Tag: nuclear power

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

This is really exciting: Germany, already a leader in the safe energy space—in fact, my solar inverter, installed back in 2004, was built in Germany—has rejected nuclear power. Germany has pledged to permanently close the seven plants taken off-line following Fukushima, and shut all of its 17 n-plants by 2022.

Remember: Germany is a cloudy northern European country. If solar can work there, it can work just about anywhere—and Germany’s clean energy industry already employs an impressive 370,000 people.

Germany was also the birthplace of the modern safe-energy/anti-nuclear movement, back around 1975, and had a huge influence on the creation of Clamshell Alliance and the US safe energy movement in the next few years after that. And citizen action clearly played a role. As the AP story noted:

Tens of thousands of people took to the streets after Fukushima to urge the government to shut all reactors quickly.

Meanwhile, Switzerland’s cabinet is recommending to Parliament that the country phase out all its reactors by 2034. And Vermont, which is both defending itself against a lawsuit by Vermont Yankee nuclear plant owner Energy attacking its right to regulate the plant and suing the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission over an improper license extension, submitted legal documents pointing out that Entergy knew perfectly well in 2001 when it bought Vermont Yankee that the plant was scheduled to close in 2012, waited to the last minute to challenge it, and therefore has no right to a preliminary injunction forbidding the state from closing the plant at the end of the license period.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, propaganda Tagged with , , , ,

David Vossbrink, APR, a PR guy who happens to be the president of PRSA’s Silicon Valley chapter, wrote in regarding my recent article on a PR site, “Seeing Past the “Spin”: Debunking Five Dangerous Myths About Nuclear Power.”

Vossbrink called my attention to a speech by the late safe energy activist David Comey, of Friends of the Earth. Comey, addressing the nuclear industry’s own Atomic Industrial Forum, told them they have a major credibility problem, and that he wasn’t afraid to tell them about it because he knew they would never follow his advice to tell the truth, and therefore remain easy targets.

Comey referenced a British spymaster, Richard Crossman, who was in charge of “alien psychological warfare” during World War II. He outlined 7 key principles that Crossman put forth in a 1953 lecture:

  1. The Basis for All Successful Propaganda is the Truth
  2. The Key to Successful Propaganda Is Accurate Information
  3. The Most Successful Propagandist Is the Person Who Cares About Education
  4. To Do Propaganda Well, One Must Not Fall in Love with It
  5. A Successful Propagandist Cannot Afford to Make Mistakes
  6. The Propaganda Must Be Credible to the Other Side, Not Your Own [empahsis mine]
  7. Understatement Succeeds Best [the Brits used understatement to make the Nazis think they were only bringing a portion of what they could, and that they could inflict far more damage on their enemy]

An aside: Interestingly, while trying to find his speech online (which was critiqued in a journal published February 1975, and thus must be no later than mid-1974), I came across Comey’s description of the fire at the Browns Ferry, Alabama nuke in 1975 (which could have been utterly catastrophic, but once again, we were lucky). The Browns Ferry reactors, among 23 US nuclear plants using essentially the same design as the failed Dai’ichi reactors in Japan, had to be shut down this week because of tornados. At least they didn’t wait until the tornado created a disaster, as the tsunami did in Japan.

Unfortunatley, Comey was right: the nuclear industry still can’t seem to tell the truth. And fortunately, I believe that Comey was also right about what that means;  it should be easy to undermine the nuclear industry’s credibility and overcome the juggernaut, to make it clear that we as a society will not tolerate the construction of a single new n-plant or license extension of an existing one, and that we need to take active steps to decommission the ones already in use.

Let’s prove Comey right—get out there and organize!

Note: I will be glad to send the PDF of Comey’s full speech–write me at shel (at) principledprofit.com, subject line Send David Come Nuke Speech. I was not able to locate it online.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , , , , , , ,

The world has got to get off coal and oil and gas and biofuels and nuclear, and onto forms of energy that are truly sustainable: they renew themselves, they don’t pollute, they don’t emit greenhouse gases, and they certainly don’t leave a legacy of poison. And the good news is we already have the know-how to do this; now we just need to find the will.

This is a crucial crossroads moment with huge implications for future generations. More specifically, for whether we actually still have a planet to pass on to future generations. We could tip toward sustainability…or continue on the path to desolation.

In just 50 years, carbon levels in the atmosphere have gone from 315.59 parts per million (PPM) in December 1959 to 387.27 as of December 2009 and 392.94 PPM just five months later—passing the danger threshold of 350 PPM in 1988, heading for 410 or higher by 2020, and perhaps as bad as 770 PPM by the end of the century. Much of that increase is directly attributable to human activity. And 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record.

What does that mean? For starters, polar melting will raise sea levels up to 1.9 meters (6 feet, three inches) by2100, causing widespread inundation of coastal cities around the world. Some entire countries, especially those on islands, will simply disappear under the waves.

Increased heat in the tropics will increase desertification and have a severe impact on food production, leading to famines, which in turn will make wars and ethnic violence a whole lot more likely.

Polar melting will also change the salt ratio of the oceans, because the ice caps are freshwater. This in turn could interfere with the Gulf Stream, making Europe a lot less habitable.

