NUCLEAR POWER IN EUROPE
If it obtains the necessary Parliamentary approval, then yesterday's announcement by the German Government that it will extend the life of the country's 17 nuclear power stations by an average of 12 years will have implications for other European countries.
All industrialised countries are facing a dilemna. They are committed to reducing their carbon emissions substantially; yet the obvious low-carbon renewable power sources (wind and solar) are both unreliable and economically uncompetitive. On the other hand, the cheapest and most reliable fuel sources for generating electricity (coal and, at the margin, nuclear) are either full of carbon or potentially dangerous (and expensive in the long-term, because of decommissioning costs). The dilemna is particularly acute in Germany, which has more ambitious emissions reduction targets than other E.U. countries, yet gets almost 25% of its electricity from brown coal (lignite), an extremely dirty fuel that is one of the main reasons for Eastern Europe's appalling environment under communism. What to do? And since Germany is Europe's largest economy, where it goes, others are likely to follow.
In 2001, when the Social Democrats and Greens were in a coalition government together, it was decided to forbid the construction of new nuclear power plants, and to phase out all nuclear power by 2020. But with nuclear representing 23% of all electricity generation today and the renewables subsidy already costing Euros10 billion a year in a time of austerity, that commitment is no longer tenable. Hence the decision to increase the life of the older plants by 8 years and the newer ones by 14 years.
After months of discussions, the fact that the decision was only reached following a 12-hour meeting chaired by Chancellor Angela Merkel shows how difficult the problem is. And although it has kept the ruling CDU/FDP coalition together, it is by no means certain that the decision will stick. Apart from the issue of Parliamentary approval, one Green M.P. has already stated that any future Government including his party would reverse the extension. Moreover, public opinion polls suggest a solid 60% of the population want nuclear reactors closed. Protests are planned for this coming autumn.
Since the politics and economics are pretty much the same in other European countries, their Governments will be looking on anxiously from the sidelines. As ever, Germany appears to be taking a lead in matters European; though perhaps not in a way it would like.
Walter Blotscher
Monday, 6 September 2010
Sunday, 5 September 2010
DER UNTERGANG
Last night I saw the film Der Untergang (Downfall) again. It's a brilliant portrayal of the almost surreal last few days of the second world war, as Hitler and his closest aides stay in the bunker underneath the Chancellery, while the Russian forces steadily tighten their grip on Berlin.
The situation is hopeless, but the Nazi elite refuse to surrender. Champagne mixes with shellfire. Hitler moves imaginary armies around on the map, sends out orders that can't be carried out, calmly discusses plans for the future when he knows he will soon be dead. Former comrades Goering and Himmler, who are trying to do deals with the Allies, are condemned as traitors. S.S. death squads hunt down and murder anybody who is not fighting, including the man married to Eva Braun's sister. In the last days, Hitler finally marries his long-term mistress, before committing suicide with her. Goebbels takes over and tries to impose terms on the Russians, who reject them. Goebbels' wife kills their six children in their sleep, before the parents commit suicide.
It's a compelling film, with brilliant acting. Notably by Ulrich Matthes as a clearly insane Goebbels, and Bruno Ganz as the dominating, ranting, and curiously tender Hitler.
Walter Blotscher
Last night I saw the film Der Untergang (Downfall) again. It's a brilliant portrayal of the almost surreal last few days of the second world war, as Hitler and his closest aides stay in the bunker underneath the Chancellery, while the Russian forces steadily tighten their grip on Berlin.
The situation is hopeless, but the Nazi elite refuse to surrender. Champagne mixes with shellfire. Hitler moves imaginary armies around on the map, sends out orders that can't be carried out, calmly discusses plans for the future when he knows he will soon be dead. Former comrades Goering and Himmler, who are trying to do deals with the Allies, are condemned as traitors. S.S. death squads hunt down and murder anybody who is not fighting, including the man married to Eva Braun's sister. In the last days, Hitler finally marries his long-term mistress, before committing suicide with her. Goebbels takes over and tries to impose terms on the Russians, who reject them. Goebbels' wife kills their six children in their sleep, before the parents commit suicide.
