| « SARTRE’IN VAROLUŞÇULUĞU VE İRADE | GEÇMİŞTE VE BUGÜN:NÜKLEER ENERJİ TARTIŞMASI » |
INTERNATIONAL CHERNOBYL SEMINAR
Yazılar, Bilimsel ve Teknik Yazılar|
INTERNATIONAL CHERNOBYL SEMINAR |
...
• The second oil crisis came into play in 1979. The oil price went up tremendeously, to reach the ceiling of 30 and even 35 dollars per barrel. Recall that it was 3 dollars per barrel in 1973, and it became 8 dollars per barrel at the 1973 oil crisis.
• The western economies were shaked even more through the second oil crisis of 1979. This yeld an outmost expectation from nuclear energy.
• This yeld also a scientific and technological meditation in the entire world about our consumption fashions of energy as well as the development of other energy resources.
• And here, a totally unexpected energy resource was discovered. This is conservation of energy, or in better terms, energy efficiency.
• The entire world, starting by the USA and the Western Europe, indeed suprisinly discovered that we can do everything that we used to do by using only half of the energy we previously had to use (and in very many cases even less)! This is really striking.
• Hence, the demand projections came down tremendeously. One thus realized that we did not need so much energy, nor so much nuclear power production. This made that, so far, the world had only achieved 10% of the nuclear power capacity which was planned for today, from the mid 1970’s.
• From here on, there are two basic reasons for which nuclear power production lost its popularity and came to its actual rather saturated production level. The first one is due to 1979 Three Mile Island (TMI) accident taken place in the USA, and even more to the 1986 Chernobyl accident taken place in the Soviet Union. Fundamentally the second accident destroyed very much the trust people had for nuclear power production. “Small” accidents, as far as the end effects are concerned, such as the Tokai-Mura fuel plant accident, surely did not add less to the trust destruction of the world public to nuclear power production.
• Both of the TMI and Chernobyl accidents (as much as the Tokai-Mura accident), had occured for childish reasons. No scenario could have predicted the funny paths they developed throughout.
• The occurances in question, required more and more redundant safety measure developments which led to the abolishments of the economic advantages of nuclear energy production.
• The nuclear economy situation was worsened by the unexpected expenditures implied by the decomissioning of nuclear power plants.
• The second reason for which the world experiences a nuclear power production saturation is, the problem posed by nuclear wastes. There are proposed solutions but they are not yet publically accepted, so that the waste problem, as it stands now, not only that is “unresolved” but also, it ruins more the economy of nuclear power, since it drains much more financial resources than it was originally guessed.
• Thus, nuclear power production, as, at least by now half of the Europeans perceive it, is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe. The fact that many scientists and technocrats, believe the other way around, does not change the profile of the perception in question; quite on the contrary the number of the opponents of nuclear energy increases day by day.
• Nuclear energy, no doubt, has archieved a lot. It actually does achieve a lot, amounting to about one fifth of the world electricity production.
• I still believe that nuclear energy is already in crisis. The open S curve related to its growth tells us that, it is somewhat at the end of its life. There are a couple of exceptions, mainly the Republic of China, which envisages an ambitious nuclear program. There are not any new constructions in the USA since 1978; there are not any plants in OECD countries planned for the coming twenty years; Sweden, Germany, Austria and Italy have chosen throughout democratic processes not to go nuclear or to abandon nuclear; Spain, Swizerland and Belgium consider seriously to get off the nuclear track; on the other hand we should recall that, from the beginning up to now, Ireland, Denmark, Holland, Portugal, Poland and Norway had never chosen to go the nuclear way.
• So, on the whole, nuclear energy production, appeaers to be in crisis.
• One cannot talk about energy or nuclear energy without talking about politics; unfortunnately sometimes about dirty politics and, even more unfortunnately, about bloody politics. It is a pity that some of the scientists and technocrats, childishly believe that our choices come only out of scientific laboratories, mathematical formulations and solutions, and computer outputs.
