Sachs: N. Korea not so crazy, given U.S. past

Usually Jeffrey Sachs writes about global economics and poverty, but for some reason he was moved to write about N. Korea and how there is quite a lot of reason as opposed to madness in its actions, considering how the U.S. is not a very loyal friend to dictatorial regimes.

Iraq, Libya and Panama are all countries whose dictators "found a common language" with the U.S., only to be killed or arrested a few years later with America's support.

Sachs is also correct to point out the United States' rank hypocrisy when it comes to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: "That the US demands that this or that state must denuclearize while others [Israel, India and Pakistan] flout the treaty is an assertion of [U.S.] power, not principle."

We say we are a nation founded on ideals. When we cease to draw strength from our ideals, but instead only our military and (declining) economic might, then we must resign ourselves to the inevitable decline and fall that all empires suffer.

A Better Approach Towards North Korea

By Jeffrey Sachs

April 15, 2013 | Huffington Post

URL: http://huff.to/17cQWZi

German solar power = 20 nuclear stations!

Yep, those Germans sure are smart.  But there's just no way we in the U.S. could spend a few $ billion subsidizing an infant industry (solar power) that could wean us off foreign oil and not impose negative externalities.  Nope, only those super-efficient Germans can manage that.

Germany sets new solar power record, institute says

By Erik Kirschbaum

May 26, 2012 | Reuters

URL:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526

AP: U.S. nuke evacuation plans 'will not work'

Did you know this?

"— Four million people now live within 10 miles of the 65 operating sites. (Population in overlapping zones was counted only once for this part of the analysis.) Back in 1980, with 38 nuclear sites, only 1.5 million people lived that close.

— Overall, from 1980 to 2010, the average population in the 10-mile evacuation zones ballooned by 62%, from 39,762 to 64,363.

— Populations within the 10-mile radius have more than doubled at 12 of the 65 sites during the same 30-year period.

— The most explosive growth occurred around the two-reactor Saint Lucie complex near Fort Pierce, Fla., where the 10-mile population of 43,332 in 1980 grew 366% to 202,010 in 2010. Others in the top five: the two-unit Brunswick complex near the North Carolina coast, which increased 326% from 8,164 to 34,782; Monticello, 35 miles from Minneapolis, where population rose 314% from 14,130 to 58,538; the two-unit Turkey Point site, 20 miles south of Miami, up 302%; and the two-unit San Onofre facility in San Clemente, Calif., up 283%.

— Among newer reactors, the biggest jump occurred around Shearon Harris, 20 miles southwest of Raleigh, N.C., where population nearly quadrupled from 24,700 in 1990 to 94,465 in 2010. Three other facilities where populations more than doubled during the same 20-year period are the three-unit Palo Verde site, 50 miles west of Phoenix; two-unit McGuire site, 17 miles north of Charlotte, N.C., and the two-unit Catawba complex in South Carolina, 18 miles south of Charlotte.

— About 120 million people, almost 40% of all Americans, live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant, according to the AP's analysis of 2010 Census data."

What's worse, the emergency evacuation plans in cities with nuclear plants are out-of-date, unrealistic, and untested. Take Indian Point near New York City, for example, where two plants operate:

"If a 50-mile order were ever issued for Indian Point, it would take in about 17.3 million people — 6% of all Americans, according to an AP population analysis. That would include parts of New Jersey and Connecticut and all of New York City, except for a chunk of Staten Island.

"'At no time in the history of man has anyone tried to move 17 million people in 48 hours,' said Kelly McKinney, New York City's deputy commissioner of preparedness."

AP: Populations around U.S. nuclear plants soar

June 27, 2011 | USA TODAY

URL: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-06-27-Nuclear-plants-population-evacuation_n.htm

Conservative Reason.com: The myth of nuclear power

Gee, I can't believe I missed this article. And I can't believe my free-market-loving rightwing friends didn't forward it to me. Oh well. Anyhoo, this article gives the lie to those who say we should put our faith -- and our investment dollars -- into nuclear power.

I don't agree completely with de Rugy's analysis. For example, taking the 60-odd years of nuclear power as a reliable data set for the entire future safety of nuclear power is just poor risk management. Harmful radioactive materials last thousands of years! (This is taking the rightwing "don't pass the debt onto your grandchildren" argument into extreme "don't pass the waste onto your great-great-great-great-great...grandchildren" territory). According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "At this time there are no facilities for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste." High-level radioactive waste has a half-life of 24,000 years.

Her article also fails to mention the scary reality that U.S. nuclear regulators are in the pocket of the heavily subsidized nuclear industry -- that worst-of-all-worlds nexus of corporatist democracy -- whose fleet of aging plants is coming up for re-licensing, so our safety cannot be guaranteed. And although she correctly points out that there is no such thing as a "private" nuclear industry, her analysis ignores the fact that all sources of energy, including oil, are heavily subsidized, whether it's necessary or not.

Also, she makes sure to draw the distinction between electricity generation and fuels, which is true as far as it goes, but let's take the U.S. interstate highway system, for instance: it is a sunk cost (not considering the need for constant repairs) in economic terms, but without it our devotion to gas-guzzling cars would make no economic sense. So it's dishonest and wrong to analyze our current energy situation but refuse to ask, "How did we get here?" She also ignores the fact that the U.S. spends hundreds of $ billions protecting market access to fossil fuels, especially petroleum. With wind and solar there's nothing to protect and nothing to restrict: it's there for everybody. Finally, her analysis ignores that plug-in electric cars are now a reality, not science fiction, so if we can switch to renewable sources of electricity production, then the dichotomy of electricity- vs. fuel-producing technologies would largely disappear.

There are other problems with de Rugy's analysis but I want you to actually read it and appreciate its merits, my pro-nuke comrades, so I won't say any more.

P.S. -- I respect Germany more all the time. After the Fukushima disaster, Germans revolted democratically at the ballot box to reject unequivocally a nuclear future for their country, and -- can you believe it? -- Germany's government actually listened, and pledged to shut down all nuclear power plants by 2022 at the latest, and increase Germany's share of renewable energy consumption to 35 percent in 2020, 50 percent in 2030, 65 percent in 2040, and more than 80 percent in 2050. Since they're Germans and not at given to silliness they will almost certainly succeed. As in the health care field, we Americans don't have to be innovators, we can simply borrow the best policy ideas from other countries and implement them to our benefit; but alas, we are oh-so "exceptional," to our detriment.


The Truth About Nuclear Power
Separating economic myth from economic fact
By Veronique de Rugy
March 25, 2011 | Reason.com

URL: http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/25/the-truth-about-nuclear-power