Sarkozy

All I really know about Nicholas Sarkozy is that American conservatives seem to really enjoy talking him up. Well, now I also know what I'm watching him say about climate change -- stuff about points of no return, and the need for urgent action. Stuff about how we should reject the false choice between stewardship of the planet and economic growth; how in a policy atmosphere designed to reduce emissions we'll create new jobs and new opportunities in new sectors of the economy. It's good stuff, and being said with a great deal of passion and charisma.

So I hope the right talks this up, too. He even likes civilian nuclear power (I, personally, am sort of nuclear agnostic but certainly open to the idea that a proper price on carbon emissions might lead to more nuclear plants), so insofar as conservatives still want to hate environmentalists they can just get on board for Sarkozyism.

UPDATE: It's been suggested in comments that "You know, if you wanted to, you could actually do some reading on this issue and come to a conclusion on whether or not nuclear power is a worthwhile investment. But I know that's not the Yglesias way." Sure, sure, I never read. Meanwhile, in the main influence on my nuclear thinking is this MIT study on the future of nuclear power.

Comments

Considering France's reliance on nuclear power, it's not surprising that he would talk it up. But kudos to Mr. Sarkozy for pointing out the false choice. I just wish that if we are going to "massively subsidize" an energy form to make it "competitive" (unlike fossil fuels or nuclear power where the magical "free market" sets the price), maybe, just maybe, we could chose solar like the Germans have.

Posted by Rihilism | September 24, 2007 11:06 AM

Of course, Sarko likes nuclear power - that's how 80% of France's electricity is produced.

He's also got a very strong incentive to be pro-action on climate change - France's per capita emissions are a third of the US's.

Posted by DavidS | September 24, 2007 11:06 AM

1. every french leader (left, right, may be some of the greens too) loves civilian nuclear. that is the policy they choose to achieve energy independance after the 70's oil shocks and their companies got really good at it.

2. he talks the green talk because during the build-up to the elections, environemental issues became a huge deal in France because of this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Hulot so Sarkozy got on board and in a triangulation strategy decided to make an issue that the left owned his own.

3. what the republicans really admire is not his program or his policies, they admire his election. after all, he managed to be the candidate of "change" while being the leader of the ruling party, being part of an unpopular government, being on the right of the center-right in a supposedly leftist country.
but they haven't started criticizing Bush while Sarkozy was criticizing Chirac since 2003, so I doubt any of them are planning to follow him on things like environemental issues or even populist proposals.

Posted by nu | September 24, 2007 11:07 AM

"He even likes civilian nuclear power"

As well he should, since his country generates about 80% of its electricity by nuclear energy, and the goverment-owned Areva is the main driving-force behind the development of the next-generation European reactor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

About the rest, well, of course neocons are extatic if they can tell the liberal, America-hating defeatists at home that even France would like to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. This is totally selective, just a rethoric tool in the domestic debate. But we know that, right?

Posted by Patrick | September 24, 2007 11:14 AM

CO2 can be mitigated. Depleted uranium cannot. Disagree? Try sprinkling radioactive material on your cornflakes in the morning and see how it goes down. Demolishing one false choice to make way for another (much worse) one is not "vision," it's banditry, it's robbing the future to pay for the present. Make no mistake, nuclear power is the Barabus of energy policy. But I overstate the case, perhaps there is a silver lining: it will have the benefit of creating new jobs in the toxic waste sector.

Posted by JC | September 24, 2007 11:15 AM

I, personally, am sort of nuclear agnostic but certainly open to the idea that a proper price on carbon emissions might lead to more nuclear plants

You know, if you wanted to, you could actually do some reading on this issue and come to a conclusion on whether or not nuclear power is a worthwhile investment. But I know that's not the Yglesias way.

Posted by Christmas | September 24, 2007 11:16 AM

It is funny how perspective works. I find it fascinating how so many people in the US including - obviously - on the left seem to like this guy when Sarkozy literally revulses any progressive in France just as Bush does revulse anybody with a social conscience here.

He is neither half the men nor half the politician he is made to be but he is brilliant at PR. His presiding has been - until now - to be in the news everyday by making a new statement, a new promise, a new speech, a new trip somewhere every single day so he looks like he is doing something and because there is a new topic every day the media does not have time to follow up on what has been promised.

In the meantime his government is already falling apart and people are already talking about a reshuffle (Mind you it was created three months ago), he has already backtracked on several of his grand-talk campaign promises and the ones he is pursuing are disgusting to anybody progressive and pro-worker (in the French context ... Keep in mind things that seem acceptable to us in the US are extremely offensive politically in France).

Now I can't entirely hate him for shaking things up over there, considering how staid the political life in France is but the bottom line is if you are progressive in France, you HAVE to despise what the guy is doing (DNA testing for immigrants that want their family to join them in France ? I mean SERIOUSLY ?), if you hate Bush's foreign policy, you have to despise his neo-conservative tendencies and go-at-it-alone impulses (like stealing the spotlight with those Bulgarian nurses by secretly promising arm deals with Libya instead of helping the UE negotiators and sharing the happy result with the rest of Europe) and if you like your politicians to be good people, you have to resent his Napoleon complex tainted with his fascination with money and luxury and the trappings of celebrity.

Not a good guy but because what he says sounds very reasonable in an American context, it is hail to Sarkozy even on the left here. Interesting.

Posted by nhuixnhuix | September 24, 2007 11:39 AM

I consider myself an environmentalist, but the fact that the environmental movement as a whole seems antagonistic towards nuclear power always makes me feel that they lack the intellectual seriousness to make those kind of difficult choices.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 11:51 AM

If you're going to do nuclear power, the French
approach is good: massive government investment,
very high standards of training and regulation,
standardized reactor designs, heavy emphasis on
safety in reactor design. The US nuclear industry
is a mess. Private corporations just can't deal
with this kind of technology: they can't handle
the long timescales of waste disposal and reactor
decommissioning, they can't handle the uncertainties
in the massive capital costs of construction, and
most alarmingly, with limited liability they can't
account for the potentially catastrophic costs of
a bad accident.

I'm open to the argument that nuclear power has a
place in a rational energy strategy (though I think
each $ of conservation is a better marginal
investment right now than a $ of nuke plant,
and 5 years from solar photovoltaic might get
very competitive). But the way the US does it
is a disaster waiting to happen.