• This is not the case at all. The choice of energy is in fact just a polititcal choice not any different than that of a political party. As a matter of fact, our energy customs, just like our other daily customs, are determined and imposed by world politics and world lords. No world lord can be thought of without a political party or, in general, a political power.
• Nuclear energy seems anyway a dead end business, if the world cannot go breeding nuclear fuel, mainly plutonium. The reason is a simple. Uranium resources are limited to about 6 million tons, just like oil, gas and coal resources are limited.
• The world uranium resources can fuel the present reactors for only about half a century.
• On the other hand, petroleum and natural gas resources of earth, seem to be much more voluminous than they were thougt to be. So are coal resources.
• When one thinks about the alternatives, one should not restrain himself to global figures. One instead should approach to the problem by local means. For instance, tidal energy may indeed be important for France and England, but not at all important for Turkey. We do not even have any tides. Conversely solar power may not be very important for Finland, but it should be considered to be very important for Mediterranean Countries.
• Energy production means that are not compatible with the natural cycles of earth shall probably be classified to be not acceptable in the long run. Thus, neither coal, nor petroleum, nor gas are acceptable. They all alter the composition of our atmosphere. I believe, nuclear energy too shall be in the long run classified as unacceptable, not only because of the accident risks, but most likely, because of nuclear waste problem.
• From this point of view, only solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy, biomass energy, and derivatives, such as hydrogen energy, shall stand in different forms of production in the long run.
• NASA, already in 1979 reported that it could provide earth, day and light with solar energy, via means of solar panels to be installed in space. But, of course, world politics did not so far allow such an excursion.
• The reason forwarded by the opponents, is that it would be “very expensive”, i.e. about 1000 billion dollars, for a first serious space solar energy harnessing step, aimed to replace nuclear nergy production. Yet the world “defense” expenditures, on a yearly basis, already amounts to this price.
• Thus all we have to do is to switch our mentality.
• We have to learn how to live without fighting, if this ought to turn out to be the price of enjoying to live healthyly on this beautiful planet.
• Hence one should politically fight to achieve the desirable energy solutions, just like, chiefly Democrat Europeans had to fight for no more nuclear weapons in Europe.
• If we pollute, it is either because we do not use the right energy resources, or we do not use them in the right way.
• On earth, we can continuously build “order”, and this, without any natural destruction, because earth is an “open system”; we receive plenty of energy from the sun.
• Since we pollute and since chaos is spread , this means that we are not, on the right track.
• The entire world industry, as well as the civilization, mankind has developed on earth, ought to be questioned from this point of view.
• Anyhow, we have to be realistic, in the related transformation actions. This bares not an easy solution.
• It is important to understand our creation on earth, and before this, the cosmic struggles that gave birth to earth. It is as if, an uncounscious consciousness is getting more and more ordered to become our conscious reaching our level of life.
• I believe, it is important to get aligned with this cosmic self organizing process and to pick it up, as our mission on earth.
• Anything we achieve in this line can be defined as ”good”. Anything we achieve in an incompatibility with this line, is then “bad”.
• I call this, our “cosmic wholeness”.
• To be just “antinuclear” is not good enough if it does not take place under the umbrella of our cosmic wholeness, out of which we can possibly derive a complete ethic system to shape up our daily life and our civilization. To shape up our energy production fashion, can simply be considered as a subset of such an approach.
• Thus, nuclear power production, as, at least by now half of the Europeans perceive it, is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe. The fact that many scientists and technocrats, believe the other way around, does not change the profile of the perception in question; quite on the contrary the number of the opponents of nuclear energy increases day by day.
• Nuclear energy, no doubt, has archieved a lot. It actually does achieve a lot, amounting to about one fifth of the world electricity production.
• I still believe that nuclear energy is already in crisis. The open S curve related to its growth tells us that, it is somewhat at the end of its life. There are a couple of exceptions, mainly the Republic of China, which envisages an ambitious nuclear program. There are not any new constructions in the USA since 1978; there are not any plants in OECD countries planned for the coming twenty years; Sweden, Germany, Austria and Italy have chosen throughout democratic processes not to go nuclear or to abandon nuclear; Spain, Swizerland and Belgium consider seriously to get off the nuclear track; on the other hand we should recall that, from the beginning up to now, Ireland, Denmark, Holland, Portugal, Poland and Norway had never chosen to go the nuclear way.
