Re: <nettime> Biocultural Corridors

[Jean-Noël Montagné <jnm@autistici.org>]

Le 31/08/2022 à 20:22, Brian Holmes a écrit :

Dear Brian,

This is a very important debate. Geoengineering is polluting the 
political debate about the responsability of capitalism in the climate 
change.

> CO2 levels are already so high (far higher than those of the End 
> Permian mass-extinction event, for example) that degrowth, while 
> ultimately necessary, can do nothing in the short run.

The COvid-19 has proven that CO2 emission levels were falling during the 
first containments. It was a very short term ungrowth, only few month, 
but it was successful to stop over-cunsumption.

> The energy transition is underway and there is a big bet on nuclear 
> energy in addition to renewables. 

The bet on nuclear energy is irrational. I am aware of the market 
through https://www.world-nuclear.org/  but some facts totally escape to 
investors: climate, nuclear fuel ressources, metal ressources, 
geo-strategic-politic stability for such special industry, and finance:
Climate

-Uranium-way plants use a lot of water. Sea-side plants are OK, but most 
of the river plants have had huge problems during hot periods worlwide: 
in France, for example, a dozen nuclear plants were closed during the 
very hot summer of 2003, and 5 of them had to run at only 30% capacity 
this summer 2022, because of the high temperature of the rejected water 
into the river and because of the low level of the river. Climate models 
predict very low water levels, or total drought, even in major rivers, 
within one to two decades.
-Nuclear plants are closed during high air temperatures, because workers 
cannot work during a long time in technical suits in the reactor rooms, 
which are extremely hot (and which cannot be cooled if the outside air 
is hot). ==> Temperatures above 40°, then 50°, are expected in the 
coming decades...

Resources
Kazakhstan (under Russian control), Canada, Australia are the biggest 
uranium producers, and there are some other resources for 40 to 60 
years. But Energy Watch Group estimate the Peak Uranium to 2035... The 
problem is not sourcing uranium (yet) but its enrichment: Russia is the 
first enricher, and supply is at risk if the conflict goes on 
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/uranium-enrichment.aspx
Nuclear industry
Nuclear industry uses semi-conductors, sensors, rare metals, high tech 
metallurgy, cement and sand, all this is affected by resource or climate 
problems. Other problem: EPR reactors have a lot of structural problems. 
Only MSR could show reliability, but they are still experimental.
Geo-politic stability
The problems in Zaporizha plant shows how a nuclear facility is a target.

Economy
renewables electricity is now cheaper (and safer) than nuclear.



> Hydrogen fuel cells too.
No, producing hydrogen is highly costly in terms of fossil energy, and 
then generates a lot of CO2. Even produced with renewable electricity, 
the efficiency is so bad...


> Geoengineering is a comparable issue. I am convinced it will take the 
> form of sulfur particles dispersed into the stratosphere at global 
> scale, undoubtedly with unwanted differential side effects. Three 
> factors have convinced me about the inevitability of geoengineering:
I don't agree.

Cost: Any geo-engineering solution requires the political and financial 
contribution of all (big) countries in the same project => good luck...
Leadership: as USA would not accept the technical or financial 
leadership of the process by China, China would not accept the 
leadership of the process by USA. Don't dream to a common cause on this 
subject !!!!
Ecology: Stratopheric sulphur particles means more rain acidity and 
around 30% loose of agriculture worldwide (starvations), and would 
increase the acidity of the oceans (starvations), wich is a also a huge 
CO2 sequestration problem...  More, billions of people and animals 
working/living outside would suffer blindness and skin cancers, because 
of UV increase. The biodiversity, actually endangered, would plunge to 
near extinction.
Climate: sulphur would make the monsoons more crazy (look at Pakistan 
last 3 month...) and would totaly change the atmospheric equilibrium: 
nobody knows what could happen.
Energy: any spatial or stratospheric geo-engineering solution (= put 
millions of tons of material into the atmosphere) would cost a huge 
amount of carbonated energy and would accelerate climate change !!!
Temporality: as CO2 has several centuries of presence in the atmosphere, 
until its biological absorption (if natural soils, forests and oceans 
bio-diversities survive and increase instead of decreasing year after 
year), any geo-engineering solution would need constant (technical, 
financial and "political) efforts during 500 to 800 years... good luck !
Efficiency: geo-engineering would not stop fossil fuels extraction, CO2 
emissions and paradigm change. Business as usual would not stop. The 
greenhouse effect due to CO2 would be stronger and would necessitate to 
provide more geo-engineering !!
There are dozen reports and simulations about such solutions. Other 
solutions are also irrealistic, including CO2 capture machines.
It is important to know that the propaganda for geo-engineering is 
financed and mediatized by the big political and industrial groups that 
do not want to change their paradigm in the face of climate change.
The only geo-engineering system with a high efficiency to store CO2 is 
biomass: planting trees worldwide, protecting soils, oceans and algae. 
It's almost free. Another action: stopping Bolsonaro from transforming 
Amazon forest into the next Sahara is a priority.

JN
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: