There is a sustained media campaign going on to rehabilitate nuclear power, which would require huge subsidies and delay the transition to the more competitive renewable energy solutions, and saddle humanity with very long term hyper-pollution.
The brilliant video exposition by Amory Lovins is followed by an excerpt from John Robb in which he explains that the rapid rate of innovation in renewable energy calls for a decentralized mode of development, not a centralized one, even if we choose the path of renewables.
John Robb:
“There’s little doubt that the centralization (the current approach) of alternative energy production is more efficient than decentralization. It enables location optimization (better wind/sunlight), less management/industrial overhead per kWh, etc. It also leverages the existing industry design. However, this efficiency gain comes at a potentially fatal cost (which implies that most of the money currently being invested in this area, is going to be wasted). Here’s why:
* In order for alternative energy — particularly solar PV — to reach its potential, it must go through a rapid series of generational improvements in technology. Each generation will be much more economical than the preceding generation. Since, the volatility of energy prices has already dried up investments in new drilling in the oil sector: is little reason to doubt that it wouldn’t be even worse in the alternative energy due to technological risk (as in, the tech used will go rapidly out of date in a handful of years). Given both sources of risk, corporate angst goes off of the scale.
* Centralized generation requires the construction of vast amount of electrical transmission infrastructure. The combination of NIMBY (not in my back yard) opposition and a legacy of negligible investments in new electrical transmission infrastructure over the last 30 years, implies that this unlikely.
* The costs of centralized production can only draw on government and corporate financing. Even if we see another financial bubble emerge (unlikely), it’s uncertain whether there will be remotely enough financial capital necessary for anything more than a minimal transformation in mid to long term time horizons. The government is tapped and the financial system is on life support (it’s rife with zombie banks).
In fact, this situation is very similar to something seen in the computing industry, and why a decentralized model emerged. In that previous situation, there were attempts to centralize all computing and provide terminals to end-users (France’s Minitel and Oracle’s Network Computers). There were also attempts to provide interactive multimedia through boxes that provided interactive TV (ala 1994). However, in all of these cases the rate of change, the amount of required investment, the speed of end-user innovation, etc. doomed these attempts to failure. The same is likely true for alternative energy. The best approach, and the only one likely to succeed, is the decentralized model.”
Michel,
As you know, I disagree. I believe the answer is microproduction AND nuclear. Realistically, there is no way to maintain modern social standards and not use conventional centralized power production. I agree innovation will advance better through decentralized models. I am no fan of big government spending on, for example, fission. But in the great scheme, it’s a small sum.
The real answer is to minimize carbon. The anti-nukers have hurt society by removing focus from that key target. Even though it was unintentional, this consequence of the anti-nuclear movement will prove one of the most destructive moral positions of modern times if it stands. Already, the added costs have done tremendous social damage.
Nuclear is, regrettably, a necessity.
“Ronald Reagan: pollution is caused by trees”; Ryan Lanham: it’s the people who love the trees that are to blame …
Ryan,
there are plenty of experts, green and otherwise, who challenge your view, and the whole point is that it may be very difficult or likely impossible to maintain modern social standards in the context of peak oil, and that why you accept the hyper-pollution of unsolvable nuclear waste as inevitable. And what about the people who have not reached today’s social standards? If everybody has a car, large suburban house, is that possible with the limited means of our planet. The answer is not, and nuclear energy, as argued by Amory Lovins is not just sustainable and economical.
The difference is that subsidizing renewable energy aims to make it sustainable after 150 years of large subsidies for the oil economy, but subsidies for nuclear, based on depletable resources, are not going to make it economical or sustainable, so it is a pure waste, and one that is wholly negative since it will result in the lack of support for renewables, hence delaying our capacity for change.
You are not bringing any new arguments on the table here?
Michel
I already debunked that ridiculous interview on the mailing list. Michel, as I asked the person who linked it originally, I will ask you: did you bother to fact-check a single point in that interview?
John Robb didn’t even mention nuclear in his article, nor was his article a critique of nuclear power, as you imply with this game-set-match post. Don’t drag the p2pf into the muck of your own extreme biases against nuclear power. You have previously said “I don’t have time to really explore the energy debate,” which means you have already disqualified yourself from joining in a rational discourse about the subject. Rational discourse REQUIRES exploring an issue.
Ryan’s courteous responses to your hyperbole speak well of his character. I have less virtue: I’m simply tired of it. I seriously don’t know what happened–whether you’re stressed, or so anti-nuclear to the core you can’t even question the belief. I had let your final email in the nuclear thread lie, even though I (and Ryan) was accused of being one of “those that want to poison our planet for tens of thousands of years,” as you so tactfully put it.
I can’t say I was surprised by the absence, here on the p2pf blog, of the material I wrote about understanding and exploring the nuclear vs fossil fuel issue. They’re not exactly p2p material, anyway. Apparently, however, my explanation of how to calculate actual solar power wattage–as compared to “peak wattage”–was acceptable enough to add to the blog, and without even mentioning it to me!
Disappointing.
Hi Stan,
Let’s put some things straight. I am here relaying two different posts, one by Amory Lovins, one by John Robb. Without being an expert, I’m indeed opposed to nuclear power, but as always, open to debate. You call critique of nuclear power misinformed, that is not enough, you have to improve/disprove the arguments and facts of those you disagree with. Experts like Amory Lovins say that nuclear energy is uneconomical and depletable within 40 years, and I have found no one yet to deny that it will saddle humanity with tens of thousands of years of very dangerous nuclear pollution. Why then does it make sense to divert limited financial resources to such a dead end, which can only delay the transition to a renewable economy. This would require very strong arguments, the onus is on those who want a heavy subsidized, uneconomical and long-term polluting alternative to renewables.
The people who read this blog, most of them do not read the mailing list debates, so don’t assume they know your arguments, and this is an invitation of sorts to undertake the debate for a broader public. I’m really disappointed that you resort to innuendo and personal attacks instead, and that it seems to be a hot button issue that precludes rational debate.
Let’s also not forget that on the mailing list it is you who ridiculed the opponents of nuclear power as uninformed, which is surely not the best way to start a reasoned debate on the issue.
I hope other proponents of nuclear power can do better!
Michel
They can’t.
It’s expensive, it’s dangerous, and, to top it off, its susceptible to catastrophic failure.
Microproduction is not.