Dear Bill,
On this day in 1955 humanity welcomed you to this weird but wonderful world of ours. Since then, you have been a tremendous force, leaving your mark in our civilization in many different ways. You are one of a very few people who have been taken into history already in their lifetimes, which speaks volumes to your capacity to exert change. So, before anything else, let me wish you a happy birthday and many, many more productive years.
Although it is your birthday and you are the one to make a wish, I shall dare to make a wish for you: may you be more vocal and assertive in your drive to restore nuclear power as a safe—certainly much safer than e.g. coal-burning plants, as far as human health is concerned—extremely cheap, clean and readily available source of energy for humanity. As I've discussed elsewhere not long ago, if we are to save our environment and make our civilization sustainable on the long run, passive-safety reactors, which you are familiar with and investing in, are an obvious choice with no comparable alternatives.
Indeed, if we are to recycle our refuse on a grand scale, we need ridiculously cheap, readily available energy, for recycling consumes huge amounts of it. If we are to implement vertical and urban farming—our best option to achieve sustainable food production on the long run—the enormous energy demands of 24/7 artificial lighting are only plausibly met by cheap nuclear power. If we are to survive the imminent drinking water crisis, we need desalination plants everywhere, whose enormous energy demands can, arguably, only be met by nuclear power plants. The list goes on. A green sustainability revolution can only be enabled by clean nuclear power, for which the technology options are available. I wish environmentalists and governments would understand that.
So this is my appeal to you: please dedicate more effort and resources to making people—particularly environmentalists—aware that the nuclear technology we have today is entirely different from the dirty, unsafe nuclear reactors of the 50s and 60s. With passive-safety technologies available today, a defective nuclear reactor is one that simply shuts down by itself, and never melts down. With technologies we have today, nuclear reactors consume nuclear waste, as opposed to producing it. I don't have kids, but if I did, I would be quite happy to live right next door to a nuclear power plant built on these new technologies. And these technologies are—at least as far as I can see—the only game in town to enable a truly green sustainability revolution; our only plausible option to save our environment and, frankly, ourselves.
I do not have the platform required to raise awareness of this; but you do. The vast majority of people won't have the understanding of technology and science to conclude, by themselves, that we have the technologies to clean up our act, if only we deployed them. What the vast majority of people do have is prejudice; prejudice evoked by Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island; disasters caused by ridiculously primitive and dangerous nuclear reactors, for which we have vastly better and safer alternatives today. Even governments—pressured by popular prejudices that drive voting patterns—surrender to what they know is a flawed position; just look at Germany. Only someone like you, with your means and visibility, can help raise awareness of this critically urgent issue. We can save ourselves and the planet, if we only are brave enough to apply the science and technology we already have.
Solar and wind power—which have, arguably, worse environmental impact than modern nuclear technology would have—are certainly good, but they will never meet the extraordinary energy demands of a green sustainability revolution. Please engage with governments and environmentalists to raise awareness of this; and if you are already doing so, please do more. Nothing is more critical or more urgent.
Sincerely,
Bernardo Kastrup, 28 October 2020.
So the key to saving the planet is to transition from runaway growth to runaway growth on steroids?
ReplyDeleteI didn't read that in his essay, Bob. He mentioned three things: (1) the need to recycle massive amounts of waste, (2) the need for vertical and urban farming, and (3) desalination plants to meet the water crisis.
DeleteYes, but he also says those 3 things necessitate “ ridiculously cheap, readily available energy”. If this culture had the maturity that it could be counted on to use that energy for those things that would be wonderful, but it’s ridiculously obvious to me that the primary use would be an explosion of resource extraction and consumption.
DeleteIn my mind the points Bernardo are making are obvious. The argument we are left with is like the decision process many cancer patients are left with. Do I go for surgery and chemo or do I look at alternative medicine? The world of alternative medicine is full of charlatans, idealist, religious zealots and their clientele are fearful, gullible people hoping that there is some painless way out of this mess. So in my mind we have no choice but to go with the surgery and chemo and possibly incorporarte alternative medicine where it makes since. However always keep in mind we have a serious problem that requires serious and possibly dangerous intervention.
DeleteIf "this culture doesn't have the maturity that it could be counted on to use" (Bob) “ridiculously cheap, readily available energy” (Bernardo) without "an explosion of resource extraction and consumption" (Bob), then we are doomed. This is a dim view of the human race.
DeleteNot to split hairs, bit it’s a view of a culture, not of a race.
