Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy Policy | 51 comments (51 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
"what kind of Energy Policy can in your view address the fossil decline in Europe?"

How about "fewer people"?

There is no advantage to any energy policy that accepts the axiom that More Is Better. For example, suppose that nuclear energy didn't have the problems that it has, and was too cheap to meter, etc. Then what is accomplished by building more of it? Nothing but further extension of an ultimately unsupportable population size.

The ONLY long term solution to the sustainability problem is the ultimate reduction of the global population to a sustainable level, and there are two choices about how to get there. 1.) Voluntarily. 2.) One or more of The Four Horsemen (three, really) of the Apocalypse.

All political history indicates that we will choose option 2.

by asdf on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 02:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
Population size doesn't depend on electricity consumption. The truth is very likely that you can find a much stronger reverse connection between power consumption and population growth.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (none / 0)
"Population size doesn't depend on electricity consumption. The truth is very likely that you can find a much stronger reverse connection between power consumption and population growth."

Perhaps I was not clear. There are ALREADY too many people; population GROWTH is only a secondary problem. For example, are you proposing that India, China, etc. are going to reduce their electricity consumption over time? And Europe, also?

It seems to me that the problem is not the pollution or climate effect or non-renewable-ness of any given energy technology, but the fact that any energy "solution" becomes objectionable when scaled up to a size that can support the current global population. It applies to all of the options: Wind, solar, coal, nuclear, oil, etc.

The result: Continued discussion of how to "solve" the energy problem by changes on the supply side, when the real issue is the insatiable demand. Conservation can help, but if you don't combine conservation with a strong program to reduce the population, you end up building a system that can support an additional population increase--until you hit a new, higher demand limit.

by asdf on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 05:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 2)
Conservation can help, but if you don't combine conservation with a strong program to reduce the population, you end up building a system that can support an additional population increase--until you hit a new, higher demand limit.

If we look at Europe today we have a underlaying population decrease (offset by immigration), despite record levels of potential population support. The dynamics are not as simple as Malthus imagined.

My take is that at this time it is well established that a child normally survives and can reproduce. That means you need one to carry on two families traditions, and one in reserve. Coupled with good access to birth control, and record long schooling / problems with getting established on the job market has pushed the age of first childbirth so high that even getting children gets problematic for biological reasons. Then you also need coupling to accur in the right time interval. So not everybody gets their statistically desired 2 children, thus putting reproduction rates below break even.

Europe is on the other side of the population hump. America and Oceania is somewhere on the top. Asia and Africa are still growing, and are projected to grow another 3.5-4 billions together in the next 150 years. If we make it that far populations world wide will probably be in decline. Its a big if, but I would say access to electricity helps.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 06:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 3)

The yellow stuff is the natural population change. We will have in some years natural decrease, but the longer the shape of our demography and the longer life time make it, that so far only in eastern Europe (except Slovac, but marginally), Germany and the Netherlands there is a natural population decrease.

The red is net immigration.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 06:24:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: No to Nuclear (4.00 / 3)
Asia and Africa are still growing, and are projected to grow another 3.5-4 billions together in the next 150 years.

Somewhat misleading - East Asia has well below replacement level fertility rates. (China 1.77, South Korea 1.29, Japan, 1.22, Taiwan 1.23) Southeast Asia is varied: Thailand, Vietnam, and Burma have all dropped below; Indonesia's almost there while Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia and the Philippines remain well above. So what we're really talking about here is South Asia and the Arab countries of West Asia (Iran and Turkey are also below replacement level).

by MarekNYC on Mon May 19th, 2008 at 06:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Andris Piebalgs: Nuclear and the EU's Energy Policy | 51 comments (51 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: