中国与世界,环境危机大家谈

china and the world discuss the environment

  • linkedin group
  • sini weibo
  • facebook
  • twitter
envelope

注册订阅每周免费邮件
Sign up for email updates


文章 Articles

Why greens should support nuclear

Olivia Boyd

Readinch

Mark Lynas is an author, environmental activist and fierce proponent of nuclear power. Here, he tells Olivia Boyd why, even after Fukushima, his faith in the merits of atomic energy is firm.

article image
 

Olivia Boyd: The Fukushima crisis in Japan has reignited a debate over the merits of nuclear power. Is it a useful conversation?

Mark Lynas: Oddly enough, one of the effects of debating for and against nuclear power is to sideline the climate-change deniers, because it’s an accepted truth by both sides that global warming is real and urgently needs to be dealt with. That’s one possible good side to this whole thing.

With regard to the pros and cons of nuclear itself, again it may be good to get the debate properly out into the open, particularly about the safety aspects, because that’s what most preoccupies the general public. Explosions, repeats of Chernobyl, radiation, dangers of cancer – that kind of thing is central to the public perception of nuclear. So what’s happening at Fukushima I think will ironically illustrate how many of the public fears about radioactivity are vastly overblown.

OB: That doesn’t seem to have been the reaction to previous nuclear accidents though.

ML: Well, it’s difficult to say that. Take Three Mile Island for example, it’s mentioned a lot in the discussion and pretty much everyone has to admit that nobody was hurt, still less was anyone killed as a result. So, scary as it might have been at the time, it really was a very minor industrial accident, especially when set against the dangers of pretty much any other large-scale source of energy.

Again, Chernobyl of course represents a real world example of pretty much the worst case scenario of a nuclear disaster. And, again, there’s been a long-term collaborative scientific effort to study the impacts of that and they’re much, much less than originally feared. In fact, I think the most scientifically valid conclusion has been that the fear of radiation has been much more damaging than the radiation itself to the population.

OB: Radiation fears in China have prompted panic in recent weeks, for example stock-piling of salt. At the same time, the government has announced suspension of approvals of new nuclear plants while it reviews safety rules. What’s your reaction?

ML: Well, the Chinese nuclear programme was the best news for global warming in a decade. Every nuclear plant is very likely to substitute directly for a coal plant, which isn’t necessarily the case in other countries. So the emissions reductions are enormous and, in decades to come, would be measured in the many billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide.

The reaction of the Chinese government, I’m certain, will have been a response to the public fears, which have been wildly disproportionate to any danger from Fukushima. But we have to deal with – and the Chinese government has to deal with – the public as it is, not as you would wish them to be. And it may well be, then, that the nuclear programme is set back or curtailed. I certainly hope not.

OB: Even taking into account all of China’s nuclear construction plans, we’re still only talking about something like 4% to 6% of energy supply by 2020. Is that really world-changing stuff?

ML: I think it is significant. In terms of single slices, or wedges of the problem, it’s a big one, because Chinese coal is probably the biggest single energy-source contributor to climate change.

It’s particularly significant given that what matters to the climate is cumulative emissions. So, when you’re assessing our chances of staying below two degrees Celsius, for example, [keeping warming below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures is the climate-change goal recognised by the Copenhagen Accord] you have to look at emissions right out to 2050 and, by that time, China could be substantially nuclear-powered. And we’ll be looking at a world that’s much more electrified too, in terms of transport and probably heating as well, certainly for industrial economies. So the proportion of energy which is used and delivered in electricity will be going up and, hopefully, the proportion of electricity which is generated through low-carbon renewables and nuclear will be going up at the same time.

OB: You’re pretty dismissive of public fears about nuclear. But looking at the news – the tap-water problems in Tokyo, contamination of the food supply – is it not legitimate for people to feel concern?

ML: The problem with the stories about radiation is that people have no way of properly assessing risk. It remains a truism that the risk from air pollution is enormously greater than any statistically insignificant risk from radiation. But the media picks up on increased radioactivity because it can be measured extremely accurately. The publicly acceptable levels of things like radioactive iodine in tap water are set well, well below what is likely to be harmful to public health for good, precautionary reason. But the fact that a minute quantity of the stuff is there doesn’t mean that it’s actually likely to be harmful to anyone.

Within the context of the natural disaster that has killed 10,000 or 15,000 people, I really think that we’re talking about the wrong thing here. The tsunami wave which washed over fertile fields as well as towns, will have carried enormous amounts of toxins and car batteries and petrol tanks, goodness knows what else. That’s a much, much greater contamination problem I would have thought than the tiny levels of radioactivity emitted from Fukushima.

