The (MDGs) Millennium Development Goals as the CO2 rises…

Where did the G8 and G20, and the first use of the term “Terrorism”, come from?

Large summits are nothing new. The 36th G8 summit set up shop in Huntsville June 25-26. Toronto, a past host, welcomed the 4th G20 summit June 26-27.

G7 leaders in Halifax in 1995 were given the tall task at the Naples Summit the previous year to “assure that the global economy of the 21st century will provide sustainable development with good prosperity and well-being of the peoples of our nations and the framework of institutions required to meet these challenges.”

According to the Canadian government, the Halifax Summit would “set the standard for more results-oriented, informal and business like summits.” The summit was labeled the Chevrolet Summit, for its supposed scaled-down style.

While the cost of security of this summit was a mere $25 million (compared to over $1 billion for security at this year’s in Toronto), leaders put terrorism on the agenda for the first time. The estimated ratio of delegates to security personnel was 2:1.

Like the 2010 G8/G20 summits, 1988′s G7 meeting was hosted in downtown Toronto at the Metro Convention Centre. It was also a year Canada played host to the Olympic Winter Games, held in Calgary.

In the lead-up the 1988 summit, as much media attention was paid to Ronald Reagan’s farewell to the G7 as to international fiscal policy—the summit’s official focus. Summit delegates also discussed supposed concern over continued repression in apartheid South Africa, and committed to reduce the debt of the world’s poorest countries by one-third.

Despite these pressing problems, some pundits believed no action was necessary on the part of the G7. “I don’t see they have anything to do other than congratulate each other on how well things are going,” wrote one economic analyst in the New York Times

Protesters who disagreed faced a four-meter-high steel and concrete fence surrounding the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, military helicopters hovering overhead and sharpshooters on Toronto’s rooftops. Total security costs for the summit were $29.3 million.

The newly-created World Trade Organization was featured prominently in the summit’s final declarations, and leaders pledged to support its development.

“In October 2008, in the aftermath of the financial crisis that began in the United States in September, President George W. Bush announced that he would host a meeting of the leaders of the G20 countries — creating the first ever G20 summit — in Washington DC on November 14-15, 2008, to coordinate the global response. At that meeting, the leaders agreed to meet again. Thus British prime minister Gordon Brown agreed to host the second G20 summit in London on April 1-2, 2009.”¹

In the lead-up to this summit, Canadian NGOs, labour unions and faith-based groups joined forces to create the Halifax Initiative, an organization that today provides an analysis of G8 summits and issues, and calls for reform to international financial institutions (IFIs). The Halifax Initiative was formed against the backdrop of widespread criticism for the lavish 50th Anniversary meetings of the Bretton Woods institutions (the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund).

“[The people] wanted major changes and there were signs the Halifax summit would respond to those calls,” said Fraser Reilly-King of the Halifax Initiative. “As a result, Canadian NGOs formed the Halifax Initiative in December 1994 to ensure that demands for fundamental reform of the IFIs were high on the agenda of the Group of Seven’s Halifax Summit.”

The Halifax People’s Summit (P7) was a gathering of NGOs, labour unions and activist groups from Canada and around the world. Sponsored by 50 NGOs and coordinated by hundreds of volunteers, the P7 included talks by Vandana Shiva, David Suzuki, Maude Barlow and Ed Broadbent, and a host of organizations from South Africa, Latin America and Turtle Island’s First Nations.

The attempts made to freshen up the G7 with a new format don’t appear to have changed its end results.

I Think It's Spam

“Thankfully it [the G8/G20]  G20 Information Centre looks to finally be going the way of the dinosaurs,” said Reilly-King. “But regrettably, today’s responses [to global economic problems] by the G20 are remarkably similar to proposals issued 15 years ago at the Halifax Summit.” – the above extracts are from The Dominion’s special issue on the G8 and G20 by Amanda Wilson a researcher and writer based in Ottawa.

So What is Important Now!

What comes next is from Progressive Perspectives on International development and financial issues ( home page ) called “This is Definitely Not The G8″

The (MDGs) Millennium Development Goals…

The Real Protest

Clean free and possibly grid less energy. Facilities world wide capable of producing it already exist.  Trillions of  dollars saved by adopting new technology used to fund world wide water conservation and assist native communities develop healthy self determinism.

“One can dream!”

