http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism ColumbusUnderground.com Messageboard en-US Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:01:35 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/search.php http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/8#post-122715 Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:42:30 +0000 Rockmastermike 122715@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>Since I mentioned the African countries, I figured it would be fair to point to what the South Africans are working on.</p><p>The "Pebble Bed" reactor, which can be used as part of a closed cycle fuel system using MIOX fuel (as the Japanese favor) or can operate with un-enriched uranium fuel. Since it does not use water (the S.A. unit uses Helium) there is no possibility of radioactive water vapor clouds. Water absorbs neutrons, helium does not.</p><p>Unlike traditional water cooled reactor designs there is no active safety "kill switch" or dampers, or control rods needed. A "terrorist" could, in theory, blow the hell out of one of these that uses un-enriched fuel and at most would cause a power outage and a headache to whoever has to rebuild it.</p><p>This is also an inexpensive design that is easy to duplicate. Very important in developing countries in Africa which also, luckily, have a lot of Uranium lying around.</p><p>I'll just paste the wikipedia article here, it's a good primer: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor</a></p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122714 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 17:50:42 +0000 Rockmastermike 122714@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>gramarye wrote </cite></p><p> In most of the world, the population continues to grow, even where carrying capacity is objectively inferior to developed countries.</p><p></blockquote></p><p>Clearly this is the crux of the problem. </p><p> If the carrying capacity of, for example, Rwanda, was growing as rapidly as the carrying capacity of the western countries, I doubt anyone would really care much at all all about their population growth (I know I wouldn't). But, when 10 million people are attempting to survive on low tech agriculture it IS a problem and resource pressure, combined with the politics of the area, has created problems for everyone else. We really could just sit back and watch, but it has already gotten brutal. I fear that that kind of destabilization can easily spread out of control. Then I think about the aquifer/freshwater/population growth situation in the middle east and I get cold chills and a really BIG headache. </p><p> THAT was my point about my fears of population growth, not just paranoia. </p><p>My other point, of course, is that these things are solvable if there is enough energy to solve them. Energy makes fresh water, grows food, and creates opportunities for education and economic growth. </p><p>Creating that energy is problematic enough. Generating it within the constraint that we don't want to produce enough CO2 to drown coastlines is a HUGE problem. </p><p>The interesting thing about the developed countries is that populations have declined, not by policy, but, of course, simply because people didn't WANT to have as many children.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122713 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:49:42 +0000 gramarye 122713@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>Andrew Hall wrote </cite><blockquote><cite>gramarye wrote </cite> One of the major concerns of Western countries should be <em>raising</em> birth rates, not lowering them.</p><p>...</p><p> The unspoken assumption of the population-reduction movement is that the opposite is true (because you seek to reduce liabilities, not assets), and the implications of that <em>deeply</em> disturb me.</blockquote></p><p>I agree with the latter statement, in spades.</p><p>I am very troubled by the first one as I don't think where people come from matters nor is there anything inherently superior about "Western" people. I would encourage the increase of populations who share certain values, but find those values to come from all sorts of geographical origins.</p><p>A.</blockquote></p><p>I agree with that entirely; however, I chose the term "Western" instead of "developed" countries deliberately nevertheless, because with one exception (which I admit I forgot, and shouldn't have), it's Western countries that are having trouble with declining populations when they have the economic and social capacity to support growing ones. I made no statement about the "superiority" of Western people; my point was purely numerical. In most of the world, the population continues to grow, even where carrying capacity is objectively inferior to developed countries.</p><p>The one major exception I forgot--a non-Western country with a declining population despite the institutional and social capacity to productively employ more--was Japan.</p><p>I can't think of any other non-Western examples of that phenomenon.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122712 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:41:25 +0000 Rockmastermike 122712@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>gramarye wrote </cite></p><p>Also, I'm pretty sure that in order to create Chernobyl-like scenario in this country, you'd have to do more than just crack the reactor hull ... you'd have to find a way to make the entire reactor explode at once, while it was still active (i.e., before anyone anywhere could throw a kill switch).