Terrorists, Nuclear Powerplants, and Snakes

Cross-posted from Energy Trends Insider

Nicholas Kristof wrote an opinion piece for the New York Times a few weeks ago titled: "Terrorists, bathtubs, and snakes."

It was about how our evolved abilities to assess risk (which worked great when we were hunter-gatherers) can fail us pretty miserably in the modern industrial world--a point that has been made over and over again by lesser known writers over the last decade about the safety of nuclear powerplants. From the article:

"In short, our brains are perfectly evolved for the Pleistocene, but are not as well suited for the risks we face today. If only climate change caused sharp increases in snake populations, then we’d be on top of the problem! ...Yet even if our brains sometimes mislead us, they also crown us with the capacity to recognize our flaws and rectify mistakes. So maybe we can adjust for our weaknesses in risk assessment — so that we confront the possible destruction of our planet as if it were every bit as ominous and urgent a threat as, say, a passing garter snake."

Not that it matters, but I strongly suspect that a fear of snakes is largely a learned behavior. In my experience, if you hand a garter snake to a toddler, she will treat it pretty much like anything else and try to chew on it. You can be taught to fear garter snakes just as easily as you can be taught to fear nuclear powerplants, or not, neither of which is an ominous and urgent threat.

Update on the Progress of the Electrification of Transportation

Graph from Study in Nature Energy Modified by Me to Add Timeline

 Cross posted from Energy Trends Insider

I found this study on Nature Energy, which I subscribe to: Moving beyond alternative fuel hype to decarbonize transportation.

Although I disagree with the study's main conclusion, the above chart they put together (which I have modified) was of interest to me because it suggests that things are finally starting to happen when it comes to electrification of transportation.

The study authors combed through the New York Times archives for stories on energy topics. They summed up negative and positive articles to calculate the number of net positive articles about a given technology which they define as hype.

Had they mined the entire internet instead of just the Times, I suspect the hype about biofuels would have been off the chart, literally. Stories about students piling into biodiesel powered buses to spread the gospel had become a worn out cliché.

They lumped corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel into one category. It would be interesting to see which was generating the most hype.

Ecosystem Restoration Takes Precedence Over Renewable Energy Projects

 Cross posted from Energy Trends Insider.

The front page of last Sunday's edition of the Seattle Times had an article titled Elwha: Roaring Back to Life. It's an update on the many positive impacts to the river ecosystem after removal of the Glines Canyon and Elwha hydroelectric dams. Google the term "Seattle Times Elwha" to get the whole history. It's rare to find such positive news in this age of the sixth extinction event ...just wanted to share. 

Remains of Elwa Dam (photo courtesy Nina Finley)

Emptied Lake Bed Behind the Elwha Dam (photo courtesy Nina Finley)

Salmon Carcasses are an Important Part of the Food Chain for Eagles and Other Wildlife (photo courtesy Nina Finley)

  

A Pair of Bald Eagles Along the Elwha River (photo courtesy Nina Finley)

 Rather than rehash what has already been said in the Times article, I'll use this opportunity to discuss the "renewable energy trumps local ecosystem protection" argument used to defend environmentally destructive energy projects: expansion of agriculture for biofuels, new hydroelectric dams, solar projects like Ivanpah that not only usurped desert tortoise habitat but also incinerates birds, and wind farms placed in sensitive bird or bat habitat.

The following comment found under a Sierra Club article about some of the 72 dam removals that occurred in 2014:

Parsing Bill Nye's Anti-Nuclear Energy Keynote Speech

Left, Flickr, Center, Simon Fraser University Flickr Creative Commons, Right, Screenshot from Pandora's Promise.

My previous article was about Bill Nye's choice to ignore the science when it comes to nuclear energy safety. I'm not picking on Bill. My critiques are in response to Nye's decision to use his celebrity status to publicly air his anti-nuclear energy beliefs. This is likely the last article I'll write about his views ...depending I suppose, on what else he has to say in public about nuclear energy. I'm bringing this topic up again because the pro-nuclear energy film Pandora's Promise (which was the target of his keynote address following the screening of Pandora's Promise at Columbia University) was also shown at the recently concluded Paris climate talks to bolster James Hansen's call for environmental groups to "let go of long-held biases when it comes to nuclear power."