DeleteBernardo, I have been following the questions surrounding nuclear energy for over 40 years since I was a college student in engineering and then physics. I acknowledge that there are newer reactor designs that are not susceptible to the risks associated with the designs of yesteryear but I still find myself unable to join in your advocacy.
ReplyDeleteMy reasons are twofold and both are regarding the extreme toxicity and persistence of some of the radioactive materials.
My first concern is the fallibility of contractors involved in construction of the new facilities. Cutting corners & bribing inspectors is too great a temptation when associated with the large sum of monies involved in such large projects.
My second and probably dominate concern is in regards to the question of water disposal. Yes, I recognize that there are numerous other highly toxic elements being utilized in modern industrial production that are also a cause for concern but that does not negate the problem of safely storing substances for periods of time that are longer than the duration of modern human civilization.
Until such a time when we have the technology to reprocess long duration radioactive materials into to either short duration or non-radioactive materials, I will continue to regard advocacy for expanded nuclear power generation with extreme skepticism.
Traveling wave-front reactors, for instance, consume nuclear waste:
Deletehttps://www.terrapower.com/our-work/traveling-wave-reactor-technology/
Shocking coincidence, Bill Gates is founder and chairman of TerraPower. So, what about the fake naive, "Please engage with governments and environmentalists to raise awareness of this; and if you are already doing so, please do more"? As if Bill Gates, with his ill-gotten wealth has not been lobbying and advocating obsessively - not a small vulnus to democracy, if you ask me - in favour of nuclear power for decades.
DeleteInteresting how quickly you go for the 'fake and naive' accusation. Well, it's neither fake nor naive. Clearly, whatever efforts he is making, aren't sufficient, for the testing and experimental deployment of new reactor technologies are still forbidden in the USA and most of the Western world.
DeleteIf there are indeed proven technologies to operate nuclear power plants safely, and proven technologies to eliminate or permanently isolate whatever nuclear waste they may produce, then and only then is this armchair environmentalist "all ears." I certainly respect you enough, Bernardo, to look into it. A huge problem here, however, is the same one besetting the issue of proper pandemic response. Credentialed, well-recognized experts are themselves divided, often antagonistic, in the opinions they offer and the guidance they give. How can we laymen/women possibly determine which of these experts to believe and trust? The postmodern age of deconstruction has done its work too well, Truth--even though as an idealist I believe in its existence--lies in tatters all around us, at the feet of Bill Gates and those of his homeless, hungry neighbor.
DeleteBernardo, as per your prompt, I have read up a bit on Traveling wave-front reactors. For many years now I have taken the position that we should not build more old style light water fission reactors but a limited building of fission reactors for research purposes would be acceptable. The TWR reactor concept seems promising & should be researched. If it proves viable, I see it as far superior to current nuclear technology & given that its fuel would consist of the current stockpile of spent nuclear fuel from old LWR facilities I see it as environmentally positive. I still have questions regarding the ultimate waste products of the TW reactor which I did not see in my cursory review of the literature on the internet. I would support the US Congress taking the steps needed to facilitate the research. However, I would still not support widespread promulgation of other reactor designs even though modern reactor designs are far safer than what has been built in the past. I would rather support the gradual decommissioning of the current reactors & only deploying new reactors if they have the qualities of the TWR concept which would actually reduce the current levels of nuclear waste.
DeleteBernardo, I have three questions:
ReplyDelete1) how would you respond to the sobering math of Roger Pielke?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#243e91aa35f7
2) Since the human disruptive impact on earth systems is the cumulative effect of population, consumption and technology, why do you believe that energy tech is the difference that will make (or break) the difference?
3) As an idealist thought experiment, let's assume that efficient non-polluting energy is possible and will greatly expand our options for future lifestyles. What will compel that new tech will be used for more caring and sharing for and among all earthly inhabitants rather than to further raise the limits on eco-and-social destructive imbalances?
Lou, your question is really in regards to the problem of the existence of human technology & energy usage regardless of the source. If we had unlimited energy derived entirely from renewables the problem of wise usage still exists. So the real question is what would it take for humanity to mature to the point where we can continue to be the technological species on this planet while living in harmony with the planet.
