@brian Nix: you’re right, we do need a balance that recognises environmental issues outside of party politics whilst also recognising that environmental solutions are applied to social and politics contexts that we just can’t ignore.

@taf: Thank your for your comment and kind remarks- I think you are the smartest and most honest and open person I know. I love you for seeing the bigger picture that is always so easy to miss X

@Bella: More open and mixed reporting is what we need- agreeing with everything you read all the time is just a sign that you have got better at ignoring the complexity of issues. Also, I do refer to Bedouins from Jordan as Jordanian Bedouins… I think you need the context. I also think that you should respect people’s wishes with regards to what they call themselves.. If they want to be called Palestinian Bedouins that I will call them Palestinian Bedouins.

By the way, the term ‘Palestinian Bedouins’ is an example of politicization. Bedouins live throughout the Middle East and we don’t refer to them as Jordanian Bedouins, Egyptian Bedouins, Syrian Bedouins…do we?

No question that growth in developing nations will require increased energy production, and solutions need be identified that absolutely protect people and the environment. But looking to expand production without exhausting conservation puts me in mind of a little kid asking for dessert before finishing their veggies.

We live in a region that is full of so many complications that it’s almost impossible to address them without some kind of incendiary response. And I don’t think it’s very helpful to bash people over the heads with these issues when they can read any other publication for that experience.

My role, as I see it, is to empower people to make smarter environmental choices and to demonstrate as much as possible the positive actions people are taking to heal the planet. Sometimes we have to take people to task who are ruining our land, water, and air to satisfy their own dubious desires, but mostly people will act when they feel inspired.

I recognize as much as anyone, given my extensive travels and research, how often politics gets in the way of meaningful action (and the untold social consequences that arise as a result). And I am all too aware of the economic, environmental, and social effects of bad government policy.

But I’m not going to allow irresponsible people seduced by power to get in the way of my responsibility, which – as I see it – is to take care of the earth. And nor should anyone else.

Mostly, though, I want to thank you Arwa for this thoughtful article. It is beautifully written and reasoned. People are understandably angered by the issues that matter to them in the Middle East and elsewhere. But this outstanding post helps us to get past the anger to a far more constructive place.

We were just discussing a rough parallel problem in U.S. ecopolitics. Speak in favor of efficiency or environmental sanity and people will assume you belong to one party (Democrats). Opponents then use the craziest things Democrats do to attack your position. Meanwhile people belonging to the Democratic party are automatically assumed to be green so they don’t have to do anything except ask their script writer to add a few “sustainable” and “green” keywords to campaign speeches and have themselves photographed at a few tree plantings. Environmentalism stutters along as a few sound bites in a bipolar political system rather than as a steady underlying theme.

On the other hand, if we ignore political realities and human tragedies and focus on pure environmentalism (whatever that is), people will see us as detached from the real world. We need balance between ignoring non-green politics and allowing ourselves to be dragged into unproductive arguments over things which don’t directly impact the environment. Greenprophet has done well to maintain this difficult and delicate balance.

I am not certain who said that, the Leveliseed Cost should factor numerous issues. For example, FOAK reactors have much, much more. Moreover, if you are referring to this,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.gif

It fails on 5-scores:

1. Factor Capacity is over 90% for non-US reactors.

2. The BWR/ABWR and ESBWR reactors have higher operating costs than PWRs, which are the global norm. In the US a combination of PWR and BWR are used.

3. US reactors (even the most modern designs) are not competitive with their competitors. Indeed, the only reason the US sold its AP1000 to China was because it was a 100% technology transfer. Chinese disatisfaction is expressed in that they intend to fund R&D of larger, superior derivatives.

4. It does not take into account FOAK (First Of A Kind) costs, as one needs to produce several before economics of scale (in construction and operation) can be achieved.

5. Jordan is opting for superior reactors to those in service in the US.

============================================
Photovoltaic was somewhat more expensive when the DOE report was published, but it won’t be for long. Photovoltaic prices per megawatt dropped 60% in the in the 4 years between 2008 and 2011. What has happened to the price of PWR Nuclear power during this time? Post Fukushima, I would imagine both the insurance costs and the safety costs have gone up.
============================================

I disagree on all of the above. To start w/Solar PV is not actually getting cheaper, & the costs of even purchasing the land and space needed is simply too much. CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) has the best development potential, but still need years of development.

============================================
The price of silicon-based photovoltaic panels stagnated for decades while the price of silicon-based computer chips plummeted. Don’t expect this to continue for long. Even if utilities can’t envisage a profitable solar power plant, their customers will soon be able to produce electricity for less than the utility rate. Photovoltaic already beats utility rates in parts of the U.S. where electricity is relatively cheap and skies are relatively cloudy. There are two other significant parallels between the PC revolution and the future of photovoltaics. The first is that like coal and nuclear utilities, pre-1975 computers were centralized behemoths. Computer Pioneer Thomas Watson famously said, “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” and Ken Olson, founder of the now defunct DEC computer company said, “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” I don’t want a nuclear power plant in my house and I certainly don’t want a coal plant. But solar…

The other parallel with computer technology is that photovoltaic panels are now being mass produced in China.
===================================

Solar PV is simply not feasible and is technically too challenging to put on a grid. It is useful for micro-applications, but lacks the potential for macro-usage.

===================================
There may be parts of the world where conventional PWR and BWR reactors still make sense. But they should be built to survive 100 year floods and earthquakes. Jordan is one of those places where conventional fission is unlikely to make economic sense even five years in the future. But the sad truth is that what seems the easiest path today is seldom the path which will convey wisdom to our grandchildren.
===================================

I have to disagree w/that statement because Jordan’s capacity for CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) and Wind have not been exploited; but even if they were, they would not solve the energy deficit. Moreover, it does not consider the fact that while Solar PV is cheap (especially CPV) is relatively competitive to highly priced oil and gas, its space requirements results in diseconomies of scale.

To make matters worse, their factor capacities (availability) are only 30-35% versus 90-95% for nuclear, and over 99% for CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) alas, CSP’s main problem is very high operating costs as the technology is not mature enough.