The Guardian hosts a debate on Nuclear Power

[davidm]

George Monbiot and Theo Simon engage in an email exchange on nuclear power.
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/10/monbiot-simon-nuclear-letter

Monbiot makes the scientific case and Simon seems to concede the point but thinks nuclear power is in the hands of an undemocratic corporate elite and so resists nuclear in favor of more local democratic strategies for dealing with climate change.

Monbiot

Yes, we could and should cut total energy use. But should we cut it in order to help get rid of fossil fuels, or cut it to help get rid of nuclear power? We certainly can't do both by these means.

Faced with a choice between the two options, there is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that fossil fuel is the worst. I don't need to spell out to you the impacts of climate change, or of coal extraction, or of the local pollution associated with coal and to a lesser extent gas burning. Beside these the potential impacts of nuclear power are tiny. Coal kills more people when it goes right than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. In fact coal kills more people every week than nuclear power has in the entire history of its deployment.

Simon

You advocate an "energy mix", (as do the energy investors with broad portfolios), which in Britain includes 10 new nuclear power stations. You believe that if we don't take that course then the money will go into carbon burning, not a renewables revolution, energy efficiencies, reduction of waste and false needs and a massive investment in R&D for alternative energy production. But that's a political decision.

The renewables revolution route is one which had growing social traction after COP15 and still does, even in the hostile environment of public spending cuts and a triumphalist nuclear lobby. If we do not choose nuclear AND we drive rigourously to meet carbon reduction targets, that will simply apply more pressure on the renewables sector and other innovators to deliver. Partly this can be market-driven, and the diversity of the sector makes brilliant creative innovations far more likely than they are in the monolithic nuclear industry. But it will only be possible with massive public investment and direction, and that raises the unavoidable issue of who is controlling the wealth and resources.
------------------------------------------
Nuclear entrenches power firmly in the hands of a state-protected, unaccountable and ruthless elite of technocrats and power-brokers, at a time when the urge of young humanity is towards transparency, openness and democracy. It can give no ultimate assurance of it's safety or it's costs.

[Janne M. Korhonen]

Simon does raise some important issues regarding lack (real or apparent) of democratic involvement and transparency, and I'm inclined to agree with him on many things. But the problem with his proposed alternative is that meaningful emission reductions while abandoning nuclear power would require anti-democratic "reforms" far more intrusive, comprehensive, widespread and permanent than anything he claims result from the nuclear industry.

In an activist camp, it may be easy to think that just about everybody would reduce their consumption voluntarily and democratically if just given the chance. Not so in a wider world; climate change as a cause loses out to almost anything else in almost any polls of general public. What this means is exactly what we've seen happening in Germany and other places: no nuclear, coal instead.

I've summed up this trilemma as follows: one may choose any two - but only two - of the following:

1) No nuclear power
2) Meaningful emission reductions
3) Democratic society

[davidm]

May 24, 2012 15:06:46 GMT 9.5 Janne M. Korhonen said:

In an activist camp, it may be easy to think that just about everybody would reduce their consumption voluntarily and democratically if just given the chance. Not so in a wider world; climate change as a cause loses out to almost anything else in almost any polls of general public.

Good point but oddly that fact doesn't necessarily work in favor of nuclear power. With time running out on the 450 ppm CO2, 2 deg. C rise tipping point limit accompanied by a population that is headed toward say 10 billion folks it is hard to script just about any narrative that sees nuclear power as playing much more than a limited catchup roll. Check any serious energy projection for the future for say China or India, the two fastest energy growers. China in 1935, for instance, is projected to be getting 66% of its electrical energy from coal and 10% from nuclear(Chart linked on another thread). And China among all nations is rated as the great nuclear and solar energy hope.

I guess we need the equivalent of a world wide environmental Pearl Harbor experience and then take it from there. You can try your pick on what might be the disaster generated solution; presumably multiple ones. I'd put population reduction and then a serious carbon tax at the head of the line and then survey the other possibilities.

[Barry Brook]

jmkorhonen, the 'trilemma' summary is a very sharp way of thinking about the problem. Thanks.

[Janne M. Korhonen]

May 24, 2012 16:17:21 GMT 9.5 @davidm said:

Good point but oddly that fact doesn't necessarily work in favor of nuclear power. With time running out on the 450 ppm CO2, 2 deg. C rise tipping point limit accompanied by a population that is headed toward say 10 billion folks it is hard to script just about any narrative that sees nuclear power as playing much more than a limited catchup roll.

Maybe, but it's evident that campaigning against nuclear will do nothing to help and will in all likelihood make the already bad situation even worse.

I must add that technically and financially, nuclear power could do the job - even without any help from renewables. The required build rates are not much higher than in France during their not-that-hurried nuclear deployment, and world GDP is very much higher than it was during the 1970s and 1980s. But you are probably right that the narrative where this happens isn't on the cards.