After a decade of development, with many setbacks and oppositions, the development of the Lutec Self Sustaining Generator is ready to immediately answer the World Community need for clean economical power for the coming centuries. http://www.lutec.com.au/ What’s more economical than not coming with a fueling cost.

Manufacturers from all over the world are invited to express interest in license purchase of the Lutec Generator now distributed as EEA (Evergreen Electricity Amplifier) by www.evergreenltd.com.hk.

Currently patented across Africa and in fourteen other nations with pending approval in another seven nations www.evergreenltd.com.hk/patents.htm

Scaleable for home and small commercial installations as well as large utility size distribution nodes. Energy produced at no cost to the users or the environment, and for those that buy their own units, free electric power for the life of the unit.

Image Projection of the One Megawatt Mini Power Station

Related Posts B

1. Copenhagen… What A Game Of Dodge Ball…
2. “My capacity to understand is beyond the need for austerity…” We are approaching Bio-Diversity Deficit
3. We Cannot Let Others Do Our Thinking For Us…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Copenhagen Day 1…

The opening ceremony kick-off movie

Opening remarks, and some highlights of day one…

“Climategate” skeptics made some noise….

The make or break issue is clearly “burden sharing“. When sovereignty and the needs of survival find themselves up against it, and facing complications of long term responsibility, who would settle for an artificially created economic caste system. The need to retain sovereignty, and the finances to harmonize all morally must be respected and provided.

Among the more than 15,000 accredited and 20,000 civil participants in Copenhagen to be part of the negotiations of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol are Environment Ministers, activists, heads of state, functionaries, and scientists .

Copenhagen Day 2…

Some highlights from day two of the conference…

The question of  responsibility for climate change among the G77 is paramount.

Disarray over a leaked proposal by Denmark would have the World Bank in charge of climate funds, hand over more power to rich nations, weaken the UN’s role and abandon the binding agreements of the Kyoto protocol.

Developing countries interpret the proposal document to set unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions.

Drafted by “the circle of commitment” including the UK, US, and Denmark the proposal has been shown to a handful of countries.

The document relieves rich nations from their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, and talks of a range of concomitant actions for poorer developing nations, to qualify for climate change financial assistance.

The document is seen as very dangerous by one diplomat who describes it as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”.

THE AFTER DEAL…

Not part of the original deal developing countries would be forced to agree to specific emission cuts. Listing some countries in a new category “the most vulnerable”. lt further divides poor developing countries. Climate finance will be less a UN concern and be administrated by the World Bank.  A final untenable outrage, poorer countries can not emit more than 1.44 tones of carbon per person by 2050. The rich 2.67 tones per person.  A good beginning for a climate caste system.

It’s interesting how wealth can make some feel “god like”…

One diplomat said to want to remain nameless claims the documents introduction is the end of the UN process.

Climate policy adviser Antonio Hill,  for Oxfam International, said: “This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed. It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Program] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks.”

Considered inflammatory by sidelining the UN and proposing a new separate working framework for rich countries as yet it’s sketchy at best. When considering the equality of human rights, a clear cause for concern. The concept of “climate induced slavery” comes to mind.

More than the 15,000 participants to the conference, a number closer to 35,000 participants has arrived in Copenhagen to participate in many ways.

Developed nations were criticized for not living up to their historic climate debt. Complaints of lack of transparency were heard. “Climatgate” got blamed on a Russian hacker who informed the Russian Secret Service of his stolen material. Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, said theory is Russia would like to see talks fail, wanting global warming to facilitate exploration and development of it’s far north.

Copenhagen Day 3

The Danish Text…

Business of the day for Kenya and other developing countries…

Battle lines drawn…

Questions of the day included responsibility for CO2 emissions, who should pay, how much technology and know-how should be transferred to poorer nations, and is forest protection a viable solution.

Britain, Australia, Mexico, and Norway presented a fund raising proposal for the billions needed to mitigate and adapt to the emerging climate condition. Australia spoke in favor of the 10 billion a year green fund to help poor vulnerable countries. Because of internal strife it’s not quite clear yet where India stands in the negotiations. Britain attacks the “climategate” faction with substantive proof that the first decade of the new millennium is on average the warmest in 160 years.

On a brighter note, the U.S. Environmental Agency’s decided to label CO2 as unhealthy. Presidential powers can now set binding CO2 goals regardless of other levels of government.

Copenhagen Day 4

Kenya’s works at reaching a single minded position…

Suspension of negotiations…

After a highly unusual split within the developing countries assembled, the island state of Tuvalu asked for and got a suspension of climate negotiations to resolve issues behind the scene on Wednesday.