OB: So why are people focusing on the nuclear aspect so intently?

ML: This is a 50-year cultural issue, the public excitement and concern about all things nuclear, and it’s completely contradictory – people happily accept large doses of radiation for medical purposes, but are extremely paranoid about minute doses received from nuclear-power stations. And I don’t think there’s much understanding either about the extent to which natural background radiation is ubiquitous in the environment and in our own bodies.

People don’t have any context for this discussion: radiation is scary, it causes cancer, pictures of people with hair falling out, mental images of atomic bombs – case closed. We know that people in general don’t assess risk rationally. You can tell this from all sorts of lifestyle behaviour patterns, but it is particularly the case for nuclear power.

OB: Nonetheless, are there lessons to be taken from Fukushima, in terms of planning policy for example? Should we stop building nuclear plants in earthquake zones?

ML: Any kind of infrastructure in extremely seismic areas has to be properly thought through – that goes for tall buildings, hydroelectric dams, which could breach and cause inland tsunamis, a whole host of other things. Nuclear-power stations are included of course.

But remember, it was the tsunami that did the damage here. And the plants were properly and automatically shut down during the earthquake, which after all was much stronger than they were designed for. And I think we should also be cautious about judging newer designs on the basis of 1960s technology. The same applies to aircraft: we don’t worry about travelling on a new Dreamliner because there was a plane crash in 1970.

OB: In your book Six Degrees, you paint a bleak vision of a world changed by runaway climate change. What about if we’re talking about nuclear plants in that kind of world? Is there increased risk?

ML: I don’t really think so. I mean, there’s a potential increased level of danger because of higher storm surges, and given most nuclear infrastructure is located on the coast for reasons of access to emergency cooling – as was needed at Fukushima. But I don’t think this is a very viable large-scale argument against nuclear power.

It’s an engineering challenge, and anyone looking at Fukushima will see that the real problem was that the single disaster of earthquake and tsunami overwhelmed the back-up system and the back-up, back-up system at the same time. And you need to design your back-up systems so that they’re independent of each other. Certainly, there are engineering lessons to be learned, but I don’t think they in any way undermine the need for increased nuclear power more generally.

OB: What about rising sea levels?

ML: If you’re talking about plants with lifetimes of 40, 50, 60 years at the most, I don’t think even rising sea levels are a significant concern. At the very most, we’ll see less than a metre by 2060 or so and any increased flooding from that would be containable.

And remember, this idea that the ground under a nuclear reactor is contaminated forever and needs to be isolated from the sea is another erroneous one. These plants can be properly decommissioned and radioactive materials moved offsite and levels of lingering contamination are then virtually un-measureable.

This is a fairly standard anti-nuclear talking point, but isn’t one which, even for someone writing about global warming, is particularly valid.

OB: Another talking point is the degree to which nuclear actually is a low-carbon source, when you take into account the full cycle including uranium-mining and plant construction.

ML: Nuclear is more low-carbon than solar photovoltaics and about equivalent with wind. And there have been umpteen studies concerning this, including from the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. That talking point is again little more than an urban myth. Of course nuclear is low-carbon, simply by dint of the technology it’s using and the energy source it’s based on.

Every wind turbine is made of steel and placed on a concrete platform. It takes a lot of energy to make solar panels. There’s a lot of concrete and steel going into a nuclear reactor and a fair amount of mining effort, although fourth-generation nuclear [theoretical reactor designs currently being researched] would mean we could actually use a lot of the stuff that’s already out there in stockpiles. But nuclear fission is so concentrated as a source of energy – it delivers a million times more volumetrically than coal. It’s blindingly obvious that nuclear is going to be extremely low carbon and potentially made zero carbon in decades to come.

OB: You are a strong advocate of nuclear power now, but that wasn’t always the case. What made you change your mind and do you think it’s an argument you can win?

ML: I didn’t want to be a green arguing against any low-carbon technology. That struck me as irrational, potentially counter-productive. Writing a book about just how terrifying escalating global-warming impacts could be made me realise that, proportionally, nuclear power was utterly safe and something I was prepared to be very comfortable with. More recent work I’ve done suggests it’s more ecologically friendly in terms of land use and water use and other things that ultimately matter to the biosphere than many other power sources that greens do support.