</blockquote></p><p>truth. </p><p>The other side of this is fast neutron reactors, as the closed-fuel-cycle folks have been advocating don't need to use enriched fuel. They burn plutonium nicely, but if you park one next to a city it might be wise to run it with non-enriched fuel instead. So that won't cause a big problem if the reactor is cracked. </p><p>Also the use of liquid metal reactors keeps even the coolant at low pressures, so if a rupture does occur it is not catastrophic like the coolant systems used by our current batch of reactors.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122711 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:29:40 +0000 Rockmastermike 122711@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>gramarye wrote </cite>I liked this thread a lot more before it started veering off into ZPG paranoia.</p><p>The population growth issue is, for all intents and purposes, a non-issue. The carrying capacity of the planet is not static and humans need to be accounted for in terms of what they produce and consume, not just what they consume. Look at NYC, for example: the carrying capacity of that area of land, less than 500 square miles, is infinitely greater now than it was in 1600.</p><p></blockquote></p><p>See? I told you someone would call me a irrational. But I think Gram has misunderstood my point.</p><p>Gram: The "non static carrying capacity" you speak of is exactly what I ment when I said that we have used energy to artificially increase carrying capacity. That's what you call "what they produce". </p><p> Our current survival depends entirely upon the ability to generate energy at high density. We have used large amounts of energy to vastly increase carrying capacity. It will take even MORE energy to keep going to the expected population levels of the next 50 years. </p><p>Populations anywhere CAN increase carrying cap to any point they want. If they have the energy.</p><p> Look at Manhattan. Huge amounts of energy are used to not only to maintain function of the city, but also to transport food and water in, and process garbage and sewage (New york actually has to ship garbage all the way to Michigan). </p><p>The energy requirements are staggering, and New York doesn't even have to desalinate water, like so many other cities are starting to have to do.</p><p>Yet the energy used PER PERSON is less than we use in Ohio!</p><p> Countries around the world are struggling to provide food, water, and basic services to their populations. A lot of that is going to be solved with the addition of more energy. A LOT more energy. The question is where are they/we going to get that much energy? </p><p>There are now over a billion people on the planet who don't even have enough water. Another 3 are coming. What happens when people don't have access to basic resources? They fight wars to get them, they organize genocides to prevent other groups from using them, they emigrate in waves and become refugees, and they die. By the millions. </p><p>This is already happening in some places. </p><p>My point is that despite our fears, we cannot ignore careful application of ANY possible power source that can be brought to bear on the problem or we're going to face larger problems later. At the same time we (as a species) have to make sure these things are done correctly.</p><p>edit: as for whether population growth (as a world aggregate) is a "good" thing or not, it's arguably wiser to NOT grow population in places that are already under resource pressure. Yes, shrinking populations in some countries will create problems in some forms. I think those problems will be less of a problem than resource shortages in places where populations are growing rapidly without matching increases in energy and other resource production.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122710 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:29:31 +0000 Andrew Hall 122710@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>gramarye wrote </cite> One of the major concerns of Western countries should be <em>raising</em> birth rates, not lowering them.</p><p>...</p><p> The unspoken assumption of the population-reduction movement is that the opposite is true (because you seek to reduce liabilities, not assets), and the implications of that <em>deeply</em> disturb me.</blockquote></p><p>I agree with the latter statement, in spades.</p><p>I am very troubled by the first one as I don't think where people come from matters nor is there anything inherently superior about "Western" people. I would encourage the increase of populations who share certain values, but find those values to come from all sorts of geographical origins.</p><p>A.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122709 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:44:50 +0000 gramarye 122709@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>Manatee wrote </cite><blockquote><cite>gramarye wrote </cite> because human beings are assets to human beings, not the planet</blockquote></p><p>Fixed that for you, Pat Buchanan! :P</blockquote></p><p>Not rly. :evil:</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122708 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 14:11:51 +0000 Manatee 122708@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>gramarye wrote </cite> because human beings are assets to human beings, not the planet</blockquote></p><p>Fixed that for you, Pat Buchanan! :P</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122707 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:25:27 +0000 Bear 122707@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>Andrew Hall wrote </cite>I don't think you will find too many of them against peaceful power generation.