Nuclear Power, Climate Change, and the Next 10,000 Years

At my wife Rachel's suggestion, on Friday night we attended the discussion titled "Nuclear Power, Climate Change, and the Next 10,000 Years" at the atmospheric Herbst Theater between Peter Schwartz (co-founder of the Global Business Network and the father of scenario planning which he did at Shell) and Ralph Cavanagh (co-director of the Energy Program at the National Resources Defense Council).  The event was hosted by the Long Now Foundation  who are striving to provide a counterpoint to today's "faster/cheaper" mind set and promote "slower/better" thinking.  It was my first exposure to this organization, but I know it shall not be the last given the topics and quality of the participants.

The format was not a classic debate structure. Instead it required each of the speakers to first listen to their opponent state his position, then ask questions of the opponent to refine his position, and then finally restate his opponent's position to the opponent's satisfaction.  The floor was then open to questions from the audience and the moderator Stewart Brand.

Peter Schwartz went first and articulated his position as follows:

1. Continued emissions of CO2 and the inherently unstable nature of the earth's temperature will lead to the risk of civilization coming to an end within the foreseeable future.

2. Continued demand for energy, with the emergence of another 1 billion people coming out of poverty led by China and India, and the decline in oil production will lead to tremendous pressure on other forms of energy (nuclear, wind, solar, biomass)

3. Only nuclear energy has the potential to i) avoid dramatic climate change ii) and fill the demand-supply gap (requires "only" doubling current world wide nuclear capacity of 400 reactors, compared to >70x increase for any other technology) and iii) advances in technology can address the historic safety and waste management issues.

4.  Therefore the US government should show leadership and put nuclear power back on the table as the likeliest energy solution while avoiding cataclysmic climate change

Ralph Cavanagh's position was

1.  Ditto

2.  Ditto

3.  The failure of nuclear power as a viable alternative to coal or oil is clear and unlikely to change - no new nuclear power plants ordered in the US since 1973, lack of cost competitiveness, regulatory tug-of-war over Nevada's nuclear waste dump has dragged on for decades, $150 billion dollars of development and the problem of waste has not been solved, the risk of empowering rogue nuclear states, etc

4.  Therefore the appropriate role for government is not to anoint nuclear a priori as the best solution, but provide a regulatory framework that includes emissions as a true cost and let the competing technologies (coal sequestration, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass) fight it out in the market place.

For those wanting to get the full details of the debate, it will eventually be available for download here.  In the meantime, it made me thankful for my intellectually curious wife, it reinforced our desire to get a Prius (we've made the decision, just waiting for our preferred colour to be available) and learn more about the potential alternative energy technologies, it made me feel good about the Mobius investment in IonAmerica (a company trying to address the commercial power generation market through solid oxide fuel cell technology), and it encouraged us to add the National Resources Defense Council to our potential list of donations.

Not bad for a Friday night.

Comments

[James Aach]

You might 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 truly 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.

[Ben Casnocha]

The most bloggy post of your career! Links! Personality! Timely references!

[idioluede]

ORANJESTAD, Aruba - Felix rapidly strengthened into a dangerous Category 5 hurricane and churned through the Caribbean Sea on a path toward Central America, where forecasters said it could make landfall as “potentially catastrophic” storm.
Felix was packing winds of up to 165 mph as it headed west, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center. It was projected to skirt Honduras’ coastline on Tuesday before slamming into Belize on Wednesday.
“As it stands, we’re still thinking that it will be a potentially catastrophic system in the early portions of this week, Tuesday evening, possibly affecting Honduras and then toward the coast of Belize,” said Dave Roberts, a hurricane specialist at the center in Miami.

[Mannerbring]

Through Strike,spirit version division branch speech appear broad its mental miss beyond estate limit farm develop complex success myself title parliament film pull match debt fashion step fit pocket module consideration series trial launch respond circumstance big alone violence various owner use reading often capable feature understanding prisoner review fact may status weather i impression away peace long even pull different rest cell actual nation forest sleep refer assembly profit limit mile seek key characteristic limit condition mouth place control today entry rich