Posted by Richard Cownie | September 24, 2007 11:53 AM

toxic waste ?

I thought that's why god created the land between Perth and Adelaide, New Mexico and Chad.

Posted by rock | September 24, 2007 12:18 PM

nhuixnhuix -

If what you're saying is true (not saying it isn't, just saying I haven't taken the time to inform myself regarding French Politics in general or Sarkozy in particular,..., like the fine folks brought to you by Atlantic Monthly...) then I respectfully withdraw my kudos.

Freddie -

Perhaps "they lack the intellectual seriousness to make those kind of" false "choices". Listen, nuclear power is subsidized to within an inch of it's life. The industry has a marginal saftey record (to put it kindly) and there is no solution to the waste problem. If we're going to go down that road (and make Uncle Dick's friends rich in the process) then why not follow another path (and make Uncle Dick's friends get rich but not as fast). If we're going to such lengths to make an energy "alternative" "competitive", then why not pick solar?

Posted by Rihilism | September 24, 2007 12:25 PM

Nitpick: it's Nicolas, not Nicholas.

Posted by cedichou | September 24, 2007 12:27 PM

If we're going to such lengths to make an energy "alternative" "competitive", then why not pick solar?

Because solar isn't presently a viable alternative for a whole variety of reasons. I absolutely support pursuing research into solar, but for immediate change, nuclear is a real option, in a way that solar isn't. I mean, look-- we keep being told that global warming is an enormous and imminent threat. If that's the case, then how do we not turn to nuclear? Yes, it's true that the waste is a problem. But it doesn't appear to be even close to the problem presented by global warming, if the popular consensus is correct.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 12:34 PM

It's not the nuclear power. It's the nuclear waste that comes with it.

If it's such a great idea, why don't the MIT experts want to bury the stuff just west of Boston? Should be no problem, right?

There is no safe place to bury it...that's the issue.

Posted by Garuda | September 24, 2007 12:37 PM

"Because solar isn't presently a viable alternative for a whole variety of reasons."

Like I said earlier, Freddie, maybe we should take a looksy at what is going on in Germany. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402466.html

I'm sorry, but your suggestion that solar isn't viable is simply wrong.

Love,
Rihi

Posted by Rihilism | September 24, 2007 12:45 PM

This, from the press release on the MIT study, says it all. One of the stated goals of the report is to offer recommendations "Advancing a U.S. Department of Energy balanced long-term waste management R&D program." Before you create something that will be toxic for the rest of human history, why not first get _past_ the R&D stage? As for the suggestion that nuclear present environmentalists with a "difficult decision", well, I suppose I agree, but there is no reason to make that Sophie's Choice. I like the French, but poisoning all future generations because Sarkozy likes the idea just doesn't work for me.

Posted by JC | September 24, 2007 12:51 PM

Re: the update: The problem isn't that you "never read," it's that you don't read all that much about issues that don't interest you all that much (like renewable energy and the environment), but you feel entitled to comment on them anyway. Nuclear power requires massive subsidies in order to make it a realistic replacement for carbon/fossil fuels, and in doing so it provides an added security and environmental risk that nobody's figured out how to contain. On top of that, uranium isn't any more unlimited than oil, and at our current rate of energy usage we'd convert the world's supply of uranium to nuclear waste fairly quickly. But then again, you'd already know this if you'd done more reading than a single paper from MIT that confirms your contrarian impulses.

See Brad Plumer for more on this, as well as this (PDF), this (PDF), and this.

Posted by Christmas | September 24, 2007 12:54 PM

I'm sorry, but your suggestion that solar isn't viable is simply wrong.

Here's the money quote from your own link.

"For now, the technology remains expensive and barely registers as a fraction of total energy production -- less than 0.5 percent. The government hopes to increase that figure to 3 percent by 2020."

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 12:54 PM

"For now, the technology remains expensive and barely registers as a fraction of total energy production -- less than 0.5 percent. The government hopes to increase that figure to 3 percent by 2020."

Freddie, have you taken a look at how much money we'd have to pour into nuclear to make it a viable substitute for fossil fuels? If we put that money into wind and solar instead, we could develop technologies that are viable and have the added advantage of not poisoning us.

Posted by Christmas | September 24, 2007 12:59 PM

I like the French, but poisoning all future generations because Sarkozy likes the idea just doesn't work for me.

Except that that's a willfully ridiculous explanation of France's current situation. What evidence whatsoever do you have that France's future generations will be poisoned? This is just another part of the vague nuclear hysteria that suggests that nuclear power is really bad, without having real evidence to support that claim. We can't currently dispose of nuclear waste, it's true. But we can and do store it safely. The question is the space it takes and the long term viability of current storage methods. No one is being poisoned. Which, I might add, is not the case with conventional fossil fuels, which are constantly pumping harmful gaseous waste into our atmosphere.

This is what drives me crazy. If the Netherlands and Bangladesh really are about to fall into the sea, then we have to make some choices that we don't like. So is global warming really this incredible, imminent threat or not? And if it is, why not take that threat seriously? Because I promise you, saying "Let's not do nuclear, let's switch to solar" right now, in the current technological and economic reality, is really a vote for the global-warming contributing status quo.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 1:01 PM

Freddie, have you taken a look at how much money we'd have to pour into nuclear to make it a viable substitute for fossil fuels?

Actually, we don't have to pour money into nuclear research to make it a viable alternative; it is already a viable alternative. A significant portion of this country's energy needs were once provided by nuclear energy, and could be again. France, a large, modern, Westernized, and energy hungry country is already deriving the majority of its energy from nuclear power. There is no reason the United States couldn't either. Contrast that with solar and wind, which are simply incapable at present, or in the foreseeable future, of significantly reducing our carbon-emission producing fossil fuels.

And, I'm told, that fossil fuel dependence is creating an imminent and enormous disaster for ourselves and the rest of the world. So what do you propose? How would you reduce that dependence, and help slow this coming disaster, without destroying our economy, without nuclear energy? I'm all ears.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 1:09 PM

Look, Freddie has a point. MAYBE Nuclear power is the wrong way to go. Maybe it will cause future problems. But global warming IS a problem. It's a problem we have to deal with now, and it's not one where we can afford to wait until a perfect solution appears. It sucks to admit that you were wrong, but we may have been a bit hasty in rejecting nuclear power.

