Articles by David Roberts

Nuclear security

Speaking of nuclear power, I meant to mention this a couple weeks ago:

Four years after the leaders of the world's eight largest economies vowed to raise $20 billion over 10 years to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear materials, only $3.5 billion has been donated -- and far less has been used to secure enriched uranium, the key ingredient of a nuclear weapon.

Hundreds of tons of uranium remain at loosely guarded facilities across Russia and the former Soviet Union, and in nearly 40 other countries, according to specialists. And the need to secure the material has grown: In April, Russian police arrested a foreman in a nuclear plant for attempting to sell 22 kilograms of uranium.

Sounds like a great time to build hundreds and hundreds of new nuclear plants all over the world!

Nuclear reading

A couple weekends ago, The New York Times Magazine ran an epic cover story on the resurgence of nuclear power: "Atomic Balm?" (And when I say epic I mean it: I printed the sucker out and it came to 17 single-spaced pages.) It's invaluable if you want a broad overview of the current state of the nuclear industry, which is (boosters allege) on the verge of a resurgence.

Here's the basic lay of the land: power companies care about one thing and one thing only: cost. Right now, coal is cheap, so power companies burn coal. They will create power some other way when the money looks right. The rising cost of natural gas, the prospect of CO2 caps, and massive Energy Department subsidies are nudging them toward nuclear. What holds them back is the astronomical price of constructing and decommissioning plants -- well over $2 billion to get a plant up and running, and that's without mistakes and cost overruns, which have been ubiquitous throughout the industry's history.

Though the author, John Gertner, is scrupulously balanced, one comes away with the distinct impression that nuclear power just doesn't make sense to investors or power companies, but that the government is determined to ply them with money until they submit.

Selfishness

I was somewhat dismayed to hear that environmentalism can only save itself by explicitly becoming "selfish" and "cool." (Or is there a difference?)

I was even more dismayed to find that Grist is, apparently, the house organ for this line of thinking:

Picking the right horse

Michael G. Richard goes through the relevant chapter of Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers and pulls out a series of points and arguments that add up to this: carbon sequestration is unlikely to play a major role in our fight against global warming. (I basically agree -- see this post.) Give it a read.

I have just one quibble. Richard says:

As a society civilization species, we must back the right horse and stop being misled by the coal industry's delaying tactics. There's a big opportunity cost in time and resources to going down the wrong path.

I would question the notion that we need to "pick the right horse."