DeleteThe disruption necessary to produce a return to a hunter gatherer or subsistence farming society which might exist in harmony with nature would be likely to cause as much damage as our continued neglectful use of technology. There is also the consideration that even at low levels of technology, humanity has caused significant disruption of the environment. Just ask the wolly mammoth:
https://www.history.com/news/were-humans-responsible-for-killing-off-the-wooly-mammoth
Of course, humans haven't been the only creatures to cause significant change on this planet:
https://thewonderofscience.com/phenomenon/2018/6/15/the-great-oxygenation-event#:~:text=Description%3A%20The%20Great%20Oxygenation%20Event,the%20Earth's%20first%20mass%20extinction.
The fact is, change has always & will always occur & there will always be some creatures who suffer & others who benefit. I think what we need to strive for is conscious change rather than change brought about due to our ignorance.
As others have said here, I think it is a better path to move forward than backward. To do either successfully will require a significant increase in wisdom among humanity. I believe one could argue that the improved communication made available through our use of technology is our best option for increasing the needed wisdom. I wouldn't rule out nuclear power but I would be very cautious about it for reasons I have stated in my other comments to BK's letter.
Bernardo,
ReplyDeleteHave you considered combining nuclear with hydrogen? High temperature nuclear can facilitate the production of hydrogen and environmental groups might be more willing to cooperate if a hydrogen infrastructure is part of the project. Basically build a hydrogen delivery infrastructure along with nuclear and dedicate some of the nuclear capacity to hydrogen production. As new sources of hydrogen come on line they can easily be added to the infrastructure and someday we may have a nuclear free hydrogen economy.
From a strictly pragmatic standpoint nuclear is the only option in my mind. If as a species we had the luxury of time to play around with so called "sustainable" technologies then that would be one thing. I personally do not see us as having that luxury and spending time and effort trying to assign blame for our plight is a fool's errand. Possibly nuclear will only prove to be a stop gap measure that buys us time to develop a less flawed energy source but without that time we are doomed. We can't go back. People talk about going back as going back to the "stone ages". My guess is that going back to the stone ages would be a walk in the park compared to what will actually await us if we fail to keep successfully moving forward. That bridge to our past is as ruthlessly destroyed as Hiroshima was after having an atomic bomb dropped on it. So in reality nuclear is our only option. We will probably never conquer nuclear energies problematic nature so we are left with no choice but to continue to learn to effectively manage those problems.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the only way out is through, not back. But why do you choose to believe the experts who say that nuclear energy is the only way through, as opposed to other experts who say that nuclear energy is instead a dangerous step backward? Are you a nuclear scientist or engineer, and if not, what is it that inclines you to go one way in this dispute and me another? Obviously, I must also pose this question to myself.
DeleteActually I worked as an automation engineer in the oil industry. Now I live high up in the Andes in Ecuador on my little farm. My opinions are typically informed although not exhaustively. I do not have the background to make a decision based on personal skills. There is an old saying that "No decision is still a decision" another is "I would rather have a bad decision than no decision". I see humanity as being somewhat paralyzed. When we are doing a big project in the oil industry with sometimes as many as 5000 people working, many times with competing agendas, competing timelines and competing personalities being paralyzed is not an option. Decisions have to be made quickly, decisively, safely and as informed as possible. Many times in my position I was responsible for areas I had very little understanding of so I relied on people to inform me that did have the understanding. Did I get conflicting advice from experts? Constantly! I still had to look at the data and weigh the advice and make the best decision I could.
DeleteI find it difficult to take an optimistic approach in this regard. We failed to do anything of significance regarding climate change, we've done an absurdly poor job of managing this now seemingly unmanageable global viral epidemic, we in the US still behave as though we only ever have two choices when it comes to voting, the closest thing to no choice at all and effectively negating its value altogether... The planet's permafrost is rapidly thawing out and we still have a startling number of people who think that "All lives matter," is a meaningful response to the BLM movement. We very thoroughly mistake currency for wealth and our economic systems are still designed to function only via perpetual growth with the unquestionable assumption that most of us need to be abused to the benefit of roughly no one to keep it going... Our collective stupidity is overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteFrom a philosophical Idealist perspective: This planet has been coated with an incomprehensibly complex microbial system that has been freely sharing information for 4.5 billion years, an information-sharing system that makes the internet look like a feeble joke. I can't help feeling like 'Gaea', for lack of a better term, may be in the process of culling our numbers, perhaps even beginning to change how our minds and bodies function directly given the strange and poorly understood permanent neurological effects of the current pandemic. In this light that is a bit startling.
