Post by davidm on May 1, 2012 15:34:06 GMT 9.5
I like this piece because for a tech challenged guy like me it readably ponders differences on the future of nuclear power without unfairly stacking the deck. You get two mature views on the future prospects of nuclear power and then can reflect and make up your own mind. I even linked it to another forum.
Here is a little taste of both arguments.
1. From the Economist's Oliver Morton, a view that nuclear power has no more than a marginal future.
2. Barry Brook challenges Oliver Morton's pessimism.
In a sense they are talking past each other. Oliver Morton is dealing more with political realities and Barry Brook is more focused on objective future challenges attendant to getting off fossil fuel. I think it would be more objective if the problem of overpopulation(Yes Barry has written thoughtfully about it) and economic growth knocking at limits were thrown into the mix. And yeah, we all ought to be vegetarians.
Anyway I found the Morton article and Barry's critique of it very stimulating and helpful in evolving my thinking.
Here is a little taste of both arguments.
1. From the Economist's Oliver Morton, a view that nuclear power has no more than a marginal future.
In 2010 nuclear power provided 13% of the world's electricity, down from 18% in 1996. A pre-Fukushima scenario from the International Energy Agency that allowed for a little more action on carbon dioxide than has yet been taken predicted a rise of about 70% in nuclear capacity between 2010 and 2035; since other generating capacity will be growing too, that would keep nuclear's 13% share roughly constant. A more guarded IEA scenario has rich countries building no new reactors other than those already under construction, other countries achieving only half their currently stated targets (which in nuclear matters are hardly ever met) and regulators being less generous in extending the life of existing plants. On that basis the installed capacity goes down a little, and the share of the electricity market drops to 7%.
Developing nuclear plants only at the behest of government will also make it harder for the industry to improve its safety culture. Where a government is convinced of the need for nuclear power, it may well be less likely to regulate it in the stringent, independent way the technology demands. Governments favour nuclear power by limiting the liability of its operators. If they did not, the industry would surely founder. But a different risk arises from the fact that governments can change their minds. Germany's plants are being shut down in response to an accident its industry had nothing to do with. Being hostage to distant events thus adds a hard-to-calculate systemic risk to nuclear development.
The ability to split atoms and extract energy from them was one of the more remarkable scientific achievements of the 20th century, widely seen as world-changing. Intuitively one might expect such a scientific wonder either to sweep all before it or be renounced, rather than end up in a modest niche, at best stable, at worst dwindling. But if nuclear power teaches one lesson, it is to doubt all stories of technological determinism. It is not the essential nature of a technology that matters but its capacity to fit into the social, political and economic conditions of the day.
Developing nuclear plants only at the behest of government will also make it harder for the industry to improve its safety culture. Where a government is convinced of the need for nuclear power, it may well be less likely to regulate it in the stringent, independent way the technology demands. Governments favour nuclear power by limiting the liability of its operators. If they did not, the industry would surely founder. But a different risk arises from the fact that governments can change their minds. Germany's plants are being shut down in response to an accident its industry had nothing to do with. Being hostage to distant events thus adds a hard-to-calculate systemic risk to nuclear development.
The ability to split atoms and extract energy from them was one of the more remarkable scientific achievements of the 20th century, widely seen as world-changing. Intuitively one might expect such a scientific wonder either to sweep all before it or be renounced, rather than end up in a modest niche, at best stable, at worst dwindling. But if nuclear power teaches one lesson, it is to doubt all stories of technological determinism. It is not the essential nature of a technology that matters but its capacity to fit into the social, political and economic conditions of the day.
2. Barry Brook challenges Oliver Morton's pessimism.
Political and social settings of the future will be governed by a mix of energy-price, energy-security and climate-change-mitigation realities that MUST be faced. Fossil fuels have to be replaced. Energy costs from fossil fuels will rise as demand continues to increase, and supply, especially from conventional sources, declines and becomes increasingly regionally concentrated.
------------------------------------------------
[Quoting from Monbiot] "The environment movement has a choice. It has to decide whether it wants no new fossil fuels or no new nuclear power. It cannot have both. I know which side I'm on, and I know why. Anyone who believes that the safety, financing and delivery of nuclear power are bigger problems than the threats posed by climate change has lost all sense of proportion."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Morton's article is not really about environmental imperatives, but even on the economic and public risk fronts, it sorely lacks this crucial sense of proportion. His essay also fails to address the practicalities of the cost and energy supply problems facing a world without fossil fuels. So I ask, how realistic is The Economist about this critical global issue?
------------------------------------------------
[Quoting from Monbiot] "The environment movement has a choice. It has to decide whether it wants no new fossil fuels or no new nuclear power. It cannot have both. I know which side I'm on, and I know why. Anyone who believes that the safety, financing and delivery of nuclear power are bigger problems than the threats posed by climate change has lost all sense of proportion."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Morton's article is not really about environmental imperatives, but even on the economic and public risk fronts, it sorely lacks this crucial sense of proportion. His essay also fails to address the practicalities of the cost and energy supply problems facing a world without fossil fuels. So I ask, how realistic is The Economist about this critical global issue?
In a sense they are talking past each other. Oliver Morton is dealing more with political realities and Barry Brook is more focused on objective future challenges attendant to getting off fossil fuel. I think it would be more objective if the problem of overpopulation(Yes Barry has written thoughtfully about it) and economic growth knocking at limits were thrown into the mix. And yeah, we all ought to be vegetarians.
Anyway I found the Morton article and Barry's critique of it very stimulating and helpful in evolving my thinking.
