ENERGY POLITICS


ENERGY IS NUCLEAR


Current nuclear fission technology is just garbage technology, based on exploitation of a half ready technological concept and based on a half business model (we take the profits, you pay most of the costs, and we're not home concerning operational risk liability). It's only (not more and not less) a beta/development version of nuclear energy harvesting and a wrong detraction in this area. Creating waste in a state subsidized (security and disposal) environment is not something that will rise very much. Privatizing profits and socializing costs is something that will face wide resistance, furthermore no real insurance company wants to issue insurance on any nuclear fission facility, therefore this risk is also 'given' to the state for free. Fission is playing with possible pollution of whole continents. Therefore fission is certainly a no go zone for energy harvesting with too huge major impact disadvantages and possibilities. The nuclei can give us certainly cheap and abundant energy, but fission has got so much downsides that we must see it just as a quick to leave experiment and find the right way for exploration of nuclear energy. Any energy source that could damage the world at large scale must be abandoned: we looking for answers, not for new problems: we have already problems enough the next years. Each rich town that can afford it will start to build its own nuke facility and this way tries to extent the life time of the city with one of two decades, but building it will take a decade and the price of nuke fuel will be oil price connected. A lot of investment for nothing, only a few of all these thousands will be fully finished. Afraid of CO2 horror stories? You should try U horror stories too: they are even more scary. Fission was the wrong detraction of the interesting road to nuclear energy. Uranium 235 is scare and production will be peaked in a decade or two: so it give no sustainable solution. The cost of Uranium 235 will explode, linear with oil prices (see the price development of coal and gas, that goes parallel with oil, or if you want to call it so: are oil attached). Only in 2007 there were several leaks in fission plants all around the world and in Sweden even someone of the maintenance crew was arrested while trying to enter with explosives in his bag. Fission is risks and we don't multiplying risks, we need multiplying solutions. We will be again bounded by foreign nations that will supply us and tap our wealth and we become political dependent once again. Just like our oil addiction drains our wealth now, and also force us to do business with regimes who operate not democratic and repress large parts of their people. Nuclear plants operate without insurance: no commercial insurer will give any kind of coverage. The first thing the fission based nuclear should do is initiating a joint insurance pool, that will be feed with 10% of their turnover. The fact that a whole very high risk energy just operates without insurance and just find this normal is very characteristic for the common attitude in the fission nuclear industry. The fission based nuclear industry has not so much a PR problem, they have more a severe attitude problem. There is certainly a connection with nuclear weapons of mass destruction (why otherwise are nations against the nuclear ambitions of other nations) and nuke side products (uranium dust) is also being used in anti tank weapons for mass increase and for it's burning specifications after impact. Nuclear energy is about just turning costs of problems and costs of waste and after operation on society, actual and on the bill of the next generation. We have damaged the interests of the next generation more than we should already. Time for sustainable prosperity. For us and our children. But there is more. Nuclear fission takes approximately a realization time of 10 years. This is no reason to start today with it, this a reason not to start today with it. There are much other energy investments that could give instant energy delivery without less risks. It strange that risks are just polished away by PR. The five most simple to implement today already fully available energy transition models are: a) efficiency b) model changes, c) photovoltaic, d) geothermal and e) deserttech. These are the best defences for a nation not to be sucked into any energy war. These five fossil alternatives energy models are so easy to implement that there's really no need to wait one month longer with rising these 5 models to official governmental policy in any nation of the world. By the whole CO2 based man-made fiction (single facet, one perspective, not comprehensive thinking) based climate hoax, is capable of deliver us real treats to man made global climate change by stimulating massive deployment of garbage technology. Fission is just garbage technology: based on the privatizing profits and socializing costs model, we're all finished with. And now even subsidized by CR taxes. The CR model is also designed to subsidize nuclear fission investments, just as the whole CO2 discussion is designed in the '80ties to make environmentalists (who at that time were anti nuclear fission) to change in to nuclear fission energy endorsers and propagandists. The CR model is based on a misconception: that CO2 is bad. This misconception has much more to do with the size of Al Gore's feature movie attributes (the famous CO2 ladder) than with the real effects of CO2. CO2 is nothing more and nothing less than an atmospheric type of fertilizer. The concept of CR is the wrong answer on the wrong question. It is not the surplus of CO2 we should fear, it's the deficit of it. The end of cheap and abundant fossil energy that could cause our economies to decline and our financials and governments to collapse. Fossil energy will be expensive, we don't need the CR model for that: it's just a result of more expensive exploration and refining. We used by the law of economics the easiest to explore and to refine resources first, now we are approaching the more hard second half of the resources. This (that the second half is harder -and thereby more expensive- than the first half is something we don't understand very much as mankind. Just like we don't understand the increasing demand (as in: increasing purchase power) of the emerging nations. The west is