If push comes to shove, we can always find SOMETHING to do with the waste. It's not like we HAVE to poison OUR planet. We have a moon, we have a whole solar system to ourselves. We do have real options when it comes to getting rid of nuclear waste, no matter how much it might cost. We do not appear to have any other options when it comes to global warming.

Posted by Soullite | September 24, 2007 1:19 PM

The problem with the nuclear power industry is its the classic case of corporate welfare--- privatize the profits, socialize the costs. The French have the right idea, the government socialized the industry so the government gets both sides of the stick.

Since the conservatives hate government more than they love nuclear power, they would never go for that. However, The Tennessee Valley Authority (a government agency) has operated power plants, including a few nuclear plants, for decades. And the US Navy has built and operated more nuclear reactors than the entire civilian nuclear industry and has never had a death or even an accident (the Thresher and Scorpion sank for reasons unrelated to their reactors).

Nuclear waste is an issue, but so are global warming and pollution. Nuclear waste is being stored on-site safely. Burying it in the desert or dropping it in Marianas Trench would allow it be stored safely forever.

In the here and now, nearly 24,000 people a year die from pollution from coal burning plants. even if all available pollution control technology was immediately implemented, almost 2,000 people a year would still die.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/

How many people have died because of nuclear power, whether civilian or Navy? Even if the most fervent anti-nuclear material is believed, the number is closer to zero than 24,000. Its probably less than the average of 50 coal miners who die every year.

Posted by beowulf | September 24, 2007 1:25 PM

Now the same article says that Germany's goal is to achieve 25% renewable by 2020. Other than cost, is there anything in that article that suggests that solar technology (or wind, or biofuels, or other renewable energies) is not viable or that the technology is too immature to be implemented?

And since the real costs of oil and nuclear power are either hidden by tax breaks, or subsidies, or simply ignoring the lack of any long term solution to supply (there is not a limitless supply of material for use in nuclear power plants either) or long term waste/pollution or the long term geopolitical implications of both technologies (hellllloooo? "smoking gun is mushroom cloud"..., helllooo?)?

Well, can you understand why I'd be disinterested in throwing gobs of money down a rabbit hole for a nuclear power plant (that "might" come on line in, say, ten years?) and that I may have already evaluated the efficacy of all available technologies and seriously considered all the choices I have?

My apologies for the long sentences, folks, I can be a little touchy when someone suggests I'm not be "serious" enough.

Posted by Rihilism | September 24, 2007 1:32 PM

Now the same article says that Germany's goal is to achieve 25% renewable by 2020.

The article you linked to? It doesn't say that at all. It says the hope is to reach 3% by 2020.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 1:43 PM

Whoops, I see what you mean. It wants to be 25% renewable by 2020, with solar at 3%. My fault.

Well, can you understand why I'd be disinterested in throwing gobs of money down a rabbit hole for a nuclear power plant (that "might" come on line in, say, ten years?) and that I may have already evaluated the efficacy of all available technologies and seriously considered all the choices I have?

Okay, I have to say, it's really as if you've mistaken the efficacy and proven track record of solar for that of nuclear. You are talking of nuclear as a pie-in-the-sky rabbit hole, with solar as some sort of sure thing. The opposite is true. It most certainly wouldn't take ten years to develop a new nuclear power plant. We have many operating in this country right now! One is less than five miles from my house. This is a proven technology. And yes, it has disadvantages. But in the face of global warming, those disadvantages seem like a good tradeoff. And, look, anyone with any expertise in this area will tell you that solar and wind simply aren't realistic short-term solutions for us.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 1:48 PM

"And, I'm told, that fossil fuel dependence is creating an imminent and enormous disaster for ourselves and the rest of the world."

Are you now?

Well, perhaps they also told you that it's probably too late to actually do anything to mitigate the effects of global warming.

To use one poor decision to rationalize another one seems a bit "unserious", no?

Posted by Rihilism | September 24, 2007 1:49 PM

While by no means an expert, I do have my bachelors in ChemE and my masters in CEE (all from my lovely state college), and I can provide you with reasonable assurance that unless you have a giant magical copier machine with which to insert the nearby plant and spit out an exact duplicate (complete with that lovely, high-tech, art nouveau, circa 1950's design), that yes, in fact, it will take at least 10-20 years to plan, design, and build a brand-spanking new nuclear power plant. How long do you think it takes to build a conventional coal plant? One sunny afternoon in September?

Posted by Rihilism | September 24, 2007 1:58 PM

Well, perhaps they also told you that it's probably too late to actually do anything to mitigate the effects of global warming.

If "they" did, then they're being incredibly disingenuous. Yes, it's true that sea levels are already going to rise, populations are being displaced, species are going extinct, etc. But we can affect how badly those effects will be, and how rapidly they will take place, if we act quickly enough.

Posted by Christmas | September 24, 2007 2:03 PM

If push comes to shove, we can always find SOMETHING to do with the waste. It's not like we HAVE to poison OUR planet. We have a moon, we have a whole solar system to ourselves.

Yeah, because ROCKET FUEL is so easy and clean to produce. Nice magical thinking there. Why don't we just ask Superman to throw all our nuclear waste into the sun?

Posted by Christmas | September 24, 2007 2:07 PM

yes, in fact, it will take at least 10-20 years to plan, design, and build a brand-spanking new nuclear power plant. How long do you think it takes to build a conventional coal plant? One sunny afternoon in September?

According to Westinghouse, the most advanced of their reactors can be operational in 36 months, with a full-blown plant construction generally taking 4 and a half to five years.

Again, this is obtuse. There is absolutely no way that a solar plant can be produced that could come close to producing the electricity of a nuclear plant Forget about how long-- with current technology, it just can't be done. Solar and wind are not even close to being able to provide the amounts of energy that nuclear is. And they aren't close, either.

Now as I've said again and again, there are arguments against nuclear power. But when you continue to maintain that solar or wind power are viable alternatives, you're just wrong. I'm sorry. Find me a single reputable scientific source that suggests that solar or wind are capable today of significantly replacing fossil fuels. You can't, because they aren't. Sucks, it's true. But that's life.

