that you can access The http://quiosco.elmundo.orbyt.es/epaper/xml_epaper/El% 20Mundo/09_04_2011/pla_562_Madrid/xml_arts/art_5258096.xml I recommend it, without being brilliant Richard Muller reflections are great today (yesterday we had an earthquake in Aragon.
If you highlight the item is for several reasons:
"The acceptable behavior of a nuclear installation in high-risk area and you can learn from the failures produced.
-renewable energies still require a good cycle of experimentation to make them profitable; the wind are subject to many conditions that its use in a response sometimes you do not feasible due to lack of demand the time of production.
. We agree that there is climate change. always has been. in which we disagree is on how the works man.
. Al Gore and Thomas Friedman have usurped the scientific debate by politicizing it and exaggerating it to levels that have only achieved a great deal of confusion or alarm that is not for today or the day after tomorrow.
And I like the disqualification which makes Pachauri, with his Nobel prize under his arm, was the one who politicized and even obstructed reports were not in the political line which had been marked.
not saying it can now come true for 90% and 10% are not; in science tests for error, it fails that once a model for whole have to be reviewed.
Special Greetings from exile, and here I copy the entire interview:
THE WORLD TO COME CARLOS
FRESNEDA
"Fukushima survived the unimaginable, which proves that nuclear power has a future" RICHARD A.
MULLER
Decrease text size Increase text size in Physics for Future Presidents, Richard A. Muller extended his prescription for U.S. energy dilemma and the world in general. There plainly showed his faith in the nuclear renaissance, shared by his friend and former fellow-sufferer at the University of Berkeley Steven Chu, current U.S. Secretary of Energy and the Physics Nobel Prize 1997. Muller
not know whether the unusual nuclear fervor of Obama-even after the accident in Fukushima-has something to do with his book, but you know that Michelle has had on their hands and promised to make it available to the president.
now from Washington is followed with great interest the latest craze of the renowned and controversial physical: the Project of Land Surface Temperature. That is, the definitive study on climate change, which aims to to settle the war between the naysayers and exaggerated.
Question .- A quarter century after the Chernobyl accident began to speak of a nuclear renaissance, but many predict that what happened in Fukushima can abort. What do you think?
Answer .- I have always advocated energía nuclear y eso no va a cambiar por lo sucedido en Japón. Es más, si un día antes me hubieran preguntado si una central iba a poder resisitir un terremoto de nueve grados Richter y un tsunami con olas de 15 metros, habría dicho que no. La planta de Fukushima sobrevivió a un accidente inimaginable. Creo que es la prueba de que sigue habiendo futuro para la energía nuclear. Estoy convencido de que lo acontecido no va suponer un parón
P.- ¿Es usted partidario de seguir construyendo centrales junto al mar y en zonas de alta actividad sísmica?
R.- Sería preferible hacerlo en zonas con menos riesgos, pero Fukushima ha demostrado lo que una central es capaz de aguantar. La seguridad nuclear plants has improved dramatically since the construction of such reactors 40 years ago. In this case the plant has survived an incredible success and has caused very little additional victims is known. Now there is talk of released radioactivity, and also released into the sea, but the ocean and is in itself a natural radioactivity and also has the ability to dilute it. The radioactivity awakens the most primal fears among the population, but it should put things in place and warn people of what levels are truly dangerous. Most of the measures taken are preventive, not at a risk of death ... If I happen to say that is not a big Fukushima danger, I probably would take too stupid or crazy. But the reality is this: The damage caused by the plant is under control and is minimal compared to the tsunami and the earthquake.
P. - It appears that Europe has experienced the worst nuclear accident in U.S. near ...
R. - In Europe there have been alarmist reactions, as has happened in Germany, while Obama here has reiterated its support for nuclear energy. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, whom I consider a good friend, has also come to his defense. In EUU, nuclear accounts for 20% of the energy pie and going back to play an important role in the coming years a new generation of reactors. Fukushima will force at least to review and improve security as possible, but after the alarm does not think he has a big effect.
P. - Wall Street is not so clear, and Obama has had to allocate 36,000 million dollars in federal loan guarantees to revive the dying industry ...
R. - One thing is the grants and other loan guarantees. In Spain and other European countries, solar energy subsidies are paid by taxpayers with their taxes. In the case of nuclear loan guarantees are necessary because the initial investment is very large. Building a nuclear plant costs much, but once operational, it has little maintenance and requires relatively little fuel. After 20 years, all are benefits.
Q. - What do we do with waste?
R. - The problem is there, but we can solve it. The waste is safer in a nuclear graveyard in the plants themselves, that is clear. Physics for Future Presidents showed me the cemetery for Yucca Mountain. The antinuclear furor has been very hard against this project and are now considering other options.
