perhaps deceptively--couched in arguments of
> > energy shortage.
>
> On the contrary, I support certain types of nuclear power exactly
> because there is no energy shortage to speak of, even though we do
> waste a great deal of it. The problem is where the energy is coming
> from.
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
> On 18 March 2011 22:56, jeffrey chan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Dear Fil,
> > Typical 'permanent' and consolidated storage such as the Yucca Mt Proposal
> > do not get built and used because no one wants this in their backyard. We
> > can all bet that even if the political base of the final location is weak,
> > there will be strong opposition--an injustice in one part of the world has
> > the capacity to resonate throughout the entire globe, says Habermas!
> > Furthermore, I don't think insofar as nuclear wastes are concerned, applying
> > the kind of cost-benefit analysis (i.e., harvesting residual energy by
> > decay) is even the way to think about this issue. After all, energy gained
> > through radioactive decay is simply not the same as energy gained from
> > burning organic fuel: the psychology of perception is vastly different. Just
> > like recycling our waste-water under water conservation policies in any arid
> > locale, the first battle has to be a psychological; and this entails a
> > deontological battle of conviction over simple utilitarianism. Similar logic
> > applies to medical isotopes.
> > I agree with the previous participant's comment that to rely on nuclear
> > energy in view of rising prices of fossil fuels is an extremely short term
> > measure that has large future unknowable and unknown repercussions. It looks
> > like it is the market that is driving us to nuclear energy, and this drive
> > is usually and erroneously--perhaps deceptively--couched in arguments of
> > energy shortage. If we as a civilization is driven about by the things we
> > have designed for the allocation of resources, then we have indeed lost
> > control and all talk of design and the designer is no longer valid or
> > relevant.
> > Finally, if we look at where are the places where nuclear plants are being
> > proposed, the correlation between rocketing population growth and a seeming
> > consensus to build them are quite telling. As a species, are we contend to
> > allow the paradox of rising populations diminish the probability of
> > populations down the road? A paradox indeed--and a frightening one. This is
> > one technology that we know how to build and harness, but we have no good
> > theory or practice of containment. I always thought we would have by now
> > invented robots and improvisatory measures to fight nuclear fires. The
> > helicopters dumping water and boric acid fire-fighting tell me that we don't
> > yet have very accountable measures in place. Until we have accountable
> > measures, it is the responsibility of a designing species to forestall any
> > further development of something that is patently harmful and unknowable
> > with long lasting undesirable consequences.
> > Jeffrey Chan
> >
> >> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:27:02 -0400
> >> From: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to
> >> Norman - a Fukushima solution by Germany
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >> It depends on the technology used.
> >> For instance, IF the Yucca Mountain repository ever gets built & used, the
> >> stored waste will generate enough heat to keep the ambient temperature at
> >> around 200C. You can boil water with that kind of heat. Which you can use
> >> to run turbines that generate electricity. And that heat source will be
> >> available for thousands of years. Wouldn't it be good to find a use for
> >> that nuclear waste?
> >> Also, if we used thorium based reactors, then we wouldn't get as much
> >> waste,
> >> and much of the nuclear byproduct would be highly-valued "medical
> >> isotopes."
> >>
> >> That said, I would not advocate to "depend on Nuclear energy for hundreds
> >> of
> >> years." It's a temporary measure, and, I think, a very good one.
> >>
> >> See my blog posting:
> >> http://filsalustri.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/rethinking-nuclear/
> >>
> >> Cheers.
> >> Fil
> >>
> >> On 18 March 2011 13:27, Rob Curedale <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I wonder how many spent fuel rods we will have to dispose of if we
> >> > depend
> >> > on
> >> > Nuclear energy for hundreds of years. It seems like lazy short term
> >> > thinking
> >> > again.
> >> >
> >> > Rob Curedale
> >> >
> >> > .....................................................................
> >> >
> >> > email: [log in to unmask]
> >> > url: www.curedale.com
> >> > address: PO Box 1153 Topanga CA 90290 USA
> >> > skype: rob.curedale
> >> > profile: http://tiny.cc/92p9t
> >> > twitter: @designresearch
> >> >
> >> > .....................................................................
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> >> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> >> Ryerson University
> >> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
> >> M5B 2K3, Canada
> >> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
> >> Fax: 416/979-5265
> >> Email: [log in to unmask]
> >> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University
> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
> M5B 2K3, Canada
> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
> Fax: 416/979-5265
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|