And, again-- by insisting on no nuclear, you are in effect, if not in intent, insisting on more carbons in the atmosphere. Because we're not gonna stop using energy, and we're not going to get what we need from solar, wind, fusion or fuel cells. Not for a long, long time.

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 2:09 PM

Actually, we don't have to pour money into nuclear research to make it a viable alternative; it is already a viable alternative.

Read the links I posted previously. In order for nuclear power to supply the world's energy needs, we would have to build three nuclear power plants a week every week for fifty years. Every one of those plants costs a lot of money to build, a lot of money to maintain, and a lot of money to secure - and they all would produce tons and tons of nuclear waste that, once again, we have no idea what to do with.

Posted by Christmas | September 24, 2007 2:12 PM

And given that replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power would be grotesquely expensive - and would ultimately only delay a resource problem as we replace peak oil with peak uranium - spending hundreds of billions of dollars on thousands of new nuclear plants would come at an opportunity cost of funding renewable resources like wind and solar. Nuclear is just a bad idea on a number of levels: it's dirty, it's expensive, it doesn't solve the problem, and it gets in the way of spending resources on developing real solutions.

Posted by Christmas | September 24, 2007 2:29 PM

According to Westinghouse, the most advanced of their reactors can be operational in 36 months

And according to Microsoft, there are no bugs in their software, and according to the Bush Administration, we have just turned the cornet in Iraq (again!), and according to me, I'm smarter than Obama (so what if I didn't finish college!).

Posted by kvenlander | September 24, 2007 2:30 PM

Why do I have a feeling I'm on an episode of Candid Camera? Oh, well, what the hell...

Yes, well, if Westinghouse said it, it must be true. They don't stand to gain anything from stretching the truth a bit. And of course, everyone knows that large projects always come in on time and under budget and that five years never winds up being 10-20. And, finally, I'm certain that all construction will meet or exceed specifications despite a condensed schedule.

"...solar or wind are capable today of significantly replacing fossil fuels.

Funny, I don't recall implying that they would, "today". Only suggesting that rather throw money "down" a rabbit hole, we might want to consider alternatives in the time it will take us to "respond".

"Find me a single reputable scientific source that suggests that solar or wind are capable today of significantly replacing fossil fuels."

Well find me a single scientific source that says we have technology today to send manned missions successfully to the outer solar system. My apologies, I don't do research to counter specious arguments.

"But we can affect how badly those effects will be, and how rapidly they will take place, if we act quickly enough."

Yes, it is possible, but highly unlikely.

Posted by Rihilism | September 24, 2007 2:41 PM

So? We licence France's most advanced model, and immediately start building those, while Westinghouse gets their act in gear.

The whole nuclear waste 'problem' is a sham; Coal plants put out more curies of radioactive isotopes per KWH than nuclear plants do, and THOSE wastes aren't exactly being dropped down a hole into a subduction zone. Nuclear plants don't need insane levels of waste isolation to be better than fossil fuels, they'd be better if you just dumped the stuff in a pile somewhere off in the dessert, and put a fence around it.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 24, 2007 2:41 PM

In order for nuclear power to supply the world's energy needs, we would have to build three nuclear power plants a week every week for fifty years.

I'm not suggesting that we replace all of the world's energy production with nuclear. I am saying that we can significantly ameliorate the problem of global warming by switching a large percentage of our electricity production to nuclear plants. Yes, it takes time to build a nuclear plant. That is no reason not to do it. All of the evidence tells us that it is easier and faster to produce nuclear power plants than solar or wind plants.

Every one of those plants costs a lot of money to build, a lot of money to maintain, and a lot of money to secure - and they all would produce tons and tons of nuclear waste that, once again, we have no idea what to do with.

And so the price of electricity might rise slightly. That is a small price to pay, if the anti-global warming movement's picture of the coming events is accurate. And, despite what you seem to think are prohibitive costs, it has worked profitably in this country in the past, works profitably in some places in this country currently, and works profitably in many other parts of the world currently.

Nuclear is just a bad idea on a number of levels: it's dirty, it's expensive, it doesn't solve the problem, and it gets in the way of spending resources on developing real solutions.

1. It is not dirty; it produces no gaseous emissions, unlike fossil fuels. It does produce dangerous waste that we can't currently dispose of. We can and do, however, store it-- perfectly safely and effectively. To call nuclear power "dirty" is just dishonest.

2. It's more expensive than conventional fossil fuels, but not unmanageably so, no. Remember that nuclear existed previously not because it didn't produce greenhouse gases but simply because it presented an economically viable alternative for energy production. What you're saying is in direct conflict with nuclear powers history.

3. It does solve the problem, if the problem is reducing carbon emissions to slow global warming.

4. The allocation of resources, of course, is a judgment call. But I would certainly say that nuclear power seems a far wiser recipient of resources than solar and wind. It's incredible that, given what we currently know about that technology and it's near future, you can dismiss nuclear and call solar and wind "real solutions."

Posted by Freddie | September 24, 2007 2:47 PM

Rihilism's enthusiasm for solar leads him into several fibs common to technologically illiterate people that seize on absurd 1960s hippie beliefs in "exciting alternative energy for your organic A-Frame in harmony with Mother Earth":

maybe, just maybe, we could chose solar like the Germans have.

No, the Germans didn't chose it, the ministry chose it by passing a regulation without the German people's vote that the Green Party would get their demand that all solar power must be bought and costs spread through the electricity bills. It's not like solar is even remotely competitive with other forms of power.

If we're going to such lengths to make an energy "alternative" "competitive", then why not pick solar?

Because solar isn't competitive. Right now, nuclear is, in cost per KW - It's barriers are high intial cost of construction and the political issue of waste and reprocessing. Solar is not only uncompetitive in cost, it is unreliable, unstorable, and not able - like a nuke, hydro, of fossil fuel - to ramp up or down on demand 24/7/365. Solar is obviously unavailable much of the average day, of low power even when the sun is up in peak demand hours, and blocked by weather for weeks at a time.

I'm sorry, but your suggestion that solar isn't viable is simply wrong.