You can view the YouTube video of that speech here. I don't know what the organizers were expecting, but what they got was an old-school anti-nuclear energy diatribe (where pretty much everything he said was wrong). Bill was doing his best to teach the young Columbia students in the audience (who he kept referring to as kids) what he had been taught and twice asked them to vote out of office politicians who think nuclear power plants should be part of our energy mix to fight climate change (as Obama does).

Interestingly enough, the two senators from Nye's old stomping grounds in Washington State who are big supporters of anything green, were not among the four who voted against expanding the role of nuclear power in a new energy bill, so maybe reasoned argument is starting to turn the tide:

WASHINGTON — Here’s how the state’s U.S. senators voted on major issues in the week ending Jan. 29. The House was in recess.

Boost for nuclear energy

By a vote of 87 for and 4 against, the Senate on Jan. 28 expanded the role of nuclear power in a wide-ranging energy bill (S 2012) that remained in debate. In part, the amendment directs the Department of Energy to establish a “national innovation center” at which the government and private sector would jointly develop advanced technologies for nuclear reactors.

Voting yes: Maria Cantwell, D, Patty Murray, D

 Now, of course, the entire anti-nuclear energy idea was started with some critical thinking. Nuclear energy can do harm and it isn't too cheap to meter after all. But from that point on it became a snowball rolling down hill, a bandwagon to be jumped on. Facts got discarded along the way, stories grew larger with each retelling.

Bill Nye the Science Guy Social Primate and Nuclear Energy

Bill Nye photo via Simon Fraser University Flickr Creative Commons, Sunniva Rose Via Screenshot from TEDx Talk

An article last week in Business Insider discussed Bill Nye's conversion from anti-GMO to pro-GMO (genetically modified organisms). According to Nye, while attending a political rally in NYC:

"...one speaker insisted that the US president Barack Obama was part of a conspiracy sponsored by large agriculture companies to control minds — and received a great many cheers — somehow that passionate man at the microphone crossed a line for me."

Was it a desire to distance himself from conspiracy theorist nut-balls or was it the result of his exposure to facts by real scientists at Monsanto that finally convinced him to change his mind? If it was the latter then his stance was largely based on a lack of knowledge. Some are hoping that because Nye was convinced to distance himself from anti-GMO ideologues that he may also one day distance himself from the anti-nuclear energy counterparts, but I'm skeptical. Nye was not nearly as invested in his GMO stance as he is in his anti-nuclear energy belief.

After reading the above article I typed in the search terms Obama Nuclear Conspiracy and found an article on a conspiracy theorist website titled Nuclear Power Plants--Can We Trust Government Agencies To Tell The Truth? From that article:

"Exelon, the largest nuclear power generator in the USA, was a generous financial supporter to get Barack Hussein Obama elected president. No wonder President Obama supports and promotes building more nuclear power plants."

At the bottom was the following crass political cartoon (I've censored it for the weak of heart) which encapsulates the big three; anti-GMO, anti-vaccination, and anti-nuclear energy, oh, and fluoride.

Bill Nye the comedian celebrity version of everyone's favorite high-school science teacher, but funnier, and goofier, much goofier, still thinks nuclear energy is too dangerous while Sunniva Rose, a practicing nuclear physicist and real world embodiment of the lawyer character played by Reese Witherspoon in the movie Legally Blonde demonstrates in her TEDx talk that nuclear energy is actually (ironically?) the safest energy source we have. Click here to see a video of Nye's view on nuclear energy. A screenshot of the graphic used by Sunniva is shown below. It's a more colorful version of the one found here, and similar to one published by Greenpeace and one in Wikipedia here.

Bill Nye: "It may be that nuclear power, at our current level of understanding, is just inherently not safe enough."

Sunniva Rose: "How: is it possible to worry about global warming, and not be pro-nuclear?"

As an aside, Sunniva is also trained in classical ballet. Not to be outdone, here's a YouTube video of Bill Nye doing a series of back flips on the reality show Dancing with the Stars ...classic Nye humor. While the shock wears off, the laughing starts as you deduce that the guy doing back flips has to be a stunt double (which you then confirm with a quick Google search), but that fact was lost on the person publishing the video. In this case, all his lack of critical thinking cost him was a good laugh.