It's a compelling film, with brilliant acting. Notably by Ulrich Matthes as a clearly insane Goebbels, and Bruno Ganz as the dominating, ranting, and curiously tender Hitler.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday, 4 September 2010
MUSHROOMS
Today was a beautiful late summer's day, so the friends we were visiting asked my wife and me if we wanted to go and pick wild mushrooms in the forest. Now mushrooms are one of those things where I know absolutely nothing, so this was an opportunity not to be missed.
There are lots of different types of mushrooms. Some are yummy, some are bitter, some make you hallucinate, and some are so poisonous that you can die if you eat them. We were looking for Carl Johans and Cancellaras, which my wife had no trouble finding in amongst the tree roots. I on the other hand could find nothing but these large mushrooms which look a bit like miniature spacecraft, and are to be avoided.
Living as we do next to a wood, we have quite a lot of mushrooms at home. The most common variety is a long, thin thing with a hat on, which in Danish is called "the Priest's dick", presumably because it looks like one. It also has a rather nasty tendency to drip black ink all over the place, but I don't know if that is because members of the Lutheran church do the same.
It will not surprise you to discover that Priest's dicks are not be eaten. I will have to chew them up with my trusty motor mower instead.
Walter Blotscher
Today was a beautiful late summer's day, so the friends we were visiting asked my wife and me if we wanted to go and pick wild mushrooms in the forest. Now mushrooms are one of those things where I know absolutely nothing, so this was an opportunity not to be missed.
There are lots of different types of mushrooms. Some are yummy, some are bitter, some make you hallucinate, and some are so poisonous that you can die if you eat them. We were looking for Carl Johans and Cancellaras, which my wife had no trouble finding in amongst the tree roots. I on the other hand could find nothing but these large mushrooms which look a bit like miniature spacecraft, and are to be avoided.
Living as we do next to a wood, we have quite a lot of mushrooms at home. The most common variety is a long, thin thing with a hat on, which in Danish is called "the Priest's dick", presumably because it looks like one. It also has a rather nasty tendency to drip black ink all over the place, but I don't know if that is because members of the Lutheran church do the same.
It will not surprise you to discover that Priest's dicks are not be eaten. I will have to chew them up with my trusty motor mower instead.
Walter Blotscher
Friday, 3 September 2010
THE U.S. OPEN
There have been brutal heat and high winds at the U.S. Open tennis tournament, which started this week. As Mats Wilander says in his always perceptive analysis on Game, Set and Match, this doesn't help the big guys. With the result that a surprising number of the men's seeds have gone out in the early rounds, notably Wimbledon finalist Tomas Berdych, who was unceremoniously stuffed in his first round match by unseeded Michael Llodra.
However, the big four (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray) are still there, and it is looking increasingly likely that they will be the four semi-finalists. My tip? Nadal is world number 1, winner of the French Open and Wimbledon this year, and looking very good. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the Fedster will produce a rabbit out of the hat, and win his 17th grand slam title at the age of 29.
On the women's side, the absence of both current world number 1 and clear favourite Serena Williams and former world number 1 Justine Henin makes things much more of a lottery. In their absence, the whole of Denmark is rooting for last year's losing finalist Caroline Wozniacki, the number 1 seed. However, although she moves well and is very solid in her groundstrokes, I just don't think she has the variety of shot to win. I am going for last year's winner Kim Clijsters to do a repeat performance.
Walter Blotscher
There have been brutal heat and high winds at the U.S. Open tennis tournament, which started this week. As Mats Wilander says in his always perceptive analysis on Game, Set and Match, this doesn't help the big guys. With the result that a surprising number of the men's seeds have gone out in the early rounds, notably Wimbledon finalist Tomas Berdych, who was unceremoniously stuffed in his first round match by unseeded Michael Llodra.
However, the big four (Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray) are still there, and it is looking increasingly likely that they will be the four semi-finalists. My tip? Nadal is world number 1, winner of the French Open and Wimbledon this year, and looking very good. But I have a sneaking suspicion that the Fedster will produce a rabbit out of the hat, and win his 17th grand slam title at the age of 29.
On the women's side, the absence of both current world number 1 and clear favourite Serena Williams and former world number 1 Justine Henin makes things much more of a lottery. In their absence, the whole of Denmark is rooting for last year's losing finalist Caroline Wozniacki, the number 1 seed. However, although she moves well and is very solid in her groundstrokes, I just don't think she has the variety of shot to win. I am going for last year's winner Kim Clijsters to do a repeat performance.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday, 2 September 2010
THE CONTRAPOSITIVE
The contrapositive is a term of logic. The contrapositive of the if-then sentence "if he is a king, then he is a man" is "if he is not a man, then he is not a king". The two are, logically speaking, the same (logically equivalent, in the jargon).