Unfortunately, the same and more must be said for the 100% renewables dream too. No narrative in sight where that actually happens, and in contrast to nuclear, even the technical feasibility is very much a question mark.

So what I've decided to do is to support any and all measures that generate carbon-free power and/or reduce energy demand. Every little bit helps.

Regarding population - it was calculated at Brave New Climate (and elsewhere) that the population problem is immaterial to the climate crisis. Yes, obviously more people = more emissions, but short of launching genocidal wars or implementing other very, very draconian measures indeed, there is nothing we can do to make a meaningful and timely dent to the emissions through population control. It's just too slow and too much of the population growth is "locked in" already. (I believe lengthened lifespans account for much of the growth, and short of mandatory euthanasia for the elderly, there is little that can be done.)

For all intents and purposes, we must solve the environmental problems for a planet with 9 or 10 billion people in it, or be cooked.

[anonposter]

May 24, 2012 8:06:14 GMT 9.5 @davidm said:

Monbiot makes the scientific case and Simon seems to concede the point but thinks nuclear power is in the hands of an undemocratic corporate elite and so resists nuclear in favor of more local democratic strategies for dealing with climate change.

As opposed to an undemocratic corporate elite running renewable energy?

The fact of the matter is that any renewable energy system which could actually power a country is going to have to be country sized and is also likely to require putting infrastructure where people don't want it (those who have to put up with the noise and strobe light of a wind turbine may not think it was part of a democratic strategy).

Simon
You advocate an "energy mix", (as do the energy investors with broad portfolios), which in Britain includes 10 new nuclear power stations. You believe that if we don't take that course then the money will go into carbon burning, not a renewables revolution, energy efficiencies, reduction of waste and false needs and a massive investment in R&D for alternative energy production. But that's a political decision.

The problem is that there is no evidence that it won't go into carbon burning, so far all attempts to switch to non-hydro renewables pretty much have ended up just perpetuating fossil fuel burning (e.g. Germany's switch from nuclear to coal).

Simon
The renewables revolution route is one which had growing social traction after COP15 and still does, even in the hostile environment of public spending cuts and a triumphalist nuclear lobby. If we do not choose nuclear AND we drive rigourously to meet carbon reduction targets, that will simply apply more pressure on the renewables sector and other innovators to deliver.

That assumes it's possible for renewable energy to do so, I can not see the kind of energy storage technology renewables would need to be workable coming in the foreseeable future.

If you're trying to do the impossible (which renewable energy has not proven itself not to be) then it doesn't matter how much pressure you apply, you'll fail.

Simon
Partly this can be market-driven, and the diversity of the sector makes brilliant creative innovations far more likely than they are in the monolithic nuclear industry.

Renewable energy is dominated by big companies, not small backyard inventors (and with sufficient deregulation nuclear would benefit just as much from the creative innovations as renewable energy could, probably even more so).

Simon
Nuclear entrenches power firmly in the hands of a state-protected, unaccountable and ruthless elite of technocrats and power-brokers, at a time when the urge of young humanity is towards transparency, openness and democracy.

Never mind that covering a country in wind turbines and solar panels is also going to do exactly the same thing (along with more damage to the environment, cost more and deliver less reliable electricity).

Simon
It can give no ultimate assurance of it's safety or it's costs.

Nuclear has already proven itself to be safer than fossil fuels and even renewable energy, if that isn't good enough then I don't know what is.

May 24, 2012 15:06:46 GMT 9.5 Janne M. Korhonen said:

Simon does raise some important issues regarding lack (real or apparent) of democratic involvement and transparency, and I'm inclined to agree with him on many things. But the problem with his proposed alternative is that meaningful emission reductions while abandoning nuclear power would require anti-democratic "reforms" far more intrusive, comprehensive, widespread and permanent than anything he claims result from the nuclear industry.

No kidding, what's worse is that it would also need to be global (to prevent any remaining democratic country from just ignoring it and having a high standard of living).

For Luddites to win more than temporary victories they must create a global dictatorship before we get a significant presence in space, while I don't think it likely they'll manage it, the possibility is an existential threat.

May 24, 2012 15:06:46 GMT 9.5 Janne M. Korhonen said:

In an activist camp, it may be easy to think that just about everybody would reduce their consumption voluntarily and democratically if just given the chance.

A good point, the reason for this is that the general public doesn't see much virtue in using less energy for the sake of using less energy (saving money is something they like the idea of, but usually the money saved by using less energy just goes into something else which uses energy).

May 24, 2012 15:06:46 GMT 9.5 Janne M. Korhonen said:

Not so in a wider world; climate change as a cause loses out to almost anything else in almost any polls of general public.