Ultimately, it was a case of trying to reconcile my views and ideology with the scientific evidence and I realised that, if I was to apply the same standard for nuclear as I do for climate change, then I had to alter my position. Those in the green movement who haven’t done so, I see them as being just as anti-science as the climate-change sceptics are, in a different field. There isn’t the evidence out there to support their viewpoint, so their viewpoint needs to change.

 
Olivia Boyd is assistant editor at chinadialogue.

Homepage image from Channel 4

评论 comments

3

评论 comments

中文

EN

嗨 Hi Guest user

退出 Logout /


发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文 最大字符 1200

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200

排序 Sort By:

核能在源结构中有一定作用

Mark Lynas, 我大至上同意你的意见。核能在能源结构中有着补充常规能源的作用。 Dr.A.Jagadsh Nllor(美联社),印度

Nuclear has a role in Energy Mix

I agree with most of your views Mark Lynas.Nuclear Energy has a role in Energy mix to supplement conventional energy.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India


核漂绿

莱纳斯先生完全是在漂绿目前的状况,博伊德也只是问一些没有深度的问题来奉承他。说切尔诺贝利是“最坏的情况”实在是荒谬。最坏的情况是,三个反应堆的燃料芯被打断,熔化後流进压力容器,在地球上留下一个超级临界物质,它不断产生放射性蒸汽爆炸,持续一个世纪之久。在前寒武纪时代,大部分的铀还未衰变成铅,它们被大自然浓缩成天然的水慢式反应堆,产生强烈放射性的间歇泉。反应堆里集合了大量的燃料,我们因此倒退到远古,古代的怪物将会再度来临,比我们在电影里看到的毁灭东京的再生恐龙更加可怕。这个福岛怪物可以破坏整个日本,而任何被恐怖分子袭击的反应堆也拥有同样的破坏力。核电实在是风险太大,太昂贵,只有完善的国家社会化的灾害保险体系支撑才能生存。投资可再生能源和天然气更为划算,而且更能有效地减少温室气体。

Nuclear Greenwash

Mr. Lynas is simply greenwashing the situation and Boyd is abetting that with her softball questions. For him to suggest that Chernobyl is the "worst case" situation is absurd. The worst case is that the fuel cores of three reactors are disrupted, melt down through their pressure vessels and form a super-critical mass in the earth that generates continuous highly radioactive steam explosions for a century or so. In the Precambrian, before most uranium decayed to lead, uranium was concentrated by nature and produced natural, water moderated nuclear reactors that produced intense radioactive geysers. By concentrating enormous quantities of fuel in nuclear reactors we have turned back time and we will see this sort of monster return, much worse than the reincarnated dinosaurs that destroy Tokyo in the movies. This Fukushima monster can destroy the whole of Japan, and any reactor attacked by terrorists can do the same. Nuclear power is too risky and too expensive to stand on its own and only survives by the gift of national socialized disaster insurance. Putting our money into renewable and natural gas is less expensive and more effective at reducing greenhouse gasses.


核能是边缘政策的首要任务

一派胡言。。。不用一点一点地剖析他的理论,我只需引用艾默里·罗文最近发表的文章:

从日本核灾难中学习
艾默里·罗文

当英勇的士兵和反应堆的工作人员试图避免灾后日本经受新的恐怖——放射性污染——40年前就知道的事实还在重复。

在一个拥有1.27亿人口的地震和海啸多发区域建立54个核反应堆并不是什么明智的选择。上世纪60年代设计的福岛反应堆安全边很小际,也90%的反应堆事故都阻止不了。美国拥有6个完全相同和17个类似的反应堆。

世界上所有的轻水反应堆,一旦电力和冷却水供应不足,都有可能发生反应堆事故。福岛反应堆有8小时的电池电力储备,但是3个反应堆的燃料棒都融化了。大多数美国的反应堆在4小时后都会出现问题,一些反应堆经历短暂的停电,更长时间的停电也可能发生。

燃料棒过热会导致氢气或水蒸气爆炸,带来的设备损坏会导致整个核电站遭受核污染——因此将多个反应堆建在一起(节省经费),一个反应堆出问题会危及其他临近反应堆。核能是极其无情的,正如诺贝尔奖得主瑞典物理学家阿耳文所说:“不应该允许任何超出人类控制的行为。”易犯错的人类在近半个世纪中仅遭受几次灾难,一些事故以及很多“擦边球”。美国至今都是幸运的,如果三里岛核电站的圆顶容器不是因为核电站建立在机场的起降路径上而进行加固的话,它也许无法承受1979年核事故中的氢气爆炸。2002年,俄亥俄州戴维斯-贝斯反应堆的受压容器盖在锈穿之前幸运地被发现。