I’m old enough to remember the early 1960s: There was a lot less plastic. Most households had a maximum of one car, one television, and one telephone. There was a whole lot less traffic, and therefore a lot fewer cars spewing greenhouse cases while idling in that traffic. Air conditioning was rare. Suburban sprawl was a relatively new phenomenon, and vast acreage remained as forest or farmland that has since turned into housing and shopping and office parks. Individuals did not own computers. An 800-square-foot apartment or a 1200-square-foot house could comfortably fit a family of four or five. With all these major lifestyle shifts, it’s not surprising that humans have an impact on our planet. And I’m not suggesting that we roll back the clock on “progress.” But I am suggesting that if we want this lifestyle, we need to consume fewer resources to maintain it.

Have you perhaps noticed that major earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and even winter storms (allowed to move out of the polar regions because global warming breaks down the natural barriers that kept them polar before) have been much more severe in the last decade or so? Our Planet Earth is apparently beginning its rebellion.

We have to move forward, and we have to do it quickly.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , , , , ,

It sounded like a good idea from the blurb posted on the International Network of Social-Eco Entrepreneurs LinkedIn discussion board:

Ever wanted an energy question answering by the world’s leading experts?!

For all of you reading this, here is a rare opportunity to ask your toughest energy-related questions to the world’s leading energy scientists, including Dr Clement Bowman, Tom Blees, José Goldemberg, Marta Bonifert and Ambassador Pius Yasebasi Ng.

Simply click the link to this feature, and submit your questions by next Friday 26th November!

But when I got to the article, I was so appalled by some of the panelists’ credentials that I posted this:

Why are advocates of dirty technologies like tar-sands extraction and nuclear power judging energy prizes for a group called Eco-Business? If you look at the entire production cycle, including externalized pollution factors, these are among the dirtiest of all energy sources.

I believe our real energy future lies with much cleaner, fully renewable technologies like solar, wind, and hydro–all on a human scale and generating power at or near the point of use–and especially with what Amory Lovins calls “negawatts”: slashing energy consumption in existing buildings, vehicles, etc. Energy savings of 50 to 80 percent are achievable in many cases, thus removing the need to build more centralized power plants in the first place.
–Shel Horowitz, primary author, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green, https://GreenAndProfitable.com

What do YOU think? Please use my comment field below, and then post it on the comments of the original article.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

The Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico shows a number of lessons. Taking them to heart, as individuals, as business people, and as a country, will be crucial. First, four specific lessons from this disaster. Points five and six address our long-term energy future.

1. It is absolutely essential to have tested remedies in place in case of catastrophic failure. BP’s throw-a-bunch-of-stuff-and-see-what-sticks approach would have been laughable, except that it was sickening. It became clear very early on that the company had absolutely no clue how to contain a large oil rupture. You don’t make those experiments after the failure, but well in advance—before you ever deploy any potentially dangerous and highly disruptive technology—you’d darned well know how you’re going to deal with an emergency. And those solutions will have been tested and demonstrated to work. BP clearly had no clue that working a mile underwater was different than working on the surface, and should never have been allowed to operate.

2. Don’t give the fox the keys to the henhouse. Government oversight was spotty, at best, and that led to a situation where BP was allowed to override the good judgment of its own engineers. Enforce the rules we’ve enacted to protect our people and our planet. BP so obviously neglected its responsibility to public safety and environmental responsibility that I wrote a post back in May wondering whether there was a good case to bring criminal charges agaisnt the oil giant.

3. When you take massive shortcuts with safety, when you cut corners in the name of short-term profit, the financial consequences are often more severe than doing it right in the first place. BP will be spending tens of billions of dollars that it could have easily avoided, by spending a few hundred thousand dollars upfront on safety equipment, and by heeding the warnings of engineers who said before the accident that their path was unacceptably risky.

4. Even redundant safety devices can fail. We saw this with the Titanic, with Three Mile Island, and with Deepwater Horizon. Engineers are not always skilled at anticipating how different systems interact, and what happens to a system downline from a system failure.

And now, at the federal policy level…

5. Deepwater Horizon is a wake-up call to move away from centralized, polluting energy technologies. The risk of gathering so much energy in one place is significant, and when catastrophes happen, they happen BIG. There are a dozen reasons why oil (and fossil fuels generally) cannot be the long-term answer. And there are a dozen reasons why nuclear should never have been deployed in the first place, of which catastrophic accident is certainly one. A major nuclear accident would make Deepwater Horizon seem like a leaky neighborhood sewer pipe. There are still parts of the Ukraine left uninhabitable by Chernobyl, 24 years ago—and even that was not as severe as the worst-case accident. We MUST change our economy over to non-polluting, renewable, decentralized technologies such as solar, wind, small-scale hydro, geothermal, and of course, conservation/deep-energy-efficiency retrofits.

6. This should be obvious, but apparently it’s not. All deep-sea offshore drilling needs to be shut down until the appropriate safety measures are in place so that Deepwater Horizon is not repeated. It’s a lot harder to put the genie back in the bottle than to keep it in to begin with.
Long-time environmental activist and Green consultant’s latest book is Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, International Association of Green Marketers, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , , ,

What would be the mission of an international trade association for Green marketers? In launching the International Association of Earth-Conscious Marketers, here’s what I hope we’ll be focused on:

1. To use our skills in marketing and our commitment to ethical approaches to create messages that encourage the use of earth-friendly products and services, and the rapid spread and adoption of earth-conscious ideas into the social mainstream.

2. To identify and oppose (both publicly and privately) messages and methods that claim to be Green but are actually harmful to the environment and/or misleading to stakeholders and/or the general public. (Need an example? Read more »

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail