Long Now Debate on Nuclear Power
Tonight, at the Herbst Theater in San Francisco, the Long Now Foundation is sponsoring a debate entitled "Nuclear Power, Climate Change, and the Next 10,000 Years" between Ralph Cavanagh of the Natural Resources Defense Counsel and Peter Schwarz of GBN. A debate such as this challenges long-held assumptions of the environmental community, and reminds us all that seemingly settled issues can become "hot" again. I can't be there due to a conflict, but this sure looks interesting to me. Full writeup by Stewart Brand below.
Stewart Brand's announcement of the debate:
Much is at stake in the current debate about nuclear power.
For environmentalists, taking the question seriously threatens a long held, soul-deep position.
For a world facing vastly growing energy use (especially in China and India) and also facing the growing severity of climate change, the question is broader. Should the world do everything it can to reduce the carbon loading of the atmosphere by fossil fuel consumption, including expanding nuclear power? Or should some technologies like nuclear power remain off the table because of their long-term and short-term hazards and costs?
It is not a theoretical debate. Decisions are being made and new policy set in nations large and small, in mature economies and in rapidly growing ones.
The discussion tonight is between two of the most informed and engaged experts in the US. Ralph Cavanagh, from the highly respected Natural Resources Defense Counsel, and Peter Schwartz, from the leading futurist and consulting firm Global Business Network. Both are environmentalists. As environmentalists, one opposes the rebirth of nuclear power; the other promotes it.
"Nuclear Power, Climate Change, and the Next 10,000 Years," Peter Schwartz, Ralph Cavanagh, Herbst Theater (on Van Ness by Opera House and Civic Center), San Francisco, 7pm, tonight, Friday, January 13. The discussion starts promptly at 7:30pm. Admission is free ($10 donation very welcome, not required). Look for the spotlight outside the theater, adding its bit to global warming.
This is one of a monthly series of Seminars About Long-term Thinking organized by The Long Now Foundation, usually on second Fridays, usually at Fort Mason (though not this one). Future speakers in the series include Stephen Lansing (on a thousand years of finesse in Bali's agriculture). If you would like to be notified by email of forthcoming talks, please contact Simone Davalos--- simone at longnow.org, 415-561-6582.
tags:
| comments: 12
| Sphere It
submit: 
0 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/4448
Comments: 12
In NZ were Nuclear free. Other countries Nuclear Subs cant even come into port here. Were managing fine. Its kinda strange but there are so many mistakes out there that seemed like a good idea at the time but 50 years later screw things up. Look at the dam in the river nile.
There are some good reasons for not using nuclear power. At about $3 billion over 10 years just to get the things built and another few billion for decomissioning it is pretty steep for many private companies to do. Needless to say there are environmental concerns with waste but thats been debated to death. The main problem could be that purifying low grade uranium ores (a very energy intensive process) will actually produce more CO2 than it will prevent ...
Here's Stewart's summary of the debate itself:
Given the power to decide who would go first--- anti-nuke Ralph Cavanagh from Natural Resources Defense Counsel or pro-nuke Peter Schwartz from Global Business Network--- the large audience Friday night voted for Schwartz to make the opening argument.
It is the threat of "abrupt climate change" that converted him to support new emphasis on nuclear power, Schwartz said. Gradual global warming is clearly now under way, and there is increasing reason to believe that human activity is driving it, mostly through the burning of coal and oil. If warming is all that happens, it will be an enormous problem, but some regions of the Earth would gain (Russia, Canada) while many others would lose.
In the event of abrupt climate change, though, everyone loses. The most likely change would be a sudden (in one decade) shift to a much colder, drier, and windier world. The world's carrying capacity for humans would plummet, driving human population from the current 6.5 billion to as low as 2 billion, with most of the losses from war. It would be a civilization-threatening catastrophe. From research Schwartz has led for the Pentagon as well as from his own training in fluid dynamics, he thinks that continuation of the current warming is very likely to trigger the kind of radical climate instability that has been the norm in Earth's past, except for the last 10,000 years of uncharacteristically stable climate. Therefore everything must be done to head off the shift to climate instability.
Meanwhile, Schwartz said, world demand for energy will continue to grow for decades, as two billion more people climb out of poverty and developing nations become fully developed economies. China and India alone will double or quadruple their energy use over the next 50 years. We will run out of oil in that period. That leaves coal or nuclear for electricity. Conservation is crucial, but it doesn't generate power. Renewables must grow fast, but they cannot hope to fill the whole need. Nuclear technology has improved its efficiency and safety and can improve a lot more. Reprocessing fuel will add further efficiency.