• So, on the whole, nuclear energy production, appeaers to be in crisis.
• One cannot talk about energy or nuclear energy without talking about politics; unfortunnately sometimes about dirty politics and, even more unfortunnately, about bloody politics. It is a pity that some of the scientists and technocrats, childishly believe that our choices come only out of scientific laboratories, mathematical formulations and solutions, and computer outputs.
• This is not the case at all. The choice of energy is in fact just a polititcal choice not any different than that of a political party. As a matter of fact, our energy customs, just like our other daily customs, are determined and imposed by world politics and world lords. No world lord can be thought of without a political party or, in general, a political power.
• Nuclear energy seems anyway a dead end business, if the world cannot go breeding nuclear fuel, mainly plutonium. The reason is a simple. Uranium resources are limited to about 6 million tons, just like oil, gas and coal resources are limited.
• The world uranium resources can fuel the present reactors for only about half a century.
• On the other hand, petroleum and natural gas resources of earth, seem to be much more voluminous than they were thougt to be. So are coal resources.
• When one thinks about the alternatives, one should not restrain himself to global figures. One instead should approach to the problem by local means. For instance, tidal energy may indeed be important for France and England, but not at all important for Turkey. We do not even have any tides. Conversely solar power may not be very important for Finland, but it should be considered to be very important for Mediterranean Countries.
• Energy production means that are not compatible with the natural cycles of earth shall probably be classified to be not acceptable in the long run. Thus, neither coal, nor petroleum, nor gas are acceptable. They all alter the composition of our atmosphere. I believe, nuclear energy too shall be in the long run classified as unacceptable, not only because of the accident risks, but most likely, because of nuclear waste problem.
• From this point of view, only solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy, biomass energy, and derivatives, such as hydrogen energy, shall stand in different forms of production in the long run.
• NASA, already in 1979 reported that it could provide earth, day and light with solar energy, via means of solar panels to be installed in space. But, of course, world politics did not so far allow such an excursion.
• The reason forwarded by the opponents, is that it would be “very expensive”, i.e. about 1000 billion dollars, for a first serious space solar energy harnessing step, aimed to replace nuclear nergy production. Yet the world “defense” expenditures, on a yearly basis, already amounts to this price.
• Thus all we have to do is to switch our mentality.
• We have to learn how to live without fighting, if this ought to turn out to be the price of enjoying to live healthyly on this beautiful planet.
• Hence one should politically fight to achieve the desirable energy solutions, just like, chiefly Democrat Europeans had to fight for no more nuclear weapons in Europe.
• If we pollute, it is either because we do not use the right energy resources, or we do not use them in the right way.
• On earth, we can continuously build “order”, and this, without any natural destruction, because earth is an “open system”; we receive plenty of energy from the sun.
• Since we pollute and since chaos is spread , this means that we are not, on the right track.
• The entire world industry, as well as the civilization, mankind has developed on earth, ought to be questioned from this point of view.
• Anyhow, we have to be realistic, in the related transformation actions. This bares not an easy solution.
• It is important to understand our creation on earth, and before this, the cosmic struggles that gave birth to earth. It is as if, an uncounscious consciousness is getting more and more ordered to become our conscious reaching our level of life.
• I believe, it is important to get aligned with this cosmic self organizing process and to pick it up, as our mission on earth.
• Anything we achieve in this line can be defined as ”good”. Anything we achieve in an incompatibility with this line, is then “bad”.
• I call this, our “cosmic wholeness”.
• To be just “antinuclear” is not good enough if it does not take place under the umbrella of our cosmic wholeness, out of which we can possibly derive a complete ethic system to shape up our daily life and our civilization. To shape up our energy production fashion, can simply be considered as a subset of such an approach.
Comment feed for this post
Son Yorumlar