监管机构并没有积极解决以上的以及潜在的重大安全隐患,如恐怖组织对反应堆的威胁,破坏这一重要产业的发展。美国的监管措施并没有比日本的监管措施好到哪里,也同样不够透明:为支持产业发展,一些法规阻挠了美国大众参与其中的权利。很多总统身边的核能游说者同样阻挠公众质询和异议。

核促监管机构也无法鼓舞各国信心。国际原子能机构2005年估计切尔诺贝利事故死亡人数将近4000人,与随后2009年报告形成鲜明对比。2009年,在仔细审查了曾经忽略的将近5000份斯拉夫语科学论文之后,原子能机构发现至2004年,切尔诺贝利事故死亡人数接近百万。其中17万人在北美地区。现在死亡总人数已经超过百万,外加超过5000亿美元的经济损失。放射性沾染波及四大洲,就像高速气流可以很快地将福岛放射性尘埃扩散。

仅仅是福岛1~4号反应堆的已反应的核燃料,(多年来)在反应堆中已经产生了超过百次的核裂变能量,因此比1945年的两颗原子弹都更加具有放射性。如果已经损毁的核燃料棒继续无法降温,他们就有可能熔化或燃烧,将类似铯-137和锶-95的放射物质扩散到空中。这些物质几个世纪才衰变百万分之一。3号反应堆的燃料棒混有钚元素,半衰期长达48.2万年。

核能是唯一的可以在灾难或不幸降临时造成大范围内大面积的伤亡的能量来源;唯一的可以制造核武器的原料;唯一的可以代替核扩散、核事故以及高放射性废物危害的环境解决方案。但事实上,核反应堆建造的缓慢而昂贵使它减缓了环境保护的力度。

原因在于,如果把钱花在更便宜、更快、更安全的能源解决方案上,而不花在新反应堆上,你可以减少2~10倍的碳排量,使效率提高20~40倍。因此核能不但是不必须的,也是不经济的。类似的能源解决方案有提高电力使用效率,使用发电过程中产生的热量为工厂和建筑供热(“热电联产”),以及使用可再生能源。2009年,后两项解决方案供应了世界18%的电力(与此相比,核能只供应了13%,与2000年两者的份额恰巧相反)——并且占了2007年至2008年世界发电增长额的90%。

这些更好的能源解决方案正在席卷全球能源市场。2008至2009年,世界新增能源输出能力的半数来自可再生能源。2010年,可再生能源,除去水电站,得到了1510亿美元的私人投资,增加了5000万千瓦的发电量(是美国境内23个类似福岛反应堆发电能力的70%),与此同时,核能没有得到任何私人投资,发电能力也在持续下降。“据说不可靠”的风力发电在2010年满足了德国4个州43%~52%的电力需求。不使用核能的丹麦,21%的电力来自风能,并正在计划彻底告别化石能源的供能方案。夏威夷计划到2025实现可再生能源供应70%的电力。

相反,直至2010年底,全世界范围内官方登记为“正在建造”的66个核电站中,12个已经建造了超过20年,45个没有官方的动工时间,半数赶不上计划,悉数为中央计划能源供应系统——其中50个来自仅仅4个国家:中国、印度、俄罗斯及韩国——没有一个是在自由市场中产生。2007年以来,核能新增能源输出能力的增长甚至少于太阳能这一最昂贵的可再生能源,这个趋势也许还将继续。当天性安全的可再生能源在能源市场不断冲击核电站和火力发电站并且造价不断降低时,核能的成本不断飙升,加上更高的安全防范支出,成本还将攀升地更快。东京电力公司刚刚为2007年地震时损坏的核反应堆花费了100~200亿美元,现在又面临毁灭性的“福岛事故”账单。

从2005年开始,美国新建核反应堆接受了超过100%的补贴,但是私人资金没有投入一分钱,因为这里根本没有市场。这些核反应堆的成本是风能发电的两至三倍。等到新反应堆完成的时候,他们甚至不能与太阳能竞争。更具竞争性的可再生能源,热电联产以及高效用电可以替代美国所有燃煤发电23次以上——有足够的空间来替代发电量只有燃煤发电一半的核能发电——虽然我们只需替代它们一次。但是核能工业要求更多的政府补贴,其游说者将所有的能源方面的成就劫持为人质,索要上百亿美元的赎金,并且赎金还没有上限。