The discussion format called for Cavanagh to quiz Schwartz for ten minutes, drawing out his views further. Cavanagh asked, "What about the storage of nuclear waste?" "We defined the problem wrong," Schwartz said. "Storage for thousands of years is not needed. The present storage on site in concrete casks is working, and the 'waste' is available as a further energy source with later technology." In the discussion Schwartz also pointed out that new reactor sites are not needed in the US, since all the existing sites are expandable.
The format called for Cavanagh to now summarize Schwartz's argument. He did so to Schwartz's satisfaction, adding a point Schwartz missed--- recent findings indicating that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now the highest it has been in 25,000 to 400,000 years.
It was Ralph Cavanagh's turn to present for 15 minutes, striding the front of the stage. He began by agreeing that messing with the atmosphere and thus the climate is a "suicidal" experiment for humanity to be conducting, and it has to be stopped. He agreed that nuclear should not be considered taboo and should be included as a candidate clean power source, but its history is not encouraging. No new reactors have built in the US since 1973. Nevada has stonewalled on waste storage at Yucca Mountain. The nuclear industry has all manner of government subsidies, loan guarantees, and protections from liability. It has never competed in the open market with other energy sources.
California, Cavanagh said, has led the way in developing a balanced energy policy. Places like China are paying close attention. PG&E has become the world's largest investor in efficiency, led by Carl Weinberg (who was in the audience and got a round of applause). And now there are signs that California may become the leader in setting limits to carbon emissions. Within limits like that, then the private sector can compete with full entrepreneurial zest, and may the best technologies win. Nuclear would have to compete fairly with new forms of biofuels and with ever improving renewables.
Schwartz asked Cavanagh about the large government subsidies for solar research while there have been none for nuclear (except fusion). Cavanagh said the subsidies were declining, and should. There should be more funding for R&D in biofuels and other alternatives, but the main role for government should be in setting emission standards and then let the private sector duke it out for the best solutions.
Schwartz summarized Cavanagh's argument to his satisfaction (many later reported they liked that feature of the evening), and then a host of written questions came from the audience. Asked for a catalog of desirable new technologies, Schwartz wanted cheaper solar, effective energy storage (batteries are painfully limited), and a better electrical grid, while Cavanagh would like more R&D on vehicles and breakthroughs on coal processing.
My take on the evening is that Cavanagh was particularly persuasive on the need for nuclear to compete on the open market, and Schwartz was persuasive on the direness of climate prospects and the relative readiness of nuclear power to help.
--Stewart Brand
If you would like to discuss this (or other Seminars About Long-term Thinking in the series) online, Long Now has opened a discussion forum at http://www.longnow.org .
The next talk in the series will be Stephen Lansing, "Perfect Order: A Thousand Years in Bali," on Friday, Feb. 10, 7pm, at the Cowell Theater, Fort Mason, San Francisco.
Readers may be interested to know that Stewart Brand has also recently endorsed a techno-thriller novel about the American nuclear power industry.
Written by a longtime nuclear engineer (me), and available at no cost to readers, "Rad Decision" provides an entertaining and accurate portrait of the nuclear industry today and how a nuclear accident would be handled. The novel is available online and via a downloadable PDF file at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com.
"I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." - Stewart Brand
The Comments section on the front page of the website contains other reader reviews.
I hope you'll take the opportunity to look at Rad Decision. I'm honestly not sure what our energy future should be, but I know we'll do a better job of deciding if we better understand our energy present. Frankly, the media and outside experts have done a poor job in accurately portraying the real world of nuclear power, both pro and con (and there are plenty of both.) All sides of the nuclear debate will find points to ponder in Rad Decision.
James Aach
Its just a pity the debate is whether to bring back old monsters; there's so many nuclear reactors we could build which would burn the piling bulk of nuclear waste we dont have any means of disposing of today. There's a bunch, but my favorite so far is:
Integral Fast Reactors. US government dropped funding on the main project three years before completion, I believe they had a prototype actually running at the time.
Linkage here, here and industry standard here. Amazing stuff.
