Environmentalists will embrace nuclear power and GMOs, and other contrary thinking
Fascinating, and very insightful, article at Technology Review by Stewart Brand (who I’ve got to admit I’ve never heard of before) entitled Environmental Heresies, which forecasts that Over the next ten years, I predict, the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbanization, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power.
I happen to agree with him, at least on the nuclear bit, and probably the GMOs bit. Population growth and urbanisation I’m not so much in agreement about (because there’s still a lot of non-urbanised world, and also many urbanized countries where religion dictates that they should try to have lots of children).
On nuclear, he comments Kyoto accords, radical conservation in energy transmission and use, wind energy, solar energy, passive solar, hydroelectric energy, biomass, the whole gamut. But add them all up and it’s still only a fraction of enough (which I’ve said before too). Also: The industry is mature, with a half-century of experience and ever improved engineering behind it. Problematic early reactors like the ones at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl can be supplanted by new, smaller-scale, meltdown-proof reactors like the ones that use the pebble-bed design. Nuclear power plants are very high yield, with low-cost fuel. Finally, they offer the best avenue to a “hydrogen economy,” combining high energy and high heat in one place for optimal hydrogen generation.
And he makes a good point right from the outset: Reversals of this sort have occurred before. Wildfire went from universal menace in mid-20th century to honored natural force and forestry tool now, from “Only you can prevent forest fires!” to let-burn policies and prescribed fires for understory management. The structure of such reversals reveals a hidden strength in the environmental movement and explains why it is likely to keep on growing in influence from decade to decade and perhaps century to century.
That is, if we manage to survive a few centuries. There are some scientists - Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, for example - who put our chances of getting past this one only at evens. (Then again, he’s not expecting to be around to pay out, I suppose.)
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- Dreadful, truly dreadful: New Scientist on nuclear power (25 April 2006; score: 69.51%)
- Oh yeah, so anyway, here's where my vote goes (4 May 2005; score: 62.45%)
- Nuclear power? Yes please (8 July 2004; score: 55.23%)
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
April 18th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Brand is an idiot. He has a couple of books and they are nonsense.
April 18th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
Now there’s a constructive comment offered in the spirit of informed debate! We’re all glad you stopped by, xman :)
April 18th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
If you want to know more about Brand, I profiled him for the Gruadnia some years go. http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,,531898,00.html
He’s a hero of mine.
April 18th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
I’ve read his stuff. It’s nonsense. There is nothing else to say about him. He is one of those Net people that get hyped up for no apparent reason at all.
April 18th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Xman, you have to pick his argument apart. Nothing I read in that article appeared obviously out of kilter. “Nonsense”? The parts I knew about made sense to me. You’re not going to win any converts just dissing someone. In fact, it weakens your reputation if you can’t show why he’s wrong.
April 19th, 2005 at 10:49 am
There are risks with nuclear, but they can be overcome or planned around - arguably, there are greater risks by remaining fossil-fuel based. The issue with nuclear waste will probably be overcome by the use of bacteria to break it down (IIRC it has already been done with some low-level radiocative waste and is certainly being used to break down other waste materials). Nuclear power stations also seem to be a possible terrorist target, but if this is taken into consideration at the design stage, the problem can be reduced - I’d cover them with a mountain of earth, nicely planted, reducing the visual impact at the same time.
The environment isn’t much of an issue in the election (although the Lib Dems want 20% from non-fossil fuels by 2015[??] and 50% by 2050[??]), but there will be huge resistance to more wind farms. However, adding wind gnerators to all tall buildings would be a reasonably simple move (the tallest building near me has two on top and even on the calmest days at ground level they are usually turning). Wave power also has great potential, but has suffered from lack of investment for years.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:57 am
Regarding Stewart Brand’s Environmental Heresies article in the May 2005 Technology Review, which you commented upon: Mr. Brand has been kind enough to endorse my book on nuclear power (written for the general audience). This book provides an entertaining and accurate portrait of the nuclear industry today and how a nuclear accident would be handled. I have worked in the nuclear industry for twenty years. “Rad Decision” is a techno-thriller novel, and is currently running as a serial at RadDecision.blogspot.com. There is no cost to readers.
“I’d like to see RAD DECISION widely read.” - - Stewart Brand.
If arguments about future energy sources are to move beyond editorial pages and scientific journals, popular works like this one are needed. A substantial segment of the population doesn’t care to delve into the gritty details on energy policy. But they are willing to be entertained …
I’d like to get more readers for this non-profit, independent project, so if you like what you see, please pass the word along.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
If you want to know how much of an idiot Brand is just check out his ‘Squatter City’ presentation on www.ted.com
It is utter nonsense - the man is a charlatan - why do people regard him so highly?