I do understand we need to deal with the problems we have, not the problems we'd like, so I can't disagree that seeking out nuclear energy may be the best choice for us right now, but it hardly seems promising as a solution, not that anything else does, nor do I trust any part of the effort to be carried out in a reasonable, rational, or safe manner. As the consequences of screwing up are so great and the probability of screwing up is even greater, though I have no counter-proposal, I can't bring myself to be enthusiastic about the enterprise. I certainly can't view it as a priority.
It's extremely easy to point out an airplanes bad landing but it requires a pilot to correct it. One problem we have now is so many people think because they can point out bad landings that makes them a pilot. The deafening noise created by people pointing out the bad landings in the environment, politics, society, etc. through the miracle of the internet and social media is almost overwhelming. The majority of the poorest in the US live with more comfort and security than the most powerful monarchs in Europe during the 15th century. We have taken individual self importance and turned it into a religion. My question is in reality are we really that important as individuals? At what point must someone make the tough decisions and disregard the noise. As an example I live in Ecuador, South America and live at the front lines of the deforestation issue. I hate it but I see no way to stop deforestation without using extremely violent and painful methods. It will never happen by holding hands and singing Kumbaya. Same thing with the energy issue. At some point someone will have to take the bull by horns, filter out the noise from most of the self important individuals and get the job done. Now if one wants to argue that is a less than perfect method I agree but it is the method we are left with.
DeleteMight humanity be entering, with the extreme difficulty and discord to be expected, a new evolutionary stage, in which both the identification of the problems and the framing of the solutions include something akin to "singing Kumbaya?" It says a lot about our current state of mind and heart when a lovely song like that calling for the relief of suffering, a song often sung around a campfire by idealistic young people, is mocked and commonly used as a slur. THAT attitude IMHO is the first thing that must go if we are to have a ghost of chance of pulling ourselves out of our self-created quagmire.
DeleteI disagree. The desire for peace and harmony is a desire for stasis. The system we live in does not allow for stasis, ever. The universe is full of violence and everything from galaxies to electrons perish at some point. No where in the universe is peace and harmony the norm as best I can tell. It is an artificial construct of humanity. Another way to say it is that it is a childish fantasy. To me the universe accepted on it's own terms is amazing and terrifying at the same time. Why it is the way it is I don't pretend to know. If the "Creator" had brought me in during the engineering phase I might have designed it differently but alas I was not invited. So while many would love to be a spectator of the game where they never get hurt and the game is only for their amusement I feel we are headed into a period where that will not be an option. The game is going to grow and at some point absorb all of the spectators into it's midst.
DeleteThe first reply here I note is a reply to my comment. It's all too easy to assume it's intended to disagree, but the essential point is much the same as mine. The deforestation analogy hits the nail on the head. Perhaps the best solution is violent and bloody. Would you enthusiastically promote it and eagerly anticipate participating in the ensuing gory mess? Probably not. Neither am I.
DeleteI most want to address the comment regarding peace and harmony. I note a misunderstanding there. The peace and harmony promoted by holding hands and singing are at bottom feelings and attitudes, not states of stasis and stagnation. Everything changes by necessity. How we engage with and enact change is what is in question.
No I would not want to take part in the gory mess nor would I want to fight in a war but I want to believe I would if necessary for humanity's survival. Let's assume for a minute there is no death so killing is never actually killing. If that is the case then what actually exists is my fear or distaste of killing. Humans all of the time eat plants and animals yet proclaim their love of nature and would never kill a chicken or possibly cut down a tree. Humans in successful societies depend on their military and police to do the dirty work of maintaining law and order by killing and imprisoning. Here is another aspect of a philosophy I follow, "One must never surrender to fear. Once you surrender to fear then fear will control your life." So in all of this previous discussion the fear is as real as anything else since everything is a product of consciousness. The chicken, the tree, the rain forest and the fear are all products of consciousness. So in my world view surrendering to fear is probably more dangerous than killing for a cause since surrendering to fear is forever. Now there are other ways not to surrender to fear than actually carrying out the act of killing as an example. One is never ever lie to yourself. If the real reason you won't kill the chicken is because you are afraid then never allow yourself to assign noble reasons to what is actually due to your cowardice. In today's society it seems the more "intellectual" you are the more convoluted and sophisticated the lies you tell yourself are. Most of the intellectuals I have known have created worlds of lies and they only allow people around them that will reflect those lies. When I talk to people that live in hardship they live in the truth.
DeleteBut didn't you say this is all a dream though? If so then what is the point of trying to save anything then?
ReplyDeleteOnly for the satisfaction of facing the challenge in my opinion. I play a lot of Solitaire knowing that it has no long term significance.
ReplyDelete