核能發電回春？想出來的人正豬頭﹗

西雅圖凹凸鏡 – 從反核到擁核—荒謬的邏輯！
http://blog.yam.com/kueihsienl/article/13934485

到這個時代竟有重新重視核能發電之見，可見當今政壇上盡是成事不足敗事有餘的無能之輩…

Rocky Mountain Institute – Nuclear Power
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid185.php

• It’s too expensive. Nuclear power has proved much more costly than projected — and more to the point, more costly than most other ways of generating or saving electricity. If utilities and governments are serious about markets, rather than propping up pet technologies at the expense of ratepayers, they should pursue the best buys first.

• Nuclear power plants are not only expensive, they’re also financially extremely risky because of their long lead times, cost overruns, and open-ended liabilities.

• Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn’t a good way to curb climate change. True, nukes don’t produce carbon dioxide — but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.

• And of course nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal and the proliferation of potential nuclear weapons material.

桂賢說得好

全球暖化是世界不永續的現象之一，這些所謂專家學者都忽略了，我們的世界之所以會越來越不永續，是人們生活方式的根本問題，是價值觀的問題，在我看來，其中最大的價值觀問題，就是盲目迷信科技、和不存在的科學確定性。因為以為科技可以解決任何問題、可以取代任何的自然機制，我們任意地改變與改造我們的環境；有了科技，我們毫無節制地使用能源，以為科技必定可以帶來源源不絕的能源。

在我看來，要解決問題的方法有很多種，治標的解決方式就是減少能源使用量，改變人類使用能源的習慣，設法讓我們的生存不需要仰賴太多的外在能源，這一個更值得研究和開發的領域，有帶頭作用的學者們為何不鼓勵和推廣呢？如果我們使用能源的習慣不改，找再多的「乾淨能源」也無滿足能源需求的無底洞。

「乾淨能源」是一個相當誤導的名詞。我們必須知道，沒有任何一種能源的開發，是真正乾淨的。不久以前人們還以為是解藥的生質能源，其「副作用」，已經出現：生質能源的大量栽種排擠其他糧食作物，影響糧食的價格，不但如此，還造成更多森林被砍伐來栽種生質能源，影響生物多樣性，近來，研究人員更發現，生質能源的栽種反而產生更多的二氧化碳排放。

跟 RMI 其中一個 Approach to Energy 如出一轍

Rocky Mountain Institute – RMI’s Approach to Energy
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid249.php

A Watt Saved is a Watt Earned/Demand-Side Management

Thinking little about their customers’ end-use demands, electric utilities historically believed their business was simply to sell electrons. They created giant, centralized systems that relied on multi-billion-dollar power plants that took years to build, thinking they had no choice but to keep up with demand for electrons. Some still think this, but most now realize that it’s usually cheaper to help their customers save electricity than try to sell them more of it—because selling more means having to build more expensive, economically risky power plants. “Demand-side management,” a practice that Amory Lovins helped pioneer and RMI has consistently promoted, recognizes the fundamental equivalence of savings and supply. The cost of saving electricity — or saving any sort of energy, or any sort of resource — should be weighed alongside the cost of producing more of it. Saving energy is usually cheaper, and not only that, it also reduces pollution and many other problems. As Gary Zarker of Seattle City Light says: “There’s no cheaper, cleaner power than power you don’t have to produce.”

政客們唔該醒少少當幫忙，唔好將境況越攪越糟…

Further reading

Rocky Mountain Institute – E05-14, Nuclear Power: Economics and Climate-Protection Potential — 06 January 2006 (PDF-475k)
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf

補充 (May 3, 2008)

Rocky Mountain Institute – Forget Nuclear
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php