The Germans admit, with the exception of some hysterical Greenies that have their "All-Solar Dream" that solar will only be a small fraction of electricity generated, ever, because there is an economic limit to the high costs that can be passed on to ratepayers electric bills and diffused with cheaper coal, lignite, and nuclear power gen costs.
German Ratepayers can absorb solar's huge costs per KW when it is only 0.4% of their power generation but 6% of their power generation costs on a bill. It's primarily a political "Ve feel good, dat ve Germans dominate others in our evironmental consciousness!" thing.

lovely, high-tech, art nouveau, circa 1950's design), that yes, in fact, it will take at least 10-20 years to plan, design, and build a brand-spanking new nuclear power plant.

Nope, the French and Japanese, from siting to main breaker closure cranking out power on a nuke plant takes 7 years. 5 in some cases. It would take America longer because we have been moribund in new construction for 30 years. Lead times for equipment manufacturers and construction workforce learning curves are not what they were before

is there anything in that article that suggests that solar technology....other enewable energies... is not viable or that the technology is too immature to be implemented?

Well, yes, starting with solar's inherent unreliability and lack of ability to adjust to demand...it's costing consumers 15-50 times as much per Kw depending on level of government subsidy. A problem is that much of the environmental movement lacks scientific grounding and has pure emotional faith that magic technologies are on the horizon that if only "matured" will give limitless, affordable, clean energy. Not so.
Solar is only 0.4% of power in gung-ho Germany. In 2020 it could be UP to 3%.
In the US, the dream of the magic elixirs of ethanol and biodiesel soon came up against the realities of soil depletion on "switchgrass" range, and against the reality that the full US soybean crop would only replace 7% of diesel use, and corn only 12% of gas use while quintupling food prices for the poor.

Christmas - Freddie, have you taken a look at how much money we'd have to pour into nuclear to make it a viable substitute for fossil fuels?

I can't speak for Freddie, but nukes are already cheaper than oil and natural gas and will be for the future. And far cheaper and more reliable than solar or wind or biofuels. Nukes costs of decommissioning plants and spent fuel storage are already included in ratepayer costs. Nuke would be competitive with coal if CO2 and coal mine pollution costs were added.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 24, 2007 3:00 PM

"It does solve the problem, if the problem is reducing carbon emissions to slow global warming."

Ah, yes, there's the rub...

"...cranking out power on a nuke plant takes 7 years."

Ok, we're up to seven,..., eight, nine, ten,..., anybody?

"It would take America longer because we have been moribund in new construction for 30 years."

And the winner is,..., Crazy Chris, ladies and gentleman! (tremendous applause...)

Posted by Rihilism | September 24, 2007 3:10 PM

From the MIT Study news release:
"The study examines a growth scenario where the present deployment of 360 GWe of nuclear capacity worldwide is expanded to 1000 GWe in MID-CENTURY, keeping nuclear's share of the electricity market about constant. Deployment in the U.S. would expand from about 100 GWe today to 300 GWe in MID-CENTURY. This scenario is not a prediction, but rather a study case in which nuclear power would make a SIGNIFICANT contribution to reducing CO2 emissions."

My emphasis. While I certainly respect the work the smarty-pants MITer's are doing, the committee reports tend to be tad on the conservative side when it comes to "wow, I would have never thought that were true" opinions and also for their hemmin' and hawin' regarding their "predictions". Who would have thought that nuclear power wasn't the panecea that was going to save the world in the next 5-10 years. Of course, next, someone will ask me to provide evidence that MIT exists.

I would also note that the committee had the gall to suggest that:
"The authors of the study emphasized that nuclear power is not the only non-carbon option and stated that they believe it should be pursued as a long term option along with other options such as the use of renewable energy sources, increased efficiency, and carbon sequestration.."

The later, is, of course, my preference, though I tend toward the unserious and technologically illiterate...

Posted by Rihilism | September 24, 2007 4:03 PM

Are people really ready to say that nuclear power is safe? Have we forgotten about Chernobyl already? Talk about willfully ridiculous. And please don't say, well the technology is much better, when we still don't know what to do with the waste. A reactor and the waste it produces is only as safe as the infrastructure designed to support it. And when that infrastructure goes or the will to fund it evaporates, safety follows suit. Just ask the residents of the lower 9th ward about whether that's true. Even the nuclear people know this, which is why they hired anthropologists to try an come up with a symbol for "danger" at Yucca Mountain because they expect the word "danger" (or any other modern language) will outlast the hazard. So what's the argument: sure we don't know what to do with the waste but let's generate it anyway because we really have no other alternative? What's the plan? What's the silver bullet? Pollution credits for uranium. "Hello, I'd like to place a put on these pollution futures for the year 12,000 AD." How bout, instead, we start with something sane, like higher CAFE standards or follow BMW and switch to hydrogen or electric vehicles. How bout we spend the money we would waste on one reactor to build more rail. Or securing the chemical and nuclear plants we already have. Let's try things that don't have the potential to poison people first. It is all well and good to talk about the feasibility of solar, or any other alternative, or float a thousand reasons why they don't work, but to turn around and then talk about how nuclear is just around the corner without offering any explanation of what would be done with waste that doesn't presuppose the perpetual existence of NRC is inconsistent. I am sorry but the nuclear energy sector does not have a monopoly on the future. Fund nuclear research, yes. Build reactors, no way.

Posted by JC | September 24, 2007 4:45 PM

Richard Cownie, Rihilism, Christmas

thank you for your good comments! I thought I was alone out there at some stage!

Richard, you are right. The way that solar is tackled in the US reminds me of the mobile phone adoption.. but it does not matter - the US will follow suite eventually. Arnie has introduced a promising initiative in CA (similar to some successful models in Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan..)

Rihilism, Christmas
One common modeling mistake when comparing solar is that one does not look at retail prices (which always include transportation costs and the grid) and one does not look at peak load costs per kWh. If those were included in the model - solar, with today's technologies can cover 20+% of demand economically (aka cheaper). No C02 discussion - only economics!

Either way - there will be more demand than supply for solar for many decades to come! I keep posting this great lecture by Microsoft Research: Solar Revolution

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 24, 2007 5:17 PM

JC - And please don't say, well the technology is much better, when we still don't know what to do with the waste.

We always did. Reprocessing.

1. To start off with, a 1200 MW coal plant produces wastes, including CO2, on the order of 7 million tons, that would fill 8 football stadiums to the brim with ash, heavy metals, nitrates, sulphuric acid(or calcium sulphate if scrubbed), and liquid CO2 (if recovered and compressed).

