Rise of the Nuclear Greens

Robert Bryce, a highly respected author and now film producer, who recently released the film "Juice: How Electricity Explains the World," attempted to tackle the counter-intuitive phenomena that was being noticed at that time—approximately two years after the devastating disaster at Fukushima—wherein prominent environmentalists who were anti-nuclear before the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant became pro-nuclear after the accident.

Bryce reports on the emergence of what he calls "pronuclear Greens," and the bifurcation that they represented in the environmental movement. These leading environmental thinkers, it turns out, realized that despite how horrific the earthquake-induced tsunami was, and its ability to eliminate power to the nuclear plant for enough time to cause the meltdown of three of the four reactors at the Daiichi plant, that nevertheless, the actual loss of life from that accident was so negligible, it was almost something to celebrate.

Of course, the tsunami swept away some 15,000 souls. In the lead-up to the meltdown, the fear created by the threat of what would happen, caused unbelievable panic, that hundreds of people died from accidents, heart attacks, the failure to give proper medical treatment, and many other causes. Estimates put the number of deaths related to the ordered evaculation at about 1,000. But the number of people who died from the meltdowns themselves as well as from the amount of escaping radiation? Zero.

Yes, there was a catastrophic failure at a nuclear power plant but, the more you learn about it, the more you realize that lives would have been saved had there not been the evacuation order in the first place. That the damage done was limited primarily to the physical plant and none spilled out to the surrounding community. What radiation did escape was relatively minor and impacts from that would have been highly treatable with iodine and routine check-ups. In fact, the fear of nuclear was more dangerous than the meltdown.

Read Robert Bryce's prescient article "Rise of the Nuclear Greens," published at The Breakthrough Institute.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Anti-nuclear campaign, Brilliant thinkers, Climate policy, Environmental support for nuclear, Future of Energy, LINKS, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

June 15, 2013

Billionaires backing nuclear

Paul Allen, Sir Richard Branson, Ray Rothrock, Steve Kirsch, Stewart Brand, and Bill Gates support nuclear energy. In "Why Billionaire Paul Allen Backed Pro-Nuclear Power Film Pandora's Promise," author Kerry A. Dolan explores the reasons why these billionaires want to get people thinking about nuclear in a whole new way.

As the film itself explains, when actual facts about nuclear are laid out clearly, people can make up their own minds, which leads to informed decision-making, which, as Allen said, "is critical if we wat to tackle the world's biggest challenges." Unfortunately, most people don't know the facts—just the myths about nuclear power.

Read more about how these powerful men became involved with the making of Pandora's Promise in Forbes' "Why Billionaire Paul Allen Backed Pro-Nuclear Power Film Pandora's Promise."

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate policy, Future of Energy, LINKS, Nuclear innovation, Philanthropic support for nuclear

May 1, 2005

Stewart Brand’s Environmental Heresies

Stewart Brand, best known for having founded The Whole Earth Catalogue, wrote an essay entitled "Environmental Heresies, published in 2005, that addressed his belief that the environmental movement would soon reverse its position on four core issues. He wrote: "Over the next ten years, I predict, the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbanization, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power."

Brand was not correct as to his timing for each of these issues but this transitions does seem to be underway with respect to nuclear energy, that is now being seen as a necessary component of a 100% clean energy grid.
Brand had keen insight into the environmental movement, its composition and divisions. Even more important than his prescriptions on issues, reading this article provides key insights into why the environmental movement is so fractureed and contentious. He wrote:

The success of the environmental movement is driven by two powerful forces – romanticism and science – that are often in opposition. The romantics identify with natural systems; the scientists study natural systems. The romantics are moralistic, rebellious against the perceived dominant power, and combative against any who appear to stray from the true path. They hate to admit mistakes or change direction. The scientists are ethicalistic, rebellious against any perceived dominant paradigm, and combative against each other. For them, admitting mistakes is what science is.

There are a great many more environmental romantics than there are scientists. That’s fortunate, since their inspiration means that most people in developed societies see themselves as environmentalists. But it also means that scientific perceptions are always a minority view, easily ignored, suppressed, or demonized if they don’t fit the consensus story line.

Read Brand's 2005 article, printed originally at the Technology Review: "Environmental Heresies" here.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Environmental support for nuclear, Future of Energy, LINKS, Nuclear innovation