An Open Offer to Al Gore

Al Gore, as reported today in the UK Telegraph, compared the “battle” against climate change to the fight against Nazi Germany in World War II. Speaking to the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, Al Gore used this awkward analogy to drive certain points . I would have preferred he made some references to The Art of War, but then that might not have caught everyone’s attention.

Al Gore is arguably better known now for his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” and his Nobel Peace Prize than he was for being Vice President. Nuclear advocates are well aware of Al’s dismissal of nuclear energy with statements such as “The problem with nuclear plants is that they only come in one size, extra large.” He was wrong about that and though he has probably been made aware of his error several times, he obviously feels no need to retract his statement. Which is really too bad as nuclear energy could really use a guy like Al Gore right now to gain some clout.

The easy target for a blog post about this would be to criticize Al Gore’s statement for being over the top as I’ve read in several blog posts about this incidence already. I think Al has done a great job at making people aware of the problems we are facing and I still hold out hope that he is open to listen to the nuclear community. But I would like to make a proposition instead on the off chance that Al Gore, or someone at least 6-degrees of separation from him, might read this blog and start discussing nuclear. I propose to Al Gore to take another look at nuclear energy. Reach out to the nuclear bloggers and others in the community and start asking them questions and get involved in what they have to say. My hope is that Al Gore will re-discover nuclear energy and proclaim “wow, this is better than I thought” as should all environmentalists who are truly seeking an answer to the clean energy solution.

Al made several other points in his speech. Some of which I agree a little bit with but my views are more nuanced perhaps. Here are Al’s statements:

• "We have everything we need except political will, but political will is a renewable resource."
• "The level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshold where political leaders feel that they must change,"

To the first point above, political will may be “renewable” but so is the oppositions’ will which in turn perpetuates on ongoing political struggle and many missed opportunities. Missed opportunities mean lost time and lost time means that change becomes more difficult, more costly, and more urgent. To the second point, I do think that everyone, including political leaders, feels aware and concerned but are also confused and held captive by the status quo. Behavioral changes to conserve energy are welcome but that will reap minimal benefits in the long run and does not address the root problem. Political leaders are heavily influenced by the polluting opposition that welcomes any accompanying confusion.

We have crossed a threshold of knowledge that is just as important if not more so than the threshold for will to change. That threshold is nuclear fission and it is here to stay. Unlike 19th century coal combustion, it is 20th century applied science that requires an industrial complex to grow and manage the technology. And though that industrial component is partially why its received so much public distrust, we live in a global civilization that is dependent upon institutional structures, many of which provide essential services so well that we take them for granted.

I believe Al Gore is sincere in his intentions. I hope that he will soon realize that the nuclear community is equally sincere to participate in the solution for clean energy and bring a greater prosperity to the rest of the world. I’m sure he could get a tour of Areva’s new plant in Finland, but more importantly I would hope he tours the great ideas being circulated by the nuclear community on the internet.

So what do you say Al? We want to be part of your dream, will you be a part of ours?

Technorati Tags: Al Gore,nuclear,climate change

Read more...

Sheldon Motely and the Anti-Nukes

Within the BarackObama.com website there are many different user groups with a variety of interests. These groups have email listservs that have seen many heated debates among the members behind the scenes. It should be no surprise that there are pro-nuclear groups, anti-nuclear groups, and renewable advocacy groups where members intermix and often exchange more than just ideas. I have archived a collection of many of these group emails that could make for some good posting fodder someday, but for now I hope to just burst one bubble.

Sheldon Motley, an at-large delegate from Pennsylvania, is particularly active in these groups spreading the typical tow-the-line anti-nuclear propaganda through the listservs. The anti-nuclear content Sheldon likes to peddle is nothing new, they live on like urban legends. As soon as there is a new institutional anti-nuclear paper such as the Vermont Law document recently published, Sheldon latches onto it as gospel. Charles Barton has written about the Vermont Law "study" paper and raises some excellent counter points. Worse yet, these anti-nuclear activists give no acknowledgment of nuclear energy's past contribution toward a cleaner climate or the guaranteed impossibility of a cleaner climate without nuclear. It might be another matter if you read a conciliatory statement such as "if only nuclear energy could overcome our concerns, it would be a great asset because the road ahead without it will be extremely arduous if not impossible". But no, there is not even so much as a shred of respect for nuclear energy among the crowd of Sheldon Motley's. They are determined to make nuclear energy the Rodney Dangerfield of energy sources.

