Author: Michael Beyer (Page 2 of 2)

Recently, Lockheed Martin announced breakthroughs in fusion technology. They proclaim that they will have a working prototype of a small-sized nuclear fusion reactor in 5 years. In 10 years they say this technology will be used in military operations, and in 20 it will be commercialized and satisfy civilian energy needs. Fusion reactors have been attempted to be made before, but none have succeeded for a variety of reasons (funding on the top of the list). Lockheed Martin’s reactor is different because it is a small reactor which reduces the costs significantly. They have reportedly tweaked some things about previously attempted magnetic confinement and particle recirculation. The way this works is still way over my head after reading several articles on it, but it is promising nonetheless. From this university today article, “There are a few reasons Lockheed-Martin has gone out on a limb. Consider the potential. One ton of Uranium used in Fission reactors has as much energy as 1,500 tons of coal. But fission reactors produce radioactive waste and are a finite resource without breeder reactors, themselves a nuclear proliferation risk. Fusion produces 3 to 4 times more energy per reaction than fission. Additionally, the fuel — isotopes of hydrogen — is available from sea water — which is nearly limitless — and the byproducts are far less radioactive than with fission. Fusion generators once developed could provide our energy needs for millions of years.”

http://www.universetoday.com/115411/fusion-energy-always-50-years-away-now-just-5-according-to-lockheed-martin/

In addition, Lockheed Martin is opening up their doors a little to get more minds involved in this project in which the manager has said, “We think we’ve invented something that is inherently stable.” He also said they are still early on in the scientific process, but with such enormous implications, it is hard to not pay attention to this budding project. It will be exciting to follow this story in the future, as it could change everything.

http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2014/10/lockheed-looks-partners-its-proposed-fusion-reactor-0

The climate march in NYC and around the globe on Sunday drew lots of attention to the issue of global climate change as the UN convenes their climate talks this week in NYC. Even though there are many other pertinent issues to talk about, Secretary of State John Kerry told New York Times reporters that he hopes to keep the issue of climate change at the top of the agenda.
This article discussed some of the interesting parts of the NYC march like there was a huge ice sculpture that said “Our Future” which was left to melt in front of the flatiron building. Some pretty profound stuff. But I know a few of you attended the march. What did you see and what are your thoughts coming out of the march?

The group Friends of the Earth has seemingly altered their outlook on Nuclear Power recently. In a radio interview, their campaigns director, Craig Bennett, stated that they had previously opposed nuclear due to ideological differences, but now, they oppose nuclear because of its costliness in time and money. Even so, they are still divided within their organization, “some members want it to accept nuclear’s role in the UK’s low-carbon energy mix, whilst others are as passionately anti-nuclear as in the old days of the cold war and nuclear armageddon.” The author of this article believes this is a good sign and that soon, they could warm up to nuclear power. Even so, they released this statement, “Friends of the Earth is certainly not now pro-nuclear, we have not changed our position.” The author sees the subtle shift as a “maturing” of the green movement, which is interesting.
This shows just how divided even microcosms within the green movement can be. With such controversial issues, I can see why it is so difficult to gain widespread support for these organizations.
How do you think the environmental movement can be effective while its so divided?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/sep/12/friends-of-the-earths-shift-on-nuclear-should-be-celebrated-not-denied

California has always been a leader in green policies in the US and they are really making headway with collaboration between people from both parties. Governor Brown was quoted, “While the politicians in Washington can’t get anything done because they’re stuck in their ideological foxholes, we here in California have governors from two different parties in the same room fighting for a better future.” This hopeful precedent set by a progressive state shows that inter-party communication is possible. What’s better is that California is seeing results, Matt Rodriguez, California’s secretary for environmental protection said, “Passed in 2006, Assembly Bill 32 committed California to reduce its emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and to reduce them 85 percent by 2050. Eight years later, the state is on track to meet these goals.” Their reduction of carbon emissions has been achieved mainly through energy efficiency. In conjunction with increased efficiency, California’s economy “has outpaced the nation’s economic growth. We attract more than half of the investment capital in the country,” said Schwarzenegger. It has been a criticism in years past that instituting policies that push for energy efficiency would slow the economy. In addition, California Governor Brown has been involved in advising China on carbon emission reduction programs. He also hopes to bring  his ideas to the special summit UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is convening on Sept. 23.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-09/u-dot-s-dot-may-not-be-leading-on-climate-but-california-is