Q. - And the risk of nuclear proliferation? Is not the atomic energy of the rich?
R. - should be avoided at all costs that the nuclear material ends up in wrong hands, but so far has been achieved and I think that may remain. Moreover, India and China are clear that they need nuclear as part of the energy mix and to meet the growing demand of its citizens. In developing countries, the mini reactors may soon be playing an important role.
Q. - In your book you devotes comparatively little space to sun and wind. Do not you believe in renewables?
R. - Yes, but in the long term. I do not like making predictions, but maybe in 50 years we have enough solar energy to where it is cheapest know that coal and use it. As the wind has great potential in certain areas, but the big problem remains the distribution. The big question is no longer how to generate clean energy, but how to cheapen it.
Q. - Are not you concerned that China is winning the game to the U.S. in solar technology?
R. - On the contrary. I am pleased to see that China is taking the lead in renewable and can pave the way for the rest of the world. I also hope to develop batteries for future electric cars. In 15 years, per capita CO2 emissions in China could overtake the U.S.. Whatever you do to alleviate this poblem and pollution can be very useful for developing countries.
P. - Posts to act, you insist that the best we can do is bet on the conservation and efficiency ...
R. - is the clearest and most direct line of action in the energy field, and also the most profitable. You can save money and create jobs in the updating of buildings and businesses to reduce energy consumption. That should be a top priority because we would all benefit.
Q. - And tell us, do you believe or not believe in global warming?
R. - Warming global is real, and it is likely that humans are responsible for at least part of the rise in temperatures over the past 50 years. That said, I'm not entirely convinced that the issue is so urgent and compelling. That is one reason why I decided to create the Project Land Surface Temperature in Berkeley. We will try to gauge what the human contribution and what the risks are real.
Q. - Who needs at this point a new study on climate change?
R. - What is needed is to put science back on the table. The debate has been hijacked for years by what I call exaggerators (Al Gore and Thomas Friedman, among others) and on the other end by the deniers. The information that has transcended was very distorted, and the result has been confusion not only in public but also among politicians.
Q. - But do not deny that there are politicians who will not convince, whatever the results ...
R. - It's like the big question of who killed the dinosaurs. As my mentor and teacher Luis Alvarez, people are convinced and another that will never be persuaded. Among politicians, are already convinced that they really have the ability to be leaders. To reach these, I am satisfied.
P. - In his recent appearance in the U.S. Congress, with 2% of the analyzed data from their study concludes that the results are not very different from the UN Intergovernmental Panel or NASA. ..
R. - The results are incomplete and no conclusions can be drawn yet. But it is true that the data show a trend of ups and downs in global cycles and very much in line with the previous analysis to our (the IPCC estimated a rise of 0.5 degrees over the past 50 years). I'm sure there has been global warming, but the question is still in the air has contributed much to human activity. Our goal is to achieve a measurement best temperature to conclude whether human excess is greater or less than we thought, and to act accordingly.
Q. - What is the study who did not have the other so far?
R. - First, the number of monitoring stations: more than 39,000. And then, the total of 1,600 million data on the evolution of land surface temperatures. The team is composed of 11 scientists, and it is vital the work of physicist Robert Rohde, whose mathematical interpretation of data is a major contribution to climate science. We are independent and have no political agenda. We want to be transparent and our results are open to further criticism.
Q. - How do you defend those who associated with climate skeptics?
R. - A dose of skepticism is always healthy in science. I consider myself right in the middle of the debate.
Q. - And what about the funding they have received from brothers Charles and David Koch, oil magnates and aligned with the long-deniers?
R. - The contribution is not made directly to them, but the Koch Charitable Foundation, which also supports projects for National Geographic or Discovery Channel. We have received donations from people anyway closely linked to progressive movements in the bay of San Francisco. I think the diversity of donors, including the U.S. government is a guarantee of indepedencia. Under no circumstances give money means having the ability to influence the results.
Q. - What if Al Gore had decided to put money in your study?
R. - I would have accepted delighted by committing to accept the results ... My opinion of him is reflected in my book. Their work served to alert the public about the risks of global warming, but An Inconvenient Truth is full of exaggerations and distortions and has a lot of propaganda.
P. - has also criticized the work of Rajendra Pachauri What does make the UN Panel to regain credibility?
R. - Pachauri should have resigned long ago. I know it's a difficult decision to make, and more with a Nobel under his arm, but must assume the consequences of having politicized the work of the IPCC, when their role should have been to ensure the scientific intregridad. You can not say now that 90% of its work is valid when 10% had exaggerated as the prediction that relatively soon disappear in the Himalayan glaciers.
Q. - Do you think your project can be taken for settled weather warfare? ¿No es acaso demasiado tarde?
R.- Si al final conseguimos crear un consenso científico, y no uno basado en posiciones ideológicas o políticas, ya será un avance. Merece la pena intentarlo.
0 comments:
Post a Comment