A 1200 MW nuclear plant has a core only 12 feet by 12 feet. In that core, 1/3rd of assemblies are removed every 18 months or so. Those assemblies are 1/3rd fuel in space. A cube between 5 and 6 feet in dimension compared to the massive amount of waste a coal plant makes. Add in a cube 10 feet in dimension that is the low-level rad waste a typical plant creates in 18 months.

2. A little known fact the public has never gotten from fear mongers is that that spent fuel volume has 97% reusable uranium 238, and 2.7% burnable transuranics like plutonium, and 0.3% intensely radioactive, shortlived fission products. All the intense "radioactivity" problem is in the fission products which if separated out and fixed in glass, are almost non-radioactive in 200-300 years as all the half-lives are consuming up the stuff. The "long-lived" deadly transuranics are in fact mildly radioactive. (You could put a non-critical mass of plutonium on your desk and work safely for years and not exceed any rad exposure limits. ) The problem with that is that it has very long half lives and doesn't go away like the FPs. Reprocessing and burning the transuranics up ends 99% of the long lived rad waste.

3. Reprocessing is not used because (a)The Idiot, Jimmy Carter, thought that the only way other countries would understand reprocessing is if they got the technology from the big 5 nuke powers weapons programs. Not so. The reprocessing is simple chem engineering and moderately high tech rad control. We were reprocessing 65 years ago with 1 year to learn how. (b)The Idiot also believed that the US government could reprocess for weapons grade plutonium and that wouldn't be diverted, but once civilian fuel was reprocessed at the same sort of secure facilities, it would be diverted. (c)Right now, reprocessing is more expensive than once-through fuel cycle. (d)Reactors in the 70s were largely designed not to run on MOX (mixed U-Pu oxide) fuel so "reprocessing was not needed) . Now reactors are all designed so MOX can be used and all the Pu burned up for electric generation.

4. Nuclear production of plutonium is a funny thing. It goes through "generations" of isotopes as neutrons are absorbed, and each isotope is very different. This allows for good reassurance that the plutonium is not generally usable for nuke weapons if it is burned long enough, which is extracting the full energy out in "once-through" light water reactors before they are shut down for refueling. PU-239 is the weapons stuff, and must be present in levels greater than 93% of total plutonium to overcome the neutron absorption and fast fission effects of PU-240 and 241. In spent fuel from civilian reactors, it is only 85% or less...

Thus, you can't steal spent fuel (somehow) from a reprocessing facility and get a nuclear-yield bomb out of the stuff.

5. People that say we can't have nukes or reprocessing but should count on fission omit that a future of fusion power produces radioactive waste from high energy neutrons inherent in conventional fusion processes, requires nuclear reactors to make tritium fuelstock, and the most efficient fusion reactor is one that will generate plutonium from neutron absorptions in a U-238 blanket surrounding the core.

6. People thinking "alternate energy" have to look at the scale differences. Germany's new "Huge solar plant" will cost 500 million and produce 40 MW a few hours out of a few days of the year. You would need 30 to replace 1 nuke plant for those few hours and days, more for lower power or bad weather days, and invest in entirely different sort of power plant for nightime requirements. Same with windfarms. 40 MW is "huge" for them as well. With the same limits - wind independent of consumer demand - no storage...unreliable..

***********
Matt's saying he is a "nuclear agnostic" is interesting. It sounded curious when Hillary used it as a way to say she was taking no position on it.
***********
Left unsaid in the debate on energy is that it really comes down to an "Either-Or" decision if you think global warming and CO2 induced warming is real - as most of us do.

1. Given the limitations of "exciting alternative energy sources", to continue with population growth and high standard of living, we will need to transition from fossil fuel to nuclear breeder reactors, reprocessing, and fusion plants that make plutonium.

OR

2. Go with a conservation, further and further restrictions on growth, population, and usage until the number of people and limits imposed on them matches the very low capacity of "exciting alternative, renewable energy sources".

Globally, this would mean an end to immigration, accepting refugees for any reason except in a country where the natives are dying off. It would mean strict birth limits and possibly barring parasitic people from having any kids - until global population reaches the 1 billion or so "sustainablity ration with sustainable energy".

Ironically, the very people that are most against new power plants of any kind - vehemently against evil oillll, nuclear anything, and filthy coal smothering Gaia are the biggest cheerleaders (outside fatcat corporatists) for Open Borders, right of welfare moms to get support pegged to how many kids they crank out.

Conservation? Doesn't even cover the Legal immigration the US has accepted since 1973 let alone illegal...America is going to 363 million in 2030 and 420 million by 2050 with present policies,,,and with oil likely to go away in large part when it now provides 40% of our energy usage.

Economists say we now use 108 Quadrillion BTUs of energy and even with projected conservation savings, will need at least 122 Quads of we reach 400 million Americans.

More nukes?
More restrictions on people?

Choose your unsavory option...

Posted by Chris Ford | September 24, 2007 6:45 PM

Re: CO2 can be mitigated. Depleted uranium cannot. Disagree?

No, but CO2 goes into the atmosphere while spent nuke fuel goes back into the ground where it came from in the first place. A very small increase of CO2 in the atmosphere damages the entire planet. Even a large nuke leak damages a small and local environment (and also decays in about the same time it takes CO2 to be naturally cycled out of the atmosphere). While I am not a panicmonger on global warming, its consequences are far more serious and global than anything likely to happen with nuclear power. (Of course I am talking nuclear power-- not nuclear war. The latter is another matter entirely, and I suspect that many anti-nuke folks conflate nuclear bombs with nuclear power)

Posted by JonF | September 24, 2007 7:08 PM

More nukes?
More restrictions on people?

Choose your unsavory option...

I choose what's behind door number three, Monty!

Posted by Rihilism | September 24, 2007 8:06 PM

Chris Ford

People thinking "alternate energy" have to look at the scale differences. Germany's new "Huge solar plant" will cost 500 million and produce 40 MW a few hours out of a few days of the year. You would need 30 to replace 1 nuke plant for those few hours and days, more for lower power or bad weather days, and invest in entirely different sort of power plant for nightime requirements. Same with windfarms. 40 MW is "huge" for them as well. With the same limits - wind independent of consumer demand - no storage...unreliable..

