Nuclear power 2.0: Thorium - hmmm

The Economist has an article describing the virtues of Thorium reactors, which appear to be cheaper and safer than regular nuclear power. I have an old knee-jerk reaction against nuclear energy, but compared to frying the planet using coal this sounds worth exploring. 

A few quotes from the article: 

"One of the cleverest things about LFTRs is that they work at atmospheric pressure. This changes the economics of nuclear power. In a light-water reactor, the type most commonly deployed at the moment, the cooling water is under extremely high pressure. As a consequence, light-water reactors need to be sheathed in steel pressure vessels and housed in fortress-like containment buildings in case their cooling systems fail and radioactive steam is released. An LFTR needs none of these."

"Even the waste products of LFTRs are less hazardous than those of a light-water reactor. There is less than a hundredth of the quantity and its radioactivity falls to safe levels within centuries, instead of the tens of millennia for light-water waste."

Jeremy Rifkin on an economy where energy, information and things cost next to nothing

Jeremy Rifkin’s latest book ”The zero marginal cost society” looks at how the economy could change as an increasing part of what we consume is produced in ways, where the marginal cost is near zero. We know that once a piece of information has been produced, it can be copied and distributed for nearly free.

Jeremy Rifkin argues that the same logic will apply to 3D printed physical objects and to renewable energy.

It will be expensive to establish the infrastructure and the machinery for producing and delivering, and it will take investments to design and create the first version of a product – but from there on, all the following copies are essentially free.

As Rifkin writes:

”Like the communications internet where the up-front costs of establishing the infrastructure were considerable, but the marginal cost of producing and distributing information is negligible, the up-front costs of establishing an energy internet are likewise significant, but the marginal cost of producing each unit of solar and wind power is nearly zero. Renewable energy, like information, is nearly free after accounting for the fixed costs of research, development, and deployment”.

Obviously, this completely changes the conventional logic in business:

”As more and more of the foods and services that make up the economic life of society edge towards near zero marginal cost and become almost free, the capitalist market will continue to shrink into more narrow niches where profit-making enterprises survive only at the edges of the economy”, Rifkin writes.

One consequence of this is that the need for human labor to reproduce will be very limited. To be of use, you must create variety and novelty – you can’t make money on the second item.

A lot of people will find it very hard to find employment or earn an income – yet we will live in an era of abundance:

”When the exchange value of producing additional units of a good or service is nearly zero, it means that scarcity has been replaced by abundance. Exchange value becomes useless because everyone can secure much of what they need without having pay for it. The products and service have use and share value but no longer have exchange value”.

In my opinion, Rifkin tends to gloss over the risk of creating an economy in which a very small group of people own the infrastructure, and have the capital and intellectual resources to operate the machinery that delivers at near zero cost. Business will need VERY large-scale operation to get a return on their investment, when every transaction is so small – so the monopoly tendencies are extremely strong.

Only the superstars will be able to make money by creating designs that are so novel, that everyone will want to use them for a small fee.

Rifkin acknowledges the risk, but only in a sketchy way:

”Whether the new potential inherent in the Internet of things infrastructure can be realized will be determined by who finances the platform”.

”The prospect of a new economic infrastructure and paradigm that can reduce marginal costs to near zero makes the private firm, whose very existence depends on sufficient margins to make a profit, less viable. Cooperatives are the only business model that will work in a near zero marginal cost society”.

The solution he points to is cooperatives – however, there’s not much in terms of description of what a plausible type of cooperative. He does link the zero margin cost logic to the explosion of the ”collaborative economy” with sharing, makers, open source and social entrepreneurs exchanging value in new ways.

And I completely agree, that this is perhaps the most important trend pointing the way to an economic model for the 21st. Century.

I have a bit of a love/hate relationship to Rifkin. He has a particular knack for sensing new major shifts in the way our societies operate long before most others. He’s very good at big picture thinking, and when he is at his best, he really delivers great vision and insight.

I just wish he wasn’t so pre-occupied with promoting himself and making sure we all understand his magnitude.