That makes the contrapositive a useful little tool, particularly when it comes to the question of proof. I give an example. In mathematics, it is important to know that if you can find a solution to a problem, then that solution will be unique. That allows you to muck about with the problem until you find a solution. It doesn't matter whether it is a simple or a complicated solution, or how you find it, if you can find one that works, then that's good enough.
Proving that a solution is unique from first principles is difficult, if not impossible. So we use the contrapositive. We assume that the solution is not unique; and (like the man/king sentence at the top) work backwards to show that that would then breach the assumptions in the problem. Because the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement, we have now proved the latter.
We can also use the tool in everyday life, to test the truth of politicians and others. "If he really believed x, then he would do y" is a statement. If that statement holds true, and y doesn't happen, then the contrapositive demonstrates conclusively that he doesn't really believe x.
Try it some time. You will have logic on your side.
Walter Blotscher
The contrapositive is a term of logic. The contrapositive of the if-then sentence "if he is a king, then he is a man" is "if he is not a man, then he is not a king". The two are, logically speaking, the same (logically equivalent, in the jargon).
That makes the contrapositive a useful little tool, particularly when it comes to the question of proof. I give an example. In mathematics, it is important to know that if you can find a solution to a problem, then that solution will be unique. That allows you to muck about with the problem until you find a solution. It doesn't matter whether it is a simple or a complicated solution, or how you find it, if you can find one that works, then that's good enough.
Proving that a solution is unique from first principles is difficult, if not impossible. So we use the contrapositive. We assume that the solution is not unique; and (like the man/king sentence at the top) work backwards to show that that would then breach the assumptions in the problem. Because the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the original statement, we have now proved the latter.
We can also use the tool in everyday life, to test the truth of politicians and others. "If he really believed x, then he would do y" is a statement. If that statement holds true, and y doesn't happen, then the contrapositive demonstrates conclusively that he doesn't really believe x.
Try it some time. You will have logic on your side.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SPEECH
This morning I watched the whole of President Obama's address to the nation on the formal ending of combat operations in Iraq, all 18 minutes of it.
Overall, I was disappointed. The President is quite clearly a very gifted orator. But oratory is only fine if you have something meaty to say. His style worked as a candidate and at the beginning of his term, since everything was then still in the future. The future is now the present, and style is no substitute for concrete actions. There was a lot of upbeat talk about ending Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraqis taking over their own security, the U.S. being a partner for the future. There was nothing about - as I said earlier - continuing bomb attacks and the complete absence of an Iraqi Government. Nor about the festering sore of the prison at Guantanamo Bay (which, let us remember, Mr. Obama had promised, in one of his first actions as President, to disband by the beginning of 2010).
One thing for me summed up the divergence between talk and reality. At the end of the speech, there was a long homily about the withdrawal of the 4th Stryker Brigade, the last U.S. combat force in Iraq, across the border to Kuwait in the dead of night, and the contrast between the dark of the night and the light of the future represented by the handing over of security to the Iraqis. The Brigade, during its tour of duty, lost 55 men killed. On the same BBC webpage that showed the President's speech, a report from Pakistan said that at least 45 people had been killed in an attack on militants in the tribal areas of the country near the Afghanistan border. However much the President may wish the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan to end, and however much he may say that they are being won, I fear that they are not. The killing in both countries will go on for a while yet.
Walter Blotscher
This morning I watched the whole of President Obama's address to the nation on the formal ending of combat operations in Iraq, all 18 minutes of it.
Overall, I was disappointed. The President is quite clearly a very gifted orator. But oratory is only fine if you have something meaty to say. His style worked as a candidate and at the beginning of his term, since everything was then still in the future. The future is now the present, and style is no substitute for concrete actions. There was a lot of upbeat talk about ending Saddam Hussein's regime, Iraqis taking over their own security, the U.S. being a partner for the future. There was nothing about - as I said earlier - continuing bomb attacks and the complete absence of an Iraqi Government. Nor about the festering sore of the prison at Guantanamo Bay (which, let us remember, Mr. Obama had promised, in one of his first actions as President, to disband by the beginning of 2010).