I attended the debate. It is interesting to me that Steward Brand and Peter Schwartz keep basing their argument to "keep nuclear on the table" on the premise that renewables and efficiency are somehow "not enough" to handle global energy needs. As if somehow nuclear was necessary or required. This to me is the point. There are no numbers to support this position. In fact, Jacobson at Stanford, Amory Lovins, the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and many others have shown that implementing negative cost efficiency and large scale wind can address all current energy needs.
Creating nuclear fuel creates enormous amounts of highly toxic, hazardous waste, apart from the high-level radioactive waste. From the creation of yellow cake to the final storage of waste, the nuclear fuel must be kept secure against military attack. Nuclear power is expensive, dangerous and has serious impacts from mining the ore, to siting the plant, to the impact of the plant on water supplies to decommissioning. None of the reasons to think that nuclear was anything other than an expensive, dangerous way to boil water have changed, because of climate change.
Nuclear power was a bad idea when it began, and it is still a bad idea. Climate change due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gas is the most serious problem that humankind faces today. However, it can be addressed effectively with clean, benign, economically beneficial measures that improve the ways we use energy, as well as the ways we generate it.
See my discussion of whether nuclear is necessary in climate protection on my blog at
http://climateprotectioncampaign.typepad.com/cpc/nuclear_option/index.html
Dave Erickson
currently there is uranium left on planet earth for another 50 years. BUT china is planing 70! nuclear power plants in the next 50 years... somethings here just so wrong!
The first stage of a £150m investment in regional museums is praised for boosting visitor numbers...
This is a very good topic to discuss. I'm researching on nuclear power and I need some help finding pros and cons for a school debate. Could you post some more up-to-date findings?
Throw all the science and nuclear engineering to the side, and one must consider the humanitarian issues and basic practibility of nuclear electricity. Quite simply the only publicly fatal accident in the entire spanse of history was at Chernobyl. No one can ever proclaim a certain death toll, but despite that, look at the human life coal generators cost. Every year in the United States alone 20,000 people died of ailments such as lung cancer and broncitis due to emissions and over 6,000 die worldwide in mine accidents. 9,000 miles of appalachian streams are polluted by acid mine drainage (that's from Chicago to Pretoria)and when considering the captured carbon produced by clean coal, you might as well be storing nulear waste. Coal isn't an option, and wind and solar just simply cannot produce electricity on the same scale as American consumption. Nuclear plants generate power 90% of their lifespans nowadays. On top of that,how much nuclear waste is produced every year? 5,330 cubic yards. Compare that with 4,000,000,000,000 lbs of carbon, and uranium is indefinetly the new green.
power to save the world: the truth about nuclear energy. by gwyneth cravens. nuff said.
Post A Comment:
STAY CONNECTED
RECENT COMMENTS
- gen-iv on Long Now Debate on Nuclear Power: power to save the world...
- trl on Long Now Debate on Nuclear Power: Throw all the science a...
- derryl on Long Now Debate on Nuclear Power: This is a very good top...
- Billy Cloutier on Long Now Debate on Nuclear Power: The first stage of a £1...
- mo on Long Now Debate on Nuclear Power: currently there is uran...
- Dave Erickson on Long Now Debate on Nuclear Power: I attended the debate. ...
- rektide on Long Now Debate on Nuclear Power: Its just a pity the deb...
- James Aach on Long Now Debate on Nuclear Power: Readers may be interest...
- Tim O'Reilly on Long Now Debate on Nuclear Power: Here's Stewart's summar...
- Dave Johnson on Long Now Debate on Nuclear Power: There are some good rea...
RADAR TOPICS
Kevin Farnham [01.13.06 11:08 AM]
I am so pleased to see the environmentalist community discussing the nuclear power issue. The blockade on construction of new nuclear power plants has produced a situation in the United States where all of our existing nuclear plants are very old, and were built on the basis of the state of technology 50 years ago. 50-year old nuclear technology surely poses far greater danger with respect to a nuclear accident than modern technology (as applied, for example, in France, where I believe 80% of electricity is supplied by nuclear power). But, because of opposition to ANY movement in the realm of nuclear power by environmentalists in the U.S., it is impossible for an electric utility to tear down an aging plant and replace it with a much safer new nuclear plant that applies all the lessons learned and all the technology gains of the past 50 years. So, environmental opposition to nuclear power has in fact increased the danger of a nuclear accident in the U.S. Truly, it is a relief to see this type of open discussion taking place within the environmentalist community!