A Conversation in the Making?
Over at Foreign Policy, Steve LeVine puts the Japanese cataclysms in a larger context and concludes that what we’re seeing is
a global energy system under severe stress. Over the last several months, we’ve learned the hard way in incredibly coincidental events that we are in firm control of almost none of our major sources of power: Deep-water oil drilling can be perilous if the company carrying it out cuts corners. Because of chronically bad governance by petrostates, we can’t necessarily rely on OPEC supplies either. Shale gas drilling may result in radioactive contamination of water, though who knows since many of the companies involved seem prepared to risk possible ignominy and lawsuits later rather than proactively straighten out their own bad actors. As for much-promoted nuclear power, we know now that big, perfect-storm, black-swan natural disasters can come in twos.
If these closely grouped events were to be viewed (and discussed) more broadly as a whole, we might see the makings of an actual national conversation on energy.
To the above mix, I would add the relationship between energy production and water resources.
Mis-attribution here? Should be Steve LeVine.
At some point, 7 billion people need energy, whether from oil, coal, or uranium. The lack of control of our energy sources appears to be only getting worse.
[Fixed–thanks.//KK]
I’d say a badly timed NYT shale gas series does not constitute and event. The article didn’t deal with dilution well. The point about energy/water is very true.
Real energy policy: conservation. Chance the president will wear a sweater and talk about this — zero.
As pointed out by Roger Pielke jr on his blog the Guardian actually had a rather sensible editorial on this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/15/nuclear-power-after-the-flood
@3 I agree with you about conservation. This is an area that is neglected more than it ought to be. (I say this while living in a Colorado rental house in an entire new (partially built) subdivision designed with essentially no southern exposure).
Also, in talking about energy we need to refer to energy costs in energy units.
What drivel!
-the GOM oil spill disaster that wasn’t
-the shale gas disaster that isn’t
-the nuclear plant emergency that is highly unlikley to be one of the major casualty or cost drivers in the Japanese tragedy.
This is right from the alarmists playbook: scare people by highlighting low probably risks as things that might happen, then spout something totally meaningless, but really scary sounding like “we are in firm control of almost none of our major sources of power” (what the heck does that mean anyway?).
To start a conversation about energy policy?!
Please.
I am reminded that the worst power generation disaster (in death count terms) was the Banquai hydroelectric dam failure in 1975. 146,000 dead.
Indeed kdk33…
Either embrace the future of energy that “expands” or give up you iPad and jump into that slave casual-wear. Energy is the liberator of tryanny (good or bad…check you history books, not everyone elected by the “demos” is a good leader, and the opposite applies; or differentiate a dictator, emperor, president or king). I would be interested in Keith’s opinion on this…
Anyhow, as in the other thread, the “Captain Hindsight” cape is of little discussion value and if you are too concerned, Morton makes a good iodined salt ready for consumption. It still will not protect one from the foods that you consume on a daily basis (All mineral supplements have harmful isotopes…) Horses, goats, and sheep *need* selenium, a harmful isotope, or they get really sick. Almost 9% of this vital element is radioactive. Life persists…in spite of the human understanding.