One thing for me summed up the divergence between talk and reality. At the end of the speech, there was a long homily about the withdrawal of the 4th Stryker Brigade, the last U.S. combat force in Iraq, across the border to Kuwait in the dead of night, and the contrast between the dark of the night and the light of the future represented by the handing over of security to the Iraqis. The Brigade, during its tour of duty, lost 55 men killed. On the same BBC webpage that showed the President's speech, a report from Pakistan said that at least 45 people had been killed in an attack on militants in the tribal areas of the country near the Afghanistan border. However much the President may wish the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan to end, and however much he may say that they are being won, I fear that they are not. The killing in both countries will go on for a while yet.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
MEXICO
There are many places in the world that I would like to visit, but Mexico is not one of them. Well, not just at the moment, at any rate.
The main reason is that it seems to be incredibly violent. On 2 August the country's head of national intelligence said that more than 28,000 people had died in drug-related violence since 2006. Presumably there are other sorts of violence on top of that. Although the drug-fuelled stuff mainly affects bad guys and law-enforcement agents of one kind or another, ordinary citizens can (and do) get caught in the cross-fire. Some of it is also particularly horrific, with beheadings, public hangings from bridges, and the like.
Mexico is the main conduit for the supply of drugs into the United States, For what seems to be a very long time, the U.S. has conducted a "war on drugs", concentrating large amounts of resources in trying to reduce supply, notably in Latin America. However, this doesn't seem to have worked, not least because the street prices of drugs in the U.S. have fallen, which is the opposite of what you would expect. Faced with this unwelcome fact, an increasing number of people have begun to call for the legalisation (or, at least, decriminalisation) of some or all drugs, starting with marijuana. In the same way that prohibition did nothing for the American public's appetite for alcohol, but merely gave control of its production and distribution to criminals, so the same is true of drugs. Better, therefore, for Governments to licence, regulate and tax them, runs the argument.
I have always had some sympathy for this view, not least because I have tried marijuana and it seemed no worse than alcohol (what I didn't like was imbibing it through cigarettes, since I am a non-smoker). However, a more powerful voice than mine has now entered the debate. Shortly after Mexico's current President Felipe Calderon called for a debate on the matter, his predecessor Vicente Fox publicly suggested legalisation. When in office, Mr. Fox felt he had to back down, when faced with President Bush's objections. However, Mr. Bush is now gone, the drugs are still coming, and an awful lot of Mexicans are dying. Perhaps this time, there will be a rethink.
Walter Blotscher
There are many places in the world that I would like to visit, but Mexico is not one of them. Well, not just at the moment, at any rate.
The main reason is that it seems to be incredibly violent. On 2 August the country's head of national intelligence said that more than 28,000 people had died in drug-related violence since 2006. Presumably there are other sorts of violence on top of that. Although the drug-fuelled stuff mainly affects bad guys and law-enforcement agents of one kind or another, ordinary citizens can (and do) get caught in the cross-fire. Some of it is also particularly horrific, with beheadings, public hangings from bridges, and the like.
Mexico is the main conduit for the supply of drugs into the United States, For what seems to be a very long time, the U.S. has conducted a "war on drugs", concentrating large amounts of resources in trying to reduce supply, notably in Latin America. However, this doesn't seem to have worked, not least because the street prices of drugs in the U.S. have fallen, which is the opposite of what you would expect. Faced with this unwelcome fact, an increasing number of people have begun to call for the legalisation (or, at least, decriminalisation) of some or all drugs, starting with marijuana. In the same way that prohibition did nothing for the American public's appetite for alcohol, but merely gave control of its production and distribution to criminals, so the same is true of drugs. Better, therefore, for Governments to licence, regulate and tax them, runs the argument.
I have always had some sympathy for this view, not least because I have tried marijuana and it seemed no worse than alcohol (what I didn't like was imbibing it through cigarettes, since I am a non-smoker). However, a more powerful voice than mine has now entered the debate. Shortly after Mexico's current President Felipe Calderon called for a debate on the matter, his predecessor Vicente Fox publicly suggested legalisation. When in office, Mr. Fox felt he had to back down, when faced with President Bush's objections. However, Mr. Bush is now gone, the drugs are still coming, and an awful lot of Mexicans are dying. Perhaps this time, there will be a rethink.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