</blockquote></p><p>No, absolutely not. I was actually mainly thinking of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the Pugwash conferences, etc. -- scientists driven by their concerns about weaponized nuclear material to engage the policy arena. I wasn't trying to portray them as anti-nuclear power; I was just trying to point out, in response to Manatee's statement, that a fair number of soulless over-educated technicians :wink: had in fact been profoundly moved by their concern over the overwhelming lethality of nuclear power.</p><p>And yet, that's precisely right. <a href="http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-future-of-nuclear-energy-policy-recommendations" target=" ">They're <em>not</em> against peaceful nuclear power.</a> Historically (although <a href="http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/britains-new-nuclear-abolitionists" target=" ">in some cases this is changing</a>) they <em>have worked for arms control but <a href="http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/a-nuclear-weapon-free-world-prohibition-versus-elimination" target=" ">not total nuclear disarmament.</a></em> All of which speaks to exactly the sort of point that motivated the original diatribe: The best way to make sure that people are not killed or the environment is not degraded with nuclear material is not necessarily just to stop using that material immediately -- a point that the esteemed professor from Stanford should have grasped.</p><p>(Then again, as my UC Berkeley-loving family would point out, he <em>is</em> from Stanford.... :P )</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122706 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:09:38 +0000 gramarye 122706@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>I liked this thread a lot more before it started veering off into ZPG paranoia.</p><p>The population growth issue is, for all intents and purposes, a non-issue. The carrying capacity of the planet is not static and humans need to be accounted for in terms of what they produce and consume, not just what they consume. Look at NYC, for example: the carrying capacity of that area of land, less than 500 square miles, is infinitely greater now than it was in 1600.</p><p>One of the major concerns of Western countries should be <em>raising</em> birth rates, not lowering them.</p><p>European countries may finally be starting to wake up to this reality after lulling themselves into torpor for so long that they awoke (or have half-awakened) on the edge of the demographic abyss. I hope it never comes to that here. Population growth, in nations with the social institutions necessary to enable modern existence, is something to be encouraged and celebrated, not fought, because human beings are assets to the planet, not liabilities. The unspoken assumption of the population-reduction movement is that the opposite is true (because you seek to reduce liabilities, not assets), and the implications of that <em>deeply</em> disturb me.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122705 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:57:02 +0000 gramarye 122705@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>Manatee wrote </cite>What's stopping terrorists from blowing up the nuclear power sites already in existence?</blockquote></p><p>It also needs to be said that this is still completely separate from the alarmist professor's issue, because blowing up a nuclear power plant site does not actually create a nuclear explosion. The leakage of radiation and waste would be environmentally calamitous, of course, but in addition to all the intrinsic protective measures nuclear sites must install, I believe that there are regulations that prevent them from being built anywhere near a water source.</p><p>Also, I'm pretty sure that in order to create Chernobyl-like scenario in this country, you'd have to do more than just crack the reactor hull ... you'd have to find a way to make the entire reactor explode at once, while it was still active (i.e., before anyone anywhere could throw a kill switch). Take a look at the aerial shots of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster">what was left of the reactor after the blast</a>. That was more than a leak.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122704 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:45:55 +0000 Andrew Hall 122704@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>Bear wrote </cite></p><p>Many &#8800; all... but point taken. Perhaps not "most." But there was a lot of soul-searching at the time, among people from whom you wouldn't necessarily have expected it.</blockquote></p><p>Maybe. That was certainly the fable of later times. How much Oppenheimer in particular was against anything (he was against the H-Bomb for technical reasons and then was for it when those were solved) and how much was simply political as his fortunes fell is a good question.</p><p>Even people like Teller are hard to judge - the childhood that was to be had in that volatle environment of Communist vs Fascist in post WWI Eastern Europe is something we can't ever share. A desire that the 'good guys' have the biggest stick seemed to be the outcome for many.</p><p>Hans Bethe, as important a figure as you will find, did campaign against nuclear weaponry, but was a strong advocate for nuclear power. His analysis of Chernobyl concluded that it was something that couldn't ever happen w/ Western design.</p><p>I don't think you will find too many of them against peaceful power generation.</p><p>A.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122703 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:26:19 +0000 Bear 122703@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>Andrew Hall wrote </cite>Edward Teller?