Solar does not need a grid and is therefore even more economical than nuclear when it comes to peak hours. In the future one could use already economical local storage (mini-grids could also connect fuel cells in cars, etc.). The same tradition happened in when information technologies moved away from mainframes to client/server and now the Internet.

Building 30 40MW solar plants can and IS happening grass-roots style via business men from the market (like the Internet). It costs the same as building a nuclear plant but it does not face a single point of failure (distributed) and does not have to stretch the grid to the max.

Germany is aiming at only 20-30% from solar over the next 2 decades as they are fading OUT nuclear (but at their current speed their are heading for more?). Siemens is one of the most important nuclear plant players and despite all that - they put their money into solar.. because they have done their calculation years ago!

PS: the problem with solar is not nights or cloudy days. with current technologies (panels and storage) - Germany would need only 2% of its area (15% are already covered by concrete) to deliver 100%. The problem with solar is that it has never received the Gov funding that nuclear did. Solar is only 10 years younger - this time around - when Government start to chose between solar and nuclear - I hope that it will at least hedge its bets?!

they will think of the times when we had to deal with Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India & Co who all wanted nuclear energy and more.. and we had no alternative to point to..

Iran/India have plenty of sun.. Solar would be more economical than in Germany or Japan where it is being deployed. It could be manufactured locally..

I was a big fan of nuclear due to its low emissions until the 90s. We can survive a Hiroshima and a Chernobyl - but not an ecological crisis. But the last decade an economical tipping point emerged and greener solar meant also more green for business. We do not have to expand the risk of nuclear accounting (the IAEA is overwhelmed anyway) and we do not have to risk potential human health concerns when there is an equally clean, equally economical alternative.

Claiming there are no alternatives is not right. Or at least when dismissing solar - one should do more homework than cloudy days and nights. Much more!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 24, 2007 8:21 PM

I don't know how we got to the idea that Co2 is more dangerous than uranium, but it does seem that this discussion, while illuminating, has wandered pretty far afield. To return to the original proposition: does Sarkozy's bid to offset GHG with nuclear make sense, and how much of an offset would be necessary to justify the hazard that spent nuclear fuel would present? Proponents of nuclear suggest that the hazard is not nearly as real as hysterical environmentalists would suggest. To their credit, proponents do not suggest that there is no harm, only that it is small relative to global warming. Opponents of nuclear, including me, say, on the other hand, that there is no reason to assume the risk that spent fuel presents, which I contend is significant especially when no one knows how to mitigate it, when it is unnecessary to do so. What is the goal, exactly? To reduce greenhouse gas emissions? If so, stabilization wedges (comprised of existing technologies and policies) can do that. Or are we talking about sustainable energy policy? If so, I concede, alternative energy is not enough to meet growing energy demand (current or projected), given _current_ technology, markets, and deployment. To say that the _only_ way to meet growing energy demand and simultaneously reduce greenhouse gases is to go nuclear is an specious argument, because it selectively holds some variables constant--we will figure out a way to mitigate nuclear waste but we won't figure out away to make solar or wind more efficient or to deploy them on a wider/distributed scale. But neither CO2 emissions nor energy demand _require_ that we construct more nuclear power plants. If nuclear is not necessary, then there ought to be a good argument for why we need it. Say what you will about how confused the public is about the dangers of nuclear energy, the fuel material, no matter how you torture the periodic table, is not safe. In fact, it is permanently unsafe. Leaving aside the 97% that is reused, assuming even for the sake of argument that this is even generally true or generally enforceable, it's the other 3% that matters. No one here knows what to do with that 3% beyond given the nuclear industry a pass. "Ok, I don't know what to do about this hazmat so I am just going to produce it anyway and hope it works out." It's so symptomatic of the realignment in the environmental debate that now the threat of one environmental harm is being used to justify another. It's like trying to save someone from drowning by lighting them on fire.

Posted by JC | September 24, 2007 9:28 PM

JC

If so, I concede, alternative energy is not enough to meet growing energy demand (current or projected), given _current_ technology, markets, and deployment.

Please elaborate on this claim. I have seen this statement far too often without any explanation or reference!

Thank you!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 24, 2007 9:34 PM

Earthquakes make burial a stupid option, whether in the desert or deep in some ocean trench.

If on-site burial is so safe, then, yes, let's make sure nuclear plants near Boston, New York and Washington D.C. bury their own nuke waste on-site.

Since the record of on-site safety is so good, then no one who lives in those areas could possibly complain.

Posted by Garuda | September 24, 2007 9:45 PM

Hugo's right about distributed generation, and solar and wind have many more on site applications than solar. investing in solar in the developed world, taking advantage of energy demand here drives innovation, brings down costs, increases efficiency and diversity of application. This in turn makes energy more available and affordable for countries that do not now have centralized grids. centralized systems, including the best nuclear power plants in the world lose power as they pass electricity along the grid. developing local power sources--the kind envisioned in CA's million solar roof programs, helps smooth peak loads, reduces losses along lines, and helps prevent against massive blackouts like the one in ny in 2003. the other political difficulty with nuclear by comparison is the trouble we are having with iran right now, how does the us tell basically the rest of the world that they can't have plants when they start building one per week. and even if the u.s. does allow every nation on earth to have nuclear power how does it control that power from falling into the hands of groups who see annihilation as a desirable political objective. or alternatively if that is not possible then what exactly is the problem with what iran is doing. by comparison i don't remember ever reading anything about the imminent threat solar or wind would pose if they fell into the wrong hands. if nuclear is no threat, someone should let the state department know, because they didn't get the memo.

Posted by JC | September 25, 2007 12:13 AM

1. Anyone claiming that alternative energies such as solar or wind can come close to providing a significant alternative to fossil fuels is simply factually incorrect. I wish it weren't so. But given the realities of those technologies, it's simply not possible. That is a point conceded by even the most enthusiastic of those who are serious and committed to solar or wind power. I am optimistic for the future, but that kind of development is a long way off.

2. It is not accurate to say that nuclear power has a bad safety record. By almost any criteria, nuclear energy has an excellent safety record.

3. The problem of nuclear waste is being exaggerated. Yes, at present, we have no way of permanently destroying the waste. Yes, it does take some space to contain the waste. Yes, in the wrong set of circumstances, the waste could prove harmful. But the fact is that we are currently perfectly capable at storing nuclear waste safely and cleanly, and while it does take space, it is in perspective a tiny amount in an enormous country. The notion that the waste may someday be dangerous is a real concern, but I find it weird to focus on that, when the risk of an accidental detonation of one of our thousands of nuclear warheads is so much greater.

