I obviously can't help mentioning the dangerous aspects of this energy type. By the end the of seventies, the near-catastrophic Three Mile Island plant spelled the end of the construction of this type of plant in the United States. The catastrophy of the Tchernobyl plant in 1986 still has health impacts on the population everywhere in Europe and not only in the ex-Soviet Union. Cancer problems, birth deformations and other similar problems have increased in a notable fashion in numerous regions of the old continent since this sad event and most experts see a direct link between.
In Canada, the nuclear experience has been financially catastrophic for those that have adventured in it. At the end of the 20th century, Hydro One, a public company that produced energy for the province of Ontario and that adopted nuclear with the most conviction in Canada became the public society with the heaviest debt of all those in North America. The reason was simple: costs related to the production of electricity thanks to nuclear energy have revealed to be much higher than what was initially expected. That society's debt skyrocketed because of premature aging and security problems and today, it only has a fleet of nuclear plants that seriously need investment. The last estimate of the costs: $40 million dollars just for an upgrade. But is it a good idea to reinvest more money into such a financial black hole that also constitutes a severe ecological and security risk? The Gentilly III plant in Quebec turned out to be a mistake of the same kind. So little efficient and quickly getting older, too.
The market's invisible hand
Traditional economists tell us that the market's forces will solve the problem and the technical advancements, encouraged by an increase in energy costs, will solve energy shortage problems. I have my doubts about this. Like Kenneth Deffeyes, geologist at Princeton University, ironically said: "The economists think that if you turn up at the bank machine with enough money, God will put oil back in the ground". In the speeches of traditional economists, there often is a petticoat that is sticking out. That petticoat is that of a system based on never-ending increases that make them our new great preachers. And just like at church, they ask us to believe them, to have faith in the market's invisible hand without doubting of the veracity of their affirmations. And, just like the Inquisition period, all those who dare to confront them with their own contradictions or show that they are wrong are treated like heretics and are accused of all of life's pains. To pursue with the church comparison, just like mass being in Latin for a long time, these economists will favour a complex language and do anything to make us believe that we should let them be under control, because it's too complicated for us, the little people. Personally, I prefer doing my own thinking.
As a matter of fact, when you listen to the traditional economists, they always affirm that a rise in the economy is THE only way to secure our future. I could never take these people seriously who base their "science" on such premises. Our planet is a limited entity, how could we think that can always produce and consume more? The global fish, oil, wood and drinkable water quantities that are depleting in more and more regions of the world is a perfect example.
In 1999, 95% of global transportation was powered by oil and 50% of oil's resources were dedicated to transportation. It is obvious that is we want to reduce our oil consumption; the first place we have to look at is in transportation.
In Canada, the nuclear experience has been financially catastrophic for those that have adventured in it. At the end of the 20th century, Hydro One, a public company that produced energy for the province of Ontario and that adopted nuclear with the most conviction in Canada became the public society with the heaviest debt of all those in North America. The reason was simple: costs related to the production of electricity thanks to nuclear energy have revealed to be much higher than what was initially expected. That society's debt skyrocketed because of premature aging and security problems and today, it only has a fleet of nuclear plants that seriously need investment. The last estimate of the costs: $40 million dollars just for an upgrade. But is it a good idea to reinvest more money into such a financial black hole that also constitutes a severe ecological and security risk? The Gentilly III plant in Quebec turned out to be a mistake of the same kind. So little efficient and quickly getting older, too.
The market's invisible hand
Traditional economists tell us that the market's forces will solve the problem and the technical advancements, encouraged by an increase in energy costs, will solve energy shortage problems. I have my doubts about this. Like Kenneth Deffeyes, geologist at Princeton University, ironically said: "The economists think that if you turn up at the bank machine with enough money, God will put oil back in the ground". In the speeches of traditional economists, there often is a petticoat that is sticking out. That petticoat is that of a system based on never-ending increases that make them our new great preachers. And just like at church, they ask us to believe them, to have faith in the market's invisible hand without doubting of the veracity of their affirmations. And, just like the Inquisition period, all those who dare to confront them with their own contradictions or show that they are wrong are treated like heretics and are accused of all of life's pains. To pursue with the church comparison, just like mass being in Latin for a long time, these economists will favour a complex language and do anything to make us believe that we should let them be under control, because it's too complicated for us, the little people. Personally, I prefer doing my own thinking.
As a matter of fact, when you listen to the traditional economists, they always affirm that a rise in the economy is THE only way to secure our future. I could never take these people seriously who base their "science" on such premises. Our planet is a limited entity, how could we think that can always produce and consume more? The global fish, oil, wood and drinkable water quantities that are depleting in more and more regions of the world is a perfect example.
In 1999, 95% of global transportation was powered by oil and 50% of oil's resources were dedicated to transportation. It is obvious that is we want to reduce our oil consumption; the first place we have to look at is in transportation.