AOSIS Proposal for KP Survival and New en Protocol – Final

Developing countries are split on demands and ask for protocols tougher than Kyoto. Richer nations are opposed to the idea. Developing countries argue for an extension of the Kyoto Protocols to run concurrent with a new tougher legally binding protocol.

China, India, and South Africa felt it would retard their economic growth.

With support from members of AOSIS (Association of Small Island States) Tuvalu called for a “Contact Group” and has been blocked. The conference will not proceed until all parties resolve how to proceed.

Copenhagen Day 5…

Highlights, EU commits 2.4 billion Euros…

Climate in turmoil…

African delegates threaten walkout…

Copenhagen Day 6…

Highlights and First Official Draft of the Proposed Climate Deal…

Copenhagen Day 7…

We are confronted by Winter cold, A lot of discord within the Bella Center, and protests, arrests, and cries for climate justice from the people outside the Bella Center.

Copenhagen Day 8…

Day 8, Highlights Report Alarming Update on Melting Ice…

Copenhagen Day 9…

Highlights, I’ll Be Back…

Connie Hedegaard resigns as president of the Copenhagen climate summit.

Copenhagen Day 10…

Difficult Negotiations in Copenhagen…

Many Christians remember growing up with a Papal edict to eat fish on Friday. It’s now being suggested by some that we abstain from meat one or more days a week to reduce the methane pollution from meat production, now indicated to be a more serious problem than fossil fuel consumption by all modes of transport.

So how is it going?…

Global leaders arriving to sign the climate deal now find they have to shift thinking globally rather than nationally in efforts to salvage agreement.

Copenhagen Day 11…

Heads Of State Arrive To Save The Climate

Copenhagen, The Final Day

The diplomatic words spoken in these huge plenary sessions and behind the closed doors will determine the survival of entire nations and environments on which many more depend. Will this be man’s noblest and finest hour?

Time is running out in Copenhagen…

Time is running out continued…

Many delegates worked into the small hours of the morning to resolve their dead locks. Confidential UN analysis shows that current offers on the table are agreed, global temperatures will rise on average by 3C.

early morning; a German Negotiator “There is still no text for the heads of state to negotiate,” the official told Reuters. “There are no results on anything. We have only several drafts. It’s very, very difficult. Time is running out.” Swedish environment minister Andreas Carlgren “It is now up to world leaders to decide.” Chinese delegate, Li Junhua “It’s a political statement, but it isn’t a lot.” Sudan’s Lumumba Di-Aping, stated the current draft being discussed is “weak”. He added: “There’s nothing ambitious in this text.”

Mid- morning

Senior White House correspondent, Ed Henry, says Obama has ripped up his schedule to try and broker a deal, tweeting that Obama is in negotiations with Australia, UK, Brazil, France, Denmark, Germany, EU, Japan, Bangladesh,Russia, South Africa, India, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Norway, Colombia, and Ethiopia (representing China).

Filling in for Obama Danish prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, “Today doesn’t mark the end or our work, but the beginning.”

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, “The finishing line is sight, our discussions are bearing fruit.”

Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, “China takes climate change very seriously.” “Our target [for cuts] will be included in our long-term plans.” A promise from Wen, “China will honour its voluntary climate commitments with real action.”

Late morning

Activists outside shave their heads littering the entrance way with hair in protest of the slow call to action from the delegates.

Obama from the floor, “This is not fiction it is science. Unchecked climate change will pose unacceptable risk to security, economy and planet,” “Our ability to take collective action is in doubt.” “We’re running out of time.” “We will do what we say, now its time for the nations of the world to come to a common purpose.” “Our ability to take collective action is in the balance.”

Early Afternoon

Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth, ” The President is right that the endeavours in Copenhagen will go down in history – but unless we see a massive shift in the US position, it will be for all the wrong reasons. If the President’s idea of action is to cut US emissions by 4% on 1990 levels then we’re heading for climate catastrophe. Barack Obama should have taken the opportunity to up his proposed cuts to at least 40% by 2020 and ditch carbon offsetting. Obama has deeply disappointed not just those listening to his speech at the UN talks – he has disappointed the whole world.”