Luckily, if you want a quick overview, there’s an excellent podcast where Jeremy Rifkin explains hisideas in a conversation with Paul Saffo. In fact, his ideas seem a lot crisper in this hour-long talk than in the book, which in sections tends to get overly detailed, and to spread out in too many directions.

I strongly recommend starting out with the podcast.

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/jeremy-rifkin-are-we-moving-capitalist-collaborative-economy-4914

Al Gore's nye bog, The Future: 6 hovedpunkter

I min anmeldelse af Al Gore's nye bog iPolitiken forleden havde jeg skrevet en sammenfatning af bogens hovedpunkter, der ikke kom med i avisen. 

De kommer her i stedet:

Al Gore beskriver i The Future de 6 overordnede drivkræfter, som efter hans mening tilsammen definerer vores fremtid.

Earth inc.

Verdens rigdomme koncentreres i takt med at globaliseringen skaber selskaber af hidtil uset størrelse og magt. Industriarbejdspladserne forsvinder, de outsources til billiglande eller overtages af robotter. En stor del af væksten er rent pengemæssig, den skaber ingen jobs og er ikke til gavn for de fleste. Resultatet er en foruroligende udhuling af samfundet, hvor nogle få bruger løs, og millioner kæmper for at overleve. Kapitalismen er den mest effektive måde at skabe fremgang og udvikling, mener Gore, men når kapitalen får frit spil, overtager vinderne alt.

Magten er lammet og uafklaret

Demokratiet er i dyb krise. Systemet er blevet hacket af gigantiske corporations, der med klækkelige penge bidrag og massiv lobbyisme reelt kan styre, hvad politikerne vedtager eller afviser. Gore kalder det ”blød bestikkelse” og ”et statskup i slow-motion”. Resultatet er at der ikke længere er nogen ledelse – nationalt eller globalt. Politik er lammet, på et tidspunkt, der i dén grad kræver styring.

Den globale hjerne

Digitalisering og smamenbinding af alt og alle. Privatlivet forsvinder, alle normale medier og jobs udfordres, kunstig intelligens, der vokser sig stærkere, en fælles bevidsthed, nervøst sitrende.

Det er her håbet findes, mener Gore: De kommende års vigtigste kamp er når den globale bevidsthed går imod Earth inc. blinde vækstkurs, og i stedet lader fornuften og sandheden råde.

For meget af væksten

Mennesket breder sig og vokser langt mere end kloden kan bære. Befolkningen vil vokse med nye milliarder, og alle knokler vi for at få mere: Kød, transport, bekvemmelighed. Væksten holdes oppe af målrettet politik og solide doser reklamer. Imens forsvinder naturgrundlaget under os med foruroligende hast.

Gen-opfindelsen af liv og død

Bioteknologien vil give mennesker indflydelse på naturen på et langt mere dybtgående og detaljeret niveau: Gensplejsede afgrøder bliver det nye normale, vi vil kunne dyrke organer, udvælge børn med attraktive gener og forlænge levetiden radikalt. Men teknologien kan også bruges til terror – eller bare uden forståelse for konsekvenserne.

På kanten

Der er der desværre ikke gode nyheder om klimaet. Vi går imod de værst tænkelige udfald, og vi er nødt til at forholde os til truslen nu, siger Gore. Vi får snart rigeligt at gøre med at tilpasse os til store forandringer og udfordringer, men samtidig er vi nødt til at få stoppet årsagen til katastrofen. Der skal sættes pris på CO2, i form af skatter, skatteregulativer og handelskvoter. Al Gore håber på teknologiske fremskridt og at vi kan skabe den samme hastige udvikling af bæredygtig energi, som vi har set indenfor computere og bioteknologi.

Al Gore discusses "The Future" in Science Friday

Al Gore's recent book "The Future" is a very good diagnosis of the challenges humanity faces, and the reasons why we seem incapable of moving anywhere on the issues - due to the extreme concentration of wealth among a very small elite that has managed to take over politics because politicians depend so badly on their contributions to get elected.
Gore reminds me of Kassandra, the mythological Greek figure, who was given the ability to look into the future - but was cursed that noone would believe her. Gore has done more than just about anyone else to tell the world of the challenges ahead - but noone seems to listen close enough to act.
"The future" is a good book - I reviewed it (in Danish ) for Politiken - but it is very heavy on facts.
An easier introduction to the themes is listening to this really good interview on NPRs Science Friday with Al Gore.