Quite true, that does mean that we can't expect the public to offer much in the way of sacrifice for the cause, even if a few zealots may be willing to obsessively compulsively unplug every wallwart.

May 24, 2012 15:06:46 GMT 9.5 Janne M. Korhonen said:

I've summed up this trilemma as follows: one may choose any two - but only two - of the following:

1) No nuclear power
2) Meaningful emission reductions
3) Democratic society

Of course it's possible to only choose one or none of them but it isn't possible to choose all three.

But it pretty much is the choices we need to make, one of those things ideals will need to be sacrificed and I know which one I'm willing to give up.

May 24, 2012 16:17:21 GMT 9.5 @davidm said:

Good point but oddly that fact doesn't necessarily work in favor of nuclear power. With time running out on the 450 ppm CO2, 2 deg. C rise tipping point limit accompanied by a population that is headed toward say 10 billion folks it is hard to script just about any narrative that sees nuclear power as playing much more than a limited catchup roll.

The evidence as to how fast nuclear can be built indicates that it could do the job if we were serious about it.

At the very least nothing else we have available right now can even come close (the closest would be maxing out hydro and that won't be enough or even close to it).

Of course all that requires countries to actually want to solve global warming, it doesn't appear as if many countries are actually trying. See left-atomics.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/coming-to-grips-with-countries-reasons.html for an analysis of what countries currently going nuclear are actually doing.

May 24, 2012 16:17:21 GMT 9.5 @davidm said:

I guess we need the equivalent of a world wide environmental Pearl Harbor experience and then take it from there. You can try your pick on what might be the disaster generated solution; presumably multiple ones. I'd put population reduction and then a serious carbon tax at the head of the line and then survey the other possibilities.

Population reduction (at least on the scale you seem to think is needed) is the one which will never happen, at least not unless you enact a global dictatorship (even China is finding their one child policy not being followed very closely).

May 24, 2012 16:49:07 GMT 9.5 Janne M. Korhonen said:

Maybe, but it's evident that campaigning against nuclear will do nothing to help and will in all likelihood make the already bad situation even worse.

I must add that technically and financially, nuclear power could do the job - even without any help from renewables. The required build rates are not much higher than in France during their not-that-hurried nuclear deployment, and world GDP is very much higher than it was during the 1970s and 1980s. But you are probably right that the narrative where this happens isn't on the cards.

If it weren't for the anti-nuclear movement we'd probably have already done it at least a decade ago.

May 24, 2012 16:49:07 GMT 9.5 Janne M. Korhonen said:

Regarding population - it was calculated at Brave New Climate (and elsewhere) that the population problem is immaterial to the climate crisis. Yes, obviously more people = more emissions, but short of launching genocidal wars or implementing other very, very draconian measures indeed, there is nothing we can do to make a meaningful and timely dent to the emissions through population control. It's just too slow and too much of the population growth is "locked in" already. (I believe lengthened lifespans account for much of the growth, and short of mandatory euthanasia for the elderly, there is little that can be done.)

For all intents and purposes, we must solve the environmental problems for a planet with 9 or 10 billion people in it, or be cooked.

With nuclear energy we can provide all the energy and freshwater 10 billion people need without environmental disaster and for at least the next million years so the idea of reducing population seems unnecessary (though birth control and family planning are a reproductive rights issues and should be promoted, separating them from environmental issues is probably going to help with actually getting them done as well).

[Janne M. Korhonen]

The question, as pointed out in the other thread, is what exactly do you propose to do about the population? Carpet neutron bombing of four out of five population centers? Bioengineered viruses? Mandatory sterilizations and euthanasia?

The reality is that there is no way - and hopefully there will be no way - that the civilization as a whole will initiate mass murder on this scale, or even conduct gross violations of fundamental human rights (as even China seems to have problems enforcing its policies), merely to prevent something that may well be preventable by other means. Your Manichean logic reminds me of Cold War ultra-hawks like John von Neumann who advocated pre-emptive nuclear attack against the Soviet Union, sooner rather than later, because in their calculus, a war was anyway inevitable. They do look a bit foolish in retrospect, don't they?

And because there seems to be no way to carry out any meaningful population reduction actions, arguing that that is the necessary condition is meaningless. Why not argue instead that humans must cease to pollute, or just start living in a subsistence economy? Surely that would be a message of hope, especially if compared to killing billions?

One could also argue that the necessary condition for solving the environmental crisis is the the invention of limitless, nonpolluting, cheap and uncontroversial energy source. Note that fast breeders and LFTRs may offer a pretty good performance on two or three of those dimensions.

[BNC Moderator]

MODERATOR
After the first few comments I have moved this circular exchange, regarding de-population, to a Population sub-board. Continue there if you wish but it seems unproductive to repeat yourselves ad nauseam.