Greenpeace US’s executive director Phil Radford, “The world was waiting for the spirit of yes we can, but all we got was my way or the highway. He [Obama] crossed an ocean to tell the world he has nothing new to offer, then he said take it or leave it. By offering no movement on US global warming pollution cuts he showed his disregard for the science and the victims of climate change in the United States and abroad. He now risks being branded as the man who killed Copenhagen. He said all parties must move, but he offered no movement. He said the decades long split between the rich world and poor needs to end, but his vision of a deal here would give us a 3C temperature rise and devastate Africa and the small island states.”

ActionAid’s climate expert, Raman Mehta, “Obama has said nothing to save the Copenhagen conference from failure. The US is the one major player yet to move. Developing countries have come here to negotiate in good faith but feel they have been cheated and it looks like they will leave empty handed.

The UN has reportedly advised negotiators to extend their stays until Sunday night.

John Vidal referring to the draft text, “Their initial reaction was that it was not only weak on figures and targets, but that it could lead to the collapse of the Kyoto treaty, the only global legal instrument requiring rich countries to cut emissions.”

Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela won’t support the deal currently being “cooked up”. Chávez   leaving in protest at the failure of the talks. “We can’t wait any longer, we are leaving. We will reject any document that Obama tries to slip under the door.”

French president Nicolas Sarkozy, “The discussions lasted all night without interruption. The good news is that they’re continuing, the bad news is they haven’t reached a conclusion.”

China’s Wen Jiabao, “We will honour our words with real action. We commit to meet and even exceed our target.”

Mid-afternoon

It’s official says European Union environment commissioner Stavros Dima, “The secretary-general of the UN has asked people not to leave tonight.” “I cannot imagine 120 leaders going back to their countries with empty hands. Everyone expressed commitment to fight climate change. OK, do it.”

Talk of a new draft to be called the “Copenhagen Accord” emerges. It drops any reference to a deadline of the end of 2010 for a legally binding treaty.

climate campaigner Joss Garman, “This latest draft is so weak as to be meaningless. It’s more like a G8 communique than the legally binding agreement we need. It doesn’t even include a time line to give it legal standing or an explicit temperature target. It’s hard to imagine our leaders will try to present this document to the world and keep a straight face.”

A Third Draft

reinstates targets omitted from earlier ones. It says rich countries should reduce their greenhouse emissions by at least 80% by the year 2050. It adds that developing countries’ emissions should be 15-30% below “business as usual”.

Watch the proceedings live from The Bella Center Copenhagen

How will the “Gordian Knot” be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

Fast, Clean, & Cheap Cutting Glo –

The future fortune of nations hangs in the balance of their actions today. Nothing less than compassion and fair treatment for all is acceptable. Only open dialoge and democratic acceptance can be tolerated.

Related Posts B

1. COP15, Copenhagen, The wrap-up
2. The Burden of Climate Responsibility…
3. Copenhagen… What A Game Of Dodge Ball…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Supplementing For Human Control Factors

The Question remains!

No mater how you look at it. Becoming climate neutral is crucial to humanities survival.

What does it matter if “our footprint” as a civilization is contributing to global warming or global cooling? What does it matter if the science is absolute when determining civilizations effect, or the cyclical cycle of increased solar spot activity effect?

Some say empirical evidence,  from both written and geologic records, indicates global temperature modulates in cycles of warming and cooling, with 57 degrees Fahrenheit  as the normal mean temperature throughout a continuing 4500 year cycle. The current conjecture is, we may reach it’s recent past height set in 1100 B.C., again around 2030. There is also conjecture that the many volcano eruptions over past recorded history also played a role in rapid global temperature change.

In our time, a most significant climate control factor is human population .

Display created by Ed Stephan http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/

“A scientific report commissioned by the US government has concluded there is “clear evidence” of climate change caused by human activities. The report, from the federal Climate Change Science Program, said trends seen over the last 50 years “cannot be explained by natural processes alone”. It found that temperatures have increased in the lower atmosphere as well as at the Earth’s surface.”¹

“The human population growth of the last century has been truly phenomenal. It required only 40 years after 1950 for the population to double from 2.5 billion to 5 billion. This doubling time is less than the average human lifetime. The world population passed 6 billion just before the end of the 20th century. Present estimates are for the population to reach 8-12 billion before the end of the 21st century. During each lecture hour, more than 10,000 new people enter the world, a rate of ~3 per second!

Of the 6 billion people, about half live in poverty and at least one fifth are severely undernourished. The rest live out their lives in comparative comfort and health.