The conspicuous ecologist

Here it is, at last: our new 3,5 KW PV panel. Let the sun shine!

The Conundrum by David Owen - review and podcast interview

I did a review of David Owen’s excellent little book ”The Conundrum” for this weekend’s literary section of Danish Newspaper Politiken. I also did a 13-minute audio interview with David Owen about his book.

”The Conundrum” describes how – despite all good intentions – all our efforts to reduce environmental impact by creating more efficient technology end up paving the way for MORE consumption. High speed train make us go further; LED lighting lets us use much lighting everywhere; more efficient refrigerators expands our use of cold drinks, makes fridges available for more consumers – and expands our use of Air-conditioning as well.

David Owen concludes that we need a more fundamental shift – but that shift is a lot more difficult.

From the book:

”We’re consumers at heart, and our response to difficulties of all kinds involves consumption in one form or another: Just tell me what to buy. The challenge arises when consumption itself is the issue. How do we truly begin to think about less – less fossil fuel, less carbon, less water less waste, less habitat destruction, less population stress – when our sense of economic, cultural and personal well-being is based on more?”

”In truth we already know what we need to do, and we have for a long time. We just don’t like the answers. That’s the conundrum.”

Diminishing returns of material goods and happiness

One of the lessons of the many studies of happiness is that the more you have already, the more it takes to make you happier. In that sense, we’re on a curve of diminishing returns, which drives us to exponentially higher levels of consumption in order to satisfy our desire for happiness.

Meanwhile, the planet’s natural resources are in overshoot. We’re extracting more and faster than the biosphere can re-generate. The fat, virgin sources of materials are getting depleted, and we’re moving to the margins, where it gets ever more costly – in terms of money and disruption – to extract resources.

We’re in a pinch; we need much more to feel happier, but it’s getting harder and harder to produce it.

Coping with poverty

Just read a bunch of reports about the strategies people have for coping with poverty. It obviously takes considerable effort to get by. Here's a couple of quotes from the report "Just coping" from the Kent city council in the UK:

”Life on a low income is characterised by deep unpredictability. Just one unexpected bill – a new school uniform, or a bank charge – can disrupt the entire weekly budget. The families we met were operating from day to day, in a way that often felt very out of step with the patterns and rhythms of financial help such as tax credits and housing benefits”.

”Men were notable by their absence. Poverty is without question a gendered experience, and it is often women on whom most of the coping work falls”.

"In order to describe the money situation faced by the families, the research team came to use the term ‘Milkybar economy’ after noticing that several of the families seemed to have a predilection for that particular chocolate bar. There are two facts to observe here: first, the ‘Milkybar’ chocolate only costs 15p (about half the price of other chocolate bars) and, second, buying them was a deliberate, economic choice. The cheaper price allowed parents to buy children a sweet or treat with the small change left over from other shopping without impacting too much on budgets.
Of course, not all of the families ‘bought Milkybars’, but these kinds of small margins were a consideration for all."

And here's a quote from the report “You just have to get by - Coping with low incomes and cold homes" from the Center for Sustainable Energy in the UK:

" Overall, 62 per cent of low‐income households had cut back on their heating costs in the previous winter by turning their heating off or down, heating only one room, or using their heating intermittently. However, their experience of cold at home also depended on the effectiveness of any strategies they used to compensate for their loss of heating. These included wearing more clothes, wrapping up in blankets, staying in one room, going to bed early and having hot drinks. The most income‐constrained households were adept at juggling these options as part of their wider strategies for coping on a low income.

The low‐income households who experienced cold homes reported adverse impacts on their mental health, physical health and social lives: nearly half (47 per cent) said the cold had made them feel anxious or depressed, 30 per cent said an existing health problem had got worse, and 17 per cent did not feel able to invite friends or family to the house."