quite narcissistic in their global perception. The new reality on purchase power is not landing at all in the west. This has neo-colonial roots: the misplaced superiority feelings steers the Western World in dead-ended energy streets. Concluding: a) the CR model is vulnerable for fraud as it has no direct link (which the FIC model has), b) the CR model will be used to subsidize the parasitic nuclear fission industry (all costs of security, all costs of waste, all costs of destruction are for the society, plus they can get insurance, so pragmatic as governments are: they may operate without it). Germany has demanded from Vattenfall a corporate 'parent guarantee' for a nuclear fission power plant: that's smart behaviour that ends the wrong and not sustainable privatizing profits and socializing loses development. Do we need nuclear fission (the new high priest in the CO2 church)? No, nuclear fission is just garbage science, half complete research with huge risks and downsides. The CO2 movement want to avoid a non-existing problem by creating another one. An example of very good thinking. Forget the risks (as nobody want to talk about it: very hard to understand, but the truth), what about fuel? PeakUranium is not very much on the scope of the CO2 fear sowing movement, they are blinded by CO2. But the 235 and 239 isotopes of Uranium are very scarce. Do we want U 235/239 wars beside oil and natural gas wars? Another very valid facet in the nuclear energy alternative is the required time to build an nuclear fission plant: at least 10 years. Building more quick equals more risks. Do we want that? This long realization period alone is a huge downside on nuclear fission power generation. Another solution can be realized in 25% of that time budget. And why we don't use the nuclear fusion reactor the earth provides us by the heath processes in its core? Geothermal is just safe and sound nuclear without this risks: just drill some pipes and enjoy the heat of this reactor with sea water as heat transport expedient. Regarding the recent cheer leading of nuclear fission by the greens: Yes, we have a time budget regarding energy transition away from fossil fuel. Not by fear, but by economics. The economics of nuclear fission are a wonder in itself: cleaning the garbage and delivering military security is done for free by societies in the nuclear fission business model that now on every table due to the CO2 movement. A good lobbyist is worth every dime he/she costs. What happened with about our common dislike of privatizing profits and socializing debts business models? Trade in CO2 emission rights is an other miracle. This is literal trade in thin air. Vulnerable to scams as nothing earlier in history. Trade in emission rights dwarfs even the huge Tulip Mania scam in Holland's Golden Age. Mr. Gore his public investment advice: going long on CR (telling the CO2 story is one thing, earning on it an other thing). Mr. Gore his personal investment strategy: liquidating the CR assets just before the collapse of the CR scam and than reverse it in going long on carbon (oil/coal) as they will be scare and prices high. Nuclear fission is just garbage science (delivering waste and operating by a privatizing profits and socializing loses business model). Forget nuclear fission. It takes too long and the business model delivers security costs, waste costs, facility destruction costs and calamity costs to the nation. Nuclear fission unfortunately has a parasitical business model that privatizes profits and socializes costs. It's too slow, too expensive, too risky. A business model that only calculates half of its costs and operates without (a valid, not a fake) insurance is not a wise business model. Certainly when there are plenty of valid, faster and less expensive alternatives. Nuclear fission is advocated by people without knowledge on actual energy alternatives. Due to the CO2 madness the environmental movement overcome all her resistance against nuclear fission, to combat the man-made fable of the CO2 enemy. If we don't be alert, the nuclear fission lobby not only will use the environmental movements (something like Coca-Cola advices Pepsi Cola), but also will use subsidies the CR rights will deliver them. First make the lobby (the CO2 movement), than arrange the funding (Carbon Rights) and than roll-out the garbage technology in a parasitical business model. Some one has done some severe planning. The two sad sides of the whole CO2 polarization is that the environmental movement for the first time in it's history united is used/abused by the Carbon Right can-artists and the nuclear fission lobby. Tesla resisted the nuclear fission models made by Einstein. Tesla didn't like uncontrollable environments and wanted always to practice his theories as soon as possible. Nuclear Fission also don't can be used as Energy is Recovery. Fusion is the better/smarter brother of fission. The current fusion research is already decades just on the wrong road: the try to find materials that can resist super high temperature without to get burned in the process. The should start over again: based on a virtual electro/magnetic 'building' concept and research laser path steering by magnetics, to get a technology that bundles the power of cheap lasers into one intensive light path or by mirrors to one very intensive crosspoint. By these two technologies low cost fusion will possible. The model is more extended described in the Global Future Analysis of Planck Foundation (http://www.planck.org/downloads/Global-Future-Analysis.pdf). But the current fusion technology community is as flexible as the Communistic Party of the DDR. An perfect example of science that's turned into a believe. Open questioning (the key facet of science) is replaced by continuation of narrow/mono sighted visions. The international ITER Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER) will stay burning money in well paid jobs to the funding will be cut of, not considering the virtual building concept as they should do. The three above mentioned science fields are crucial. They need all new approaches. New approaches are the key. Out of the box thinking will deliver the solutions. Energy is Nuclear is a doubtful statement.


Author: Gijs Graafland


Back to index page of Energy Economics | Energy Politics


Download the full Energy Economics report in PDF