The factors affecting global human population are very simple. They are fertility, mortality, initial population, and time. The current growth rate of ~1.3% per year is smaller than the peak which occurred a few decades ago (~2.1% per year in 1965-1970), but since this rate acts on a much larger population base, the absolute number of new people per year (~90 million) is at an all time high.”²

Hypothetically, If someone were to survive climate collapse, and in retrospect using simple minded deductions, look back and note that population has always been on the increase, and eventually we would be where we are today anyway; who could fault them after every possible stone was turned as first president in the effort to stem the tide.

Nature has it’s own way of maintaining balance.

Species responsibility demands action and movement toward human climate neutrality.

We face the evident melting polar and glacier ice, rising oceans, the real threat of disappearing sovereign nations (The Maldives), disappearing rivers, great rivers no longer reaching the sea, lack of fresh water, over use of non-renewable aquifers, disappearing streams and empty wells, deforestation, dying species both plant and animal, over use of available land, food shortage, homeless starving people, sickness, and death.

“What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth’s great heat stores. Pacific ocean (BBC) In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles. Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along. They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man’s influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new. In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures – all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling. What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years. Iceberg melting (BBC)

The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world’s top climate modellers. But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly. It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.”³

A Possible Small Window of Opportunity…

“Air pollution can affect our health in many ways with both short-term and long-term effects. Different groups of individuals are affected by air pollution in different ways. Some individuals are much more sensitive to pollutants than are others. Young children and elderly people often suffer more from the effects of air pollution. People with health problems such as asthma, heart and lung disease may also suffer more when the air is polluted. The extent to which an individual is harmed by air pollution usually depends on the total exposure to the damaging chemicals, i.e., the duration of exposure and the concentration of the chemicals must be taken into account.

Examples of short-term effects include irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, and upper respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Other symptoms can include headaches, nausea, and allergic reactions. Short-term air pollution can aggravate the medical conditions of individuals with asthma and emphysema. In the great “Smog Disaster” in London in 1952, four thousand people died in a few days due to the high concentrations of pollution.

Long-term health effects can include chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, heart disease, and even damage to the brain, nerves, liver, or kidneys. Continual exposure to air pollution affects the lungs of growing children and may aggravate or complicate medical conditions in the elderly. It is estimated that half a million people die prematurely every year in the United States as a result of smoking cigarettes.”⁴

Much of  the carbon culture or climate, smells of “dirty business” who’s only aim is turning scarcity into abundance at the expense of the whole. Where is the value in that? …

We have knowledge of known unused, and new developing technologies that can make “Our Energy Climate Change Footprint” a non issue.

Is it not true; the continued development, production, and distribution of  such technologies themselves would produce abundance beyond measure…

Re-write the future…

All anyone needs for growth is food for nourishment, a place of rest and good association.

Do we fade away, or live to give another day?

Climate Change…

The Anatomy Of A Silent Crisis

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnVGzlXmgko[/youtube]

For publication I am compiling a  list of past, current, developed, and promising, free energy technologies that could serve to reduce the human climate effect.  Send your list of clean energy technologies for compiling and presentation before Copenhagen to clean@environmentaide.org

Many remember first hearing of the wonders of magnetic propulsion, when The first commercial Maglev “people-mover” became a carrier  in 1984 in Birmingham, England. Other stator driven applications could include automobiles, trucks, and boats… Howard Johnson inventor of Spintronics, a unique magnetic gate which  formed the basis of many of his successful motors, was fond of saying “conventional magnetic theory and the real magnetic theory are about as much alike as a Venetian Blind is to a blind Venetian.”

Maglev Train – complete video presentation

From The Republic of  Georgia, Russian inventor, Tariel Kapanadze and his group have come up with one of many promising devices to aide in our move to clean free energy for all. This one capable of capturing enough zero point energy or free energy from the wheelworks of nature to power 60 homes… Perhaps not very much fun to watch, but proven possible…

Kapanadze’s third-party testing 100 kW free energy device

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV560xfYSJ0[/youtube]

This solution was found in a few minutes on the Internet. How many can you find? Combustion technologies can become a thing of the past, and the CO2 from a summer campfire a harmless pastime.