就其规模,日本比美国有更多有益、充裕却长期被忽视的能源选择,也许这次悲剧会让日本走向后核时代的全球领导地位。并且,在美国经受类似福岛的事故之前,她不应当关注耗资巨大的新反应堆是否安全,而应该关注为什么要建造新反应堆以及为什么让不安全的反应堆继续运营。中国已经暂停批准一切新反应堆的建设,德国刚刚关闭了41%的核反应堆以待核查。美国的核能说客说类似事件在美国不可能发生,然后继续要求巨额的新补贴。传说称三里岛事故停止了美国所有核反应堆的订单,事实上,直到一年前这些订单才停止,在市场力的重压下不得不停止。毫无疑问,当世界终于知道早已年迈的核能在世界市场中已经崩溃,他们会归咎于福岛事故。当我们为日本祈祷的同时,让我们希冀人们在这次事故中的牺牲可以推动世界朝一个更安全,更有竞争性的能源市场前进。

物理学家艾默里罗文在全世界范围内为商业和国家领导人做能源咨询业务。著有《赢得石油的最终较量》,《自然资源资本论》以及《艾默里罗文选集》。他著有31本书,发表过超过450篇论文,获得过蓝色星球,沃尔沃,奥纳西斯,日产,扎耶德和米切尔奖,麦克阿瑟和阿育王奖学金。拥有11个荣誉博士学位,并获得过亨氏、林白、正命、国家设计、与世界技术奖。他是美国荣誉建筑师,瑞典工程学者,毕业于牛津大学并曾在9所大学任教(现在斯坦福大学)。他的RMI团队于2011年秋季完成了《重新发明火》一书,书中形容了如何用商业引导美国经济在2050年之前构建不需要石油、化石燃料以及核能来提供清洁可再生能源得卓越经济体系。

Nuclear Power is Brinkmanship of the first order

Utter Nonsense... and rather than dissect his dribble piece by piece , I will just refer you to Amory Lovin's recent piece:

Learning From Japan's Nuclear Disaster
by Amory Lovins
As heroic workers and soldiers strive to save stricken Japan from a new horror--radioactive fallout--some truths known for 40 years bear repeating.