Not only can nuclear energy overcome the concerns of the anti-nuke crowd, for the most part, it already has. The answers to prove this don't come from some small band of pro-nuclear conspiracy groups touting contrived studies as they do from the anti-nuclear groups. The answers come from scientists, our national labs, energy statistics, and esteemed universities that have dispelled these concerns repeatedly. Despite all the credible sources that endorse nuclear energy, these anti-nuke groups continue to thrive on second-hand ignorance group beliefs and most importantly - contributions.

Sheldon recently forwarded an anti-nuclear campaign letter from Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), a prominent anti-nuclear organization, that urges nuclear be kept out of the Senate Climate bill. Given what has been mentioned so far about nuclear in the Markey-Waxman bill, it seems they have little to be concerned about, nonetheless they are diligent and organized. A week or two previous to this, Sheldon forwarded material from "Beyond Nuclear", yet another anti-nuclear activist group.

I find arguing against anti-nuclear activism quite tiresome actually. I'd rather be writing about nuclear advancements, new supporters and new reactors that show great promise. The facts are easily researchable now and more people are waking up to the fact that we must get very serious about nuclear development as we are many years behind now. People are realizing that wind and solar will amount to basically nothing but a waste of money. I fear President Obama has already placed too much stake in this "soft energy path" philosophy and it could end up hurting his presidency. For this reason and the benefit of the President and others, the types of anti-nukes that claim to know what they are talking about must be exposed.

Sheldon does nothing more than regurgitate the writings of Amory Lovins, Helen Caldicott and others so there is nothing that he has said that is worthy of refuting. Lovins and Caldicott have already been taken to task thoroughly in many nuclear blogs. I am not one to criticize a person's ideas based on their appearance, but to a certain extent, choices in personal appearance send a message of how one wishes to be regarded. I'm not sure what message Sheldon might subtly be making with his appearance, if at all, but the dreadlocks and the overgrown beard remind me of people who often ask me for spare change. He might be well meaning in his own mind, but he is grossly misinformed and confused about nuclear energy.

Read more...

Physics 10 - Lecture 06: Radioactivity II

Continuing from the previous radioactivity lecture video from Professor Muller at UC Berkely, here is the second half of the lecture for your enjoyment. I really like Professor Muller. He explains science in a way I think everyone can appreciate and I highly recommend his book which can be found on the right hand side of this blog.

Read more...

Please excuse the mess

I am remodeling this blog with a new template so if you come across this while it's a complete mess, please come back soon and see the new look.

UPDATE: After trying a few different things, I'm getting very close to settling with this new design.

Read more...

Learn about Radiation at RadiationAnswers.org and watch this lecture too.

A few days ago I became aware of RadiationAnswers.org and promptly bookmarked it for future reference. I might have even tweeted about it. Today I read a blog post on Rod Adam's Atomic Insights blog about RadiationAnswers.org and was surprised to find out that this site is on the 6th page of a Google search for 'radiation', way behind many other sites who's sole purpose is to scare people about radiation and spread misinformation. It's time we try to bump the ranking of radiationanswers.org up a few pages by making some relevant associations. This also reminded me that I had yet to post another lecture by Professor Muller at UC Berkeley (author of Physics for Future Presidents) about radiation.

Fear of radiation has become widespread and the cure for fear is education. Professor Muller does an excellent job of explaining radiation. This is no ordinary science lecture, he is very engaging and uses a lot of props during his talk.

This is lecture 1 of 2. Runtime is 48 minutes.

Read more...

Why Bad Things Happen to Good Technologies

Looking at energy issues from different perspectives is extremely important in coming years to develop complex answers to ever complex challenges and questions. 

John Sterman at MIT is a professor of Management and Engineering Systems where he centers on improving managerial decision making in complex systems. 

I have previously written about the market phenomena of why certain technology fails and others succeed, sometimes in spite of their relative merits or faults.  Sterman uses my same example of the Dvorak keyboard as a superior design losing out to an inferior design of the Qwerty layout.  So why doesn’t the superior technology always win in the marketplace?

As Sterman points out, cost is not the only issue.  His system modeling analysis shows us that in many instances our intuition is wrong, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t still solutions left.  Many of the challenges that Sterman presents face the nuclear industry in similar ways.

Give it a watch, I think you’ll find it interesting.  Run time is 55 minutes.

Read more...

Real Environmentalists Support Nuclear Energy T-Shirt Sale

Between Sunday, June 14 to June 21, use these coupon codes and get a discount:

COVERYOURNAKEDNESS - SAVE $5 on orders over $25
COVERYOURFRIENDS - SAVE $10 on orders over $50
COVERTHEWHOLEFAMILY - SAVE $20 on orders over $100

Read more...

Senate Republican Conference Roundtable on Nuclear Energy

I'm watching this. Comments later.

Read more...