In the words of Author, Scientist, Former Astronaut, and International Speaker Dr. Brian O’Leary…  “Earlier in 2009,  the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) solicited concept papers for funding innovative energy technology research and development.  Some of us who have followed free energy developments were cautiously optimistic about these developments, because, up until now, the DoE has been in denial about anything beyond solar and wind, and even spends a pittance on the traditional renewables compared to the untold hundreds of billions of dollars they spend on research on fossil fuel technologies (hydrocarbons) and nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

So my colleague Wade Frazier and I decided to draft a concept paper to the DoE. Our idea was really quite simple: (1) poll the American public about their attitudes toward the POSSIBILITY of a breakthrough decentralized clean energy economy and making the transition from our current polluting multi-trillion dollar energy mix as painless as possible; and (2) advising the DoE about the most promising R&D options, and safe implementation and transition strategies, free of vested interests.  Part of our philosophy in designing this task was that, by its very nature, if our future energy were to be truly “free,” then our own effort should be of minimal cost for the taxpayer.  We therefore asked for $1 (plus occasional travel, as needed) to support our proposed task.

Needless to say, the proposal was turned down, but we can only hope that some technologies will be supported by the DoE under this program.  Or is this effort just another attempt to cover up the most promising technologies?  Time will tell.”

“If we become increasingly humble about how little we know, we may be more eager to search.” ~ Sir John Templeton

“We have come to this Rock, to record here our homage for our Pilgrim fathers; our sympathy in their sufferings; our gratitude for their labors; Our admiration of their virtues; our veneration for their piety; and our attachment to those principles of civil and religious liberty, which they encountered, the dangers of the ocean, the storms of heaven, the violence of savages, disease, exile, and famine, to enjoy and establish.

And we would leave here, also, for the generations which are rising up rapidly to fill our places, some proof, that we have endeavored to transmit the great inheritance unimpaired; that in our estimate of public principles, and Private virtue; in our veneration of religion and piety; in our devotion to civil and religious liberty; in our regard to whatever advances human Knowledge, or improves human happiness, we are not altogether unworthy of our origin.” –Daniel Webster

WE CAN IF WE TRY!

YES WE CAN!

Remember

Or is it a Factor of a much bigger problem?

Related Posts B

1. The Burden of Climate Responsibility…
2. Guidance Memo to Global Votaries of Current Energy Policy…
3. Air For Fuel, The Birth Of The Air And Magnetic Air Car…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

As one who by association was involved in the advent of First Generation Nuclear, I had great hopes and expectations for it’s peaceful use.

There are no Generation I power plants in service today, most are Generation II. Few Generation III are in use, and Generation IV are not expected to come into service before 2030. All these are fission reactors.

There is research and development underway to introduce fusion reactors trials by 2016. Working high capacity fusion reactors are not expected before 2050.

In looking at the question of nuclear we have to consider sustainability, climate change, distribution, and reduction of CO2.

Atmospheric decay of CO2 is slow and it’s effect only realizable in decades to come. We need to consider we are entering a crisis period now and we need solution iterations that are cheap, effective, and immediately implementable.

The question is, can nuclear stand on its own as part of the solution?

Experience says no! “Since 1950 vast sums of money have been spent on research and development yet the global contribution to demand is no more than 7 percent.”¹ We can recount continuous safety and technical problems and nuclear accidents; Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, that clearly demonstrate nuclear as a risky business.

Today’s nuclear footprint includes 439 plants generating 372 GW, 31 plants are under construction, most are in Asia, and one is in Europe. In 2006 two new plants where attached to the European grid, and six where permanently shut down.

No romance with the technology, no matter how long spent courting its use, or how expensive in development, can justify such slow growth as important to future world energy production.

Current boondoggling by the nuclear industry does not justify its assertion of ready, available, capacity for new growth. Due to financial losses, consolidation, decreased economic activity, scarcity of companies in the market; compounded by a lack of skilled workers, and production capacities; its unlikely a significant contribution can be considered as feasible before 2030.

“Nuclear is not CO2 free if the whole uranium fuel cycle is taken into consideration. Using current uranium ore grades (~ 2% concentration) results in 32g of CO2 equivalent (CO2eq) per kWh of nuclear electricity (kWhel) in Germany. In France, it is only 8g/kWhel, while it is higher in Russia and in the USA, 65g and 62g respectively. One reason for this is the quality of uranium: the lower the grade, the more CO2. A substantial increase of nuclear electricity generation would require the exploitation also of lower grade uranium ores and thus would increase the CO2-emissions up to 120g CO2eq/kWhel, which is much more than other energy technologies: natural gas co-generation 50-140g CO2eq/kWhel); wind power 24g, hydropower 40g; energy conservation 5g CO2eq/kWhel).”²

Uranium mining is also destructive to the environment and after use waste is dangerous to environment and humans and requires monitoring for thousands to millions of years.