An earthquake-and-tsunami zone crowded with 127 million people is an unwise place for 54 reactors. The 1960s design of five Fukushima-I reactors has the smallest safety margin and probably can't contain 90% of meltdowns. The U.S. has 6 identical and 17 very similar plants.
Every currently operating light-water reactor, if deprived of power and cooling water, can melt down. Fukushima had eight-hour battery reserves, but fuel has melted in three reactors. Most U.S. reactors get in trouble after four hours. Some have had shorter blackouts. Much longer ones could happen.
Overheated fuel risks hydrogen or steam explosions that damage equipment and contaminate the whole site--so clustering many reactors together (to save money) can make failure at one reactor cascade to the rest.
Nuclear power is uniquely unforgiving: as Swedish Nobel physicist Hannes Alfvén said, "No acts of God can be permitted." Fallible people have created its half-century history of a few calamities, a steady stream of worrying incidents, and many near-misses. America has been lucky so far. Had Three Mile Island's containment dome not been built double-strength because it was under an airport landing path, it may not have withstood the 1979 accident's hydrogen explosion. In 2002, Ohio's Davis-Besse reactor was luckily caught just before its massive pressure-vessel lid rusted through.
Regulators haven't resolved these or other key safety issues, such as terrorist threats to reactors, lest they disrupt a powerful industry. U.S. regulation is not clearly better than Japanese regulation, nor more transparent: industry-friendly rules bar the American public from meaningful participation. Many presidents' nuclear boosterism also discourages inquiry and dissent.
Nuclear-promoting regulators inspire even less confidence. The International Atomic Energy Agency's 2005 estimate of about 4,000 Chernobyl deaths contrasts with a rigorous 2009 review of 5,000 mainly Slavic-language scientific papers the IAEA overlooked. It found deaths approaching a million through 2004, nearly 170,000 of them in North America. The total toll now exceeds a million, plus a half-trillion dollars' economic damage. The fallout reached four continents, just as the jet stream could swiftly carry Fukushima fallout.
Fukushima I-4's spent fuel alone, while in the reactor, had produced (over years, not in an instant) more than a hundred times more fission energy and hence radioactivity than both 1945 atomic bombs. If that already-damaged fuel keeps overheating, it may melt or burn, releasing into the air things like cesium-137 and strontium-90, which take several centuries to decay a millionfold. Unit 3's fuel is spiked with plutonium, which takes 482,000 years.
Nuclear power is the only energy source where mishap or malice can kill so many people so far away; the only one whose ingredients can help make and hide nuclear bombs; the only climate solution that substitutes proliferation, accident, and high-level radioactive waste dangers. Indeed, nuclear plants are so slow and costly to build that they reduce and retard climate protection.
Here's how. Each dollar spent on a new reactor buys about 2-10 times less carbon savings, 20-40 times slower, than spending that dollar on the cheaper, faster, safer solutions that make nuclear power unnecessary and uneconomic: efficient use of electricity, making heat and power together in factories or buildings ("cogeneration"), and renewable energy. The last two made 18% of the world's 2009 electricity (while nuclear made 13%, reversing their 2000 shares)--and made over 90% of the 2007-08 increase in global electricity production.
Those smarter choices are sweeping the global energy market. Half the world's new generating capacity in 2008 and 2009 was renewable. In 2010, renewables, excluding big hydro dams, won $151 billion of private investment and added over 50 billion watts (70% the total capacity of all 23 Fukushima-style U.S. reactors) while nuclear got zero private investment and kept losing capacity. Supposedly unreliable windpower made 43-52% of four German states' total 2010 electricity. Non-nuclear Denmark, 21% windpowered, plans to get entirely off fossil fuels. Hawai'i plans 70% renewables by 2025.
In contrast, of the 66 nuclear units worldwide officially listed as "under construction" at the end of 2010, 12 had been so listed for over 20 years, 45 had no official startup date, half were late, all 66 were in centrally planned power systems--50 of those in just four (China, India, Russia, South Korea)--and zero were free-market purchases. Since 2007, nuclear growth has added less annual output than just the costliest renewable--solar power --and will probably never catch up. While inherently safe renewable competitors are walloping both nuclear and coal plants in the marketplace and keep getting dramatically cheaper, nuclear costs keep soaring, and with greater safety precautions would go even higher. Tokyo Electric Co., just recovering from $10-20 billion in 2007 earthquake costs at its other big nuclear complex, now faces an even more ruinous Fukushima bill.
Since 2005, new U.S. reactors (if any) have been 100+% subsidized--yet they couldn't raise a cent of private capital, because they have no business case. They cost 2-3 times as much as new windpower, and by the time you could build a reactor, it couldn't even beat solar power. Competitive renewables, cogeneration, and efficient use can displace all U.S. coal power more than 23 times over--leaving ample room to replace nuclear power's half-as-big-as-coal contribution too--but we need to do it just once. Yet the nuclear industry demands ever more lavish subsidies, and its lobbyists hold all other energy efforts hostage for tens of billions in added ransom, with no limit.
Japan, for its size, is even richer than America in benign, ample, but long-neglected energy choices. Perhaps this tragedy will call Japan to global leadership into a post-nuclear world. And before America suffers its own Fukushima, it too should ask, not whether unfinanceably costly new reactors are safe, but why build any more, and why keep running unsafe ones. China has suspended reactor approvals. Germany just shut down the oldest 41% of its nuclear capacity for study. America's nuclear lobby says it can't happen here, so pile on lavish new subsidies.
A durable myth claims Three Mile Island halted U.S. nuclear orders. Actually they stopped over a year before--dead of an incurable attack of market forces. No doubt when nuclear power's collapse in the global marketplace, already years old, is finally acknowledged, it will be blamed on Fukushima. While we pray for the best in Japan today, let us hope its people's sacrifice will help speed the world to a safer, more competitive energy future.
© 2011 Rocky Mountain Institute

Physicist Amory Lovins consults on energy to business and government leaders worldwide. His books include, Winning Oil Endgame, Natural Capitalism (iwth Paul Hawken and L. Hunter Lovins), and The Essential Amory Lovins: Selected Writings. He's written 31 books and over 450 papers, and received the Blue Planet, Volvo, Onassis, Nissan, Shingo, Zayed, and Mitchell Prizes, MacArthur and Ashoka Fellowships, 11 honorary doctorates, and the Heinz, Lindbergh, Right Livelihood, National Design, and World Technology Awards. He's an honorary U.S. architect, a Swedish engineering academician, and a former Oxford don, and has taught at nine universities, most recently Stanford. His RMI team's autumn 2011 book Reinventing Fire describes business-led pathways for a vibrant U.S. economy that by 2050 needs no oil, coal, or nuclear power to provide clean and resilient energy with superior economics.


合作伙伴 Partners

项目 Projects