</blockquote></p><p> :lol: </p><p><img src="http://bsd.org.yu/~bilke/culture/images/dr_strangelove_merkwurdichliebe.jpg"></p><p>Many &#8800; all... but point taken. Perhaps not "most." But there was a lot of soul-searching at the time, among people from whom you wouldn't necessarily have expected it.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122702 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:14:16 +0000 Andrew Hall 122702@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>Bear wrote </cite> Most of the early nuclear scientists were horrified at the prospect of nuclear power, and many worked tirelessly to try to figure out how to prevent it from being unleashed; that's why so many of them figured prominently in the disarmament movement and in arms control talks.</blockquote></p><p>Edward Teller?</p><p>A.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122701 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:21:17 +0000 Bear 122701@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>Manatee wrote </cite>Also, strange as it may seem, I can't help but feel that the biggest thing I have against nuclear power is... poetic. It is very intuitively wrong. I understand that you gentlemen are having a much-needed conversation about hard facts, but call it mother's intuition... it just seems very, very wrong to mess with a lethal force much more powerful than we are, <em>that we cannot in our right minds hope to permanently control.</em></blockquote></p><p>You might be surprised at who agrees with you. When Oppenheimer watched the Trinity tests, the thought that went through his mind was a line from the Bhagavad Gita: <em>I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.</em> Most of the early nuclear scientists were horrified at the prospect of nuclear power, and many worked tirelessly to try to figure out how to prevent it from being unleashed; that's why so many of them figured prominently in the disarmament movement and in arms control talks. It's only the generation that grew up in the shadow of the things that's more comfortable living that way.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122700 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:49:45 +0000 Manatee 122700@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>Same to you. Very informative. </p><p>Go have a hot toddy!</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122699 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:49:44 +0000 Rockmastermike 122699@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>Manatee wrote </cite>... one of the solutions. Not the only one. And none of them applied draconically.</blockquote></p><p>agreed. We need to look at all solutions available.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122698 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:48:32 +0000 Rockmastermike 122698@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>Looking at the population and resource scarcity issues has depressed me to the point I just want to have a big GIANT drink, perhaps bourbon, and forget this entire thing. This stuff scares the living crap out of me and I just can't handle anymore of it today while I already have a cold.</p><p>thanks for the convo, though, manatee. :)</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122697 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:45:28 +0000 Manatee 122697@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>... one of the solutions. Not the only one. And none of them applied draconically.</p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/gen-x-environmental-activism/page/7#post-122696 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:16:48 +0000 Rockmastermike 122696@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p><blockquote><cite>Manatee wrote </cite>Why not apply our ingenuity to lowering birth rates, instead of amping up nuclear? It just seems like, in any problem, we tend to reach for more technology, more specialists, and more dangerous solutions, further splitting the problems into more and more problems. It just seems like high time to apply some common sense. Too many people to support? Make less people. This is only one possible solution.</p><p>It's certainly no more difficult than splitting atoms. Furthermore, it would address some of the major issues we as a species have along the continuum of fertility, from land to body. I'd like to see us stop further splitting things up, and start putting things back together, more simply. </p><p>Maybe something along the lines of "consilience" as suggested by E.O. Wilson, or "solving for pattern" as suggested by (sorry I know I'm totally predictable) Wendell Berry.</blockquote></p><p>We are finally addressing birth rates (in most civilized countries), thank all the gods. A LOT of very good people are working hard on it. I urge everyone to support their efforts.</p><p>However, it has come too late. Population rates work on a kind of generational time delay because people do not die as soon as they give birth. It's a time bomb. Even if the birthrate drops below the replacement rate immediately (it's below the replacement rate already in many countries thanks to availability of birth control), the population continues to increase to a maximum before dropping off.</p><p>Like I said, even if the birthrate in every country dropped below the replacement rate we still hit a maximum in another 20-30 years before it drops off. </p><p>The only way to prevent that would be means that even Hitler would find distasteful.</p><p>edit: the good news is that I just looked at the UN's revised figures for 2005 and they're down to predicting 9.1 billion by 2050. Still not great news :cry:</p>