Posted by Freddie | September 25, 2007 12:28 AM

Freddie, you are thinking in the wrong dimension, it is not space but time that we are concerned about, that we have little, sorry no, control over. the nuclear warheads argument is a canard. just because we have a present hazard does not mean we should manufacture more. and the problem with nuclear's safety record is that it only takes one mistake...one accident a century would start to seem like a lot after a few hundred years. so, no, it is not an exaggeration, and, no, that pandora's box should not be opened. as for alternative energy, i will leave it for other people to throw numbers back at you but and take this with a grain of salt, but ACORE suggests that wind could provide 20% of power in the US by 2030 and solar could add 164 gw by 2025.

Posted by JC | September 25, 2007 1:12 AM

Hugo - Many of your stats are wrong.

Germany is aiming at only 20-30% from solar over the next 2 decades as they are fading OUT nuclear

Actually, it is 2.8-3% they are shooting for. If solar costs the consumer 15 times as much as other sources for solar and the substitute plant necessary when solar isn't "in the sky" there is just so much Green-ministers can force consumers to buy.

Germany would need only 2% of its area (15% are already covered by concrete)

15% of Germany's surface area is not covered over in concrete.

Solar does not need a grid and is therefore even more economical than nuclear when it comes to peak hours.

The grid is a separate expense from power generation. It must exist no matter what the major sources of power are to distribute it. There is no relation between grid and peak load hours. Nor do hours of peak sunlight necessarily correspond to peak demand.

In the future one could use already economical local storage.

There is no current economical local storage. Computer data storage and surplus electricity storage do not have similar physics.

Building 30 40MW solar plants can and IS happening grass-roots style via business men from the market (like the Internet). It costs the same as building a nuclear plant but it does not face a single point of failure (distributed) and does not have to stretch the grid to the max.

Solar is still high cost. 1200 MW is far higher than a single nuke plant because not only is solar very expensive on it's own, you have to add in the investment in substitute electric gen plant from an alternate source because wind and solar have dramatically lower time at capacity power than fossil, hydro, nuclear. The stability of the Grid - again - is not dependent on what power source you use (grids don't care) but a function of excess capacity, time to put on peak generators, and a mathematically acceptable redundancy feature. If 18 nuke plants, 11 coal, 4 hydro inc. one peak hour stored time one, and 3 peak gas turbines ensure that redundancy and excess capacity and timeliness...300 solar plants and 25 peaking gas turbines add nothing extra as an alternative.

We do not have to expand the risk of nuclear accounting (the IAEA is overwhelmed anyway)

That argument is like saying that we couldn't build more airplanes in the 20s because there were insufficient numbers of regulators to inspect them. You build something, governments will have no problem dredging up regulators. The IAEA is not overwhelmed because the responsible nations in the West and Asia don't fund them, but because corrupt UN bureacrats divert the money received into other pet projects.

Claiming there are no alternatives is not right. Or at least when dismissing solar - one should do more homework than cloudy days and nights. Much more!

Nations have done their homework. The problems with solar and wind go far beyong erratic availabilty into storage, lack of demand following and contruction of an entirely different generating base as a cost of using the two. Korea and Japan worked feverishly through all the alternative power sources and looked at the economics. Unbiased by the Green Movement, they rejected solar, wind, biomass as major contributors and went with efficiency, no immigration, and nuclear plants to address their fossil fuel shortages. Japan now reprocesses fuel.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 25, 2007 1:22 AM

"He even likes civilian nuclear power"

Christ, Matt, were you sleeping when he threatened Iran with war over its nuclear energy program?

Jesus, sometimes you just throw this stuff out there with no apparent thought at all.

Oh, sure, you'll say that whatever he meant by "civilian nuclear power" has nothing to do with an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Except, of course, it does. Because one of the lies of a neoconservative like him is that Iran doesn't need nukes, therefore their energy program has to be about building a bomb.

So citing him for being in favor of "civilian nuclear power" in France or the US is little more than disingenuous.

He's a fucking neoconservative, Matt. That makes him an asshole and a fascist. So save your genuflecting for somebody else.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 25, 2007 3:30 AM

1. Anyone claiming that alternative energies such as solar or wind can come close to providing a significant alternative to fossil fuels is simply factually incorrect. I wish it weren't so. But given the realities of those technologies, it's simply not possible.

Unbiased by the Green Movement, they rejected solar, wind, biomass as major contributors and went with efficiency, no immigration, and nuclear plants to address their fossil fuel shortages.

"Tell 'em what they win, Jay!"

"A somewhat NEW CAR!,...,waaah, waaah, ..., This stylish Yugo, complete with terricloth seat covers and coveniently located exterior rear view mirror comes to you courtesy of the fine folks at Yugo! Yugo, it's not just a car, it's a 'lifestyle choice'"...

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 7:36 AM

"I am optimistic for the future, but that kind of development is a long way off."

Apparently even the fine folks at MIT can't convince you that your nuclear-powered juggernaut will take 40-50 yrs to make a significant impact on CO2 emissions. Assuming, of course, that were the only reason to choose nuclear.

And apparently, you and Chris "the people in my support group nicknamed me 'Malthus'" Ford have gotten hold of an AEI study that informs you that pouring trillions into non-nuclear alternatives over the next 40-50 years (rather than say, pouring trillions of dollars into a nuclear program to possibly see a significant impact on CO2 emissions in 40-50 years) is a moot point because converting sunlight, wind, etc. into usable energy somehow violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

One might even assume you are arguing for arguments sake...

Posted by Rihilism | September 25, 2007 9:05 AM

Matt,

Honestly. A smart person knows when to admit that he doesn't know everything. I know next to nothing about nuclear power. Even if I read that MIT study, I'd know next to nothing about nuclear power. Because you read a paper on it, or because you took a foreign policy class with Stephen Peter Rosen, etc. doesn't mean a thing. Get a job, blog part-time and get some experience in a particular area, rather than reading a paper here or there and pretend you know about every subject under the sun. It will be a lot better for you, professionally-speaking, in the long run.

Posted by Alenda Lux | September 26, 2007 12:30 AM