Generation IV plants intend to recycle used fuel, although eventual storage is necessary. The assertion that fusion technology is radioactive waste free is a myth. The waste produced by fusion although less dangerous needs containment for possibly thousands of years.

It needs to be noted that fissile material can be reclaimed from any reactor including Generation IV and fusion. Therefore they are not weapon proliferation free.

Any commitment to place this technology in regions of world unrest can only be seen as irresponsible.

With the introduction of Generation III reactors we need to bear in mind current world opinion that current uranium reserves to operate these reactors will be depleted in the next 30 years.

Generation IV is presented as proliferation resistant, greenhouse gas emission neutral, and sustainable. The fact is, there is as yet no reactor concept for Generation IV that fulfills all aims.

The vested interests of the nuclear industry are happy to use climate change as the most important argument in the marketing of nuclear power. Many respected institutions one being the Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT, see the assertion that the new generation of reactor is sustainable, economically viable, safe, reliable and terror resistant as unrealistic.

The 1987 Brundtland Commission defined sustainable as meeting the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The mining of the vast amount of mass needed to produce the fuel, the resulting waste, and after use storage for millions of years, protected from water, heat, sabotage, and theft, render that a fiction. By attempting to image Generation IV reactors as sustainable and CO2 free, the nuclear industry tries to justify its claims using labels reserved for renewable.

“Today around 10,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel is generated per year.”³

According to Antonia Wenisch and Richard Kromp of the Austrian Institute of Ecology as well as David Reinberger of the Viennese Ombudsoffice for Environmental Protection (WUA), who are all in agreement on the mater; “the educated opinion is, nuclear technology can not contribute to environmental protection”.

Renewable energy sources will never disappear. Reserves of the current important primary energy sources oil, gas, and natural uranium are scarce. Any delay moving to renewable energy sources can only benefit those with vested non-renewable interests. In a deregulated market, nuclear cannot be competitive with renewable sources.

“There is research looking into replacing uranium with thorium based fuel. It is claimed to be less likely to produce weapons grade waste.”⁴ This is another fiction, neutron bombardment of thorium isotopes can lead to isotope development capable of low critical mass usable for reactors and weapons. The thorium fuel chain is considered dangerous and difficult to control and only causes new problems.

In order to justify funding to explore 30 years of concepts not applied successfully, resent events and insecurities in energy supply, the 1990 oil crisis, the 2005 rapid oil price increase, the 2006 gas crisis, the 2006 adjustment of coal reserve, the 2007 peak oil warning, and the threat of climate change are often used.

A move to Generation IV breeder systems will only continue a growing scale of highly toxic radioactive isotopes being transported around the world.

Is the planned move to fusion reasonably economically feasible is difficult to answer at this time, with a waste problem that may remain unsolved forever? Moreover a move to fusion and tritium use reduces the possible production of nuclear weapons, but does not eliminate the possibility of waste use for weapons development.

Within the time frame necessary to address climate change and reduction of CO2, fusion power plants will be far too late.

“No small concern is the centralization of energy production, problems of security of supply and distribution grids, and lack of democratic decision process where energy source and availability is concerned. Globally the principle concern in the electricity business is regional energy deployment from small power plants is to often blocked .

They build big plants even using dirty lignite, dictate policy to governments, spend little to modernize or improve, restrict regional feeds into the power grid, and refuse local control over regional grids. Because they are stock market traded monopolies this gives them the ability to shut down plants, to create shortages, and maintain high prices.”⁵

It is possible for renewable source regional input grids attached to national grids to exchange surplus, also allowing for regional autonomy to supply electricity for isolated operation in the local network thus allowing for supplementing local public utility costs.

All these considerations aside, the cost of nuclear technology, and need for specialized high level training, make this technology out of reach for most of the developing world.

Related Posts B

1. Relativity, The Gravity Of The Situation, and The Butterfly Effect
2. Guidance Memo to Global Votaries of Current Energy Policy…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Related Posts B

1. Greenhouse, and Other Gases Of Concern
2. The Purchasing of Indulgences, the Status Quo and Follow The Money Solution To Global Warming
3. Copenhagen… What A Game Of Dodge Ball…

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.