Earthbeat Radio

One Response to “Ebert, Romm and More”

1. David Lewis Says:
   March 19th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

   This concept of energy, i.e. that there are only two types, “energy from hell”, and “energy from heaven” makes no sense.

   There aren’t only these two types. The concept is about as useful as the old classification system for all matter that went “earth, air, fire and water”. Its ridiculous, unhelpful, unscientific, and worse, will hold back the movement to cope with climate change if it is not discarded.

   What would you say of geothermal? Much of the energy that heats the interior of the Earth comes from the original kinetic energy of planetary formation, i.e. gravity, and the rest comes from the decay of unstable isotopes such as uranium and thorium.

   And what about nuclear power? I wouldn’t have believed it was possible to do a show on the urgency for taking action on climate change without mentioning nuclear power even once, except I’ve seen “the movement” do this for so long.

   The energy in uranium and thorium is stored energy from a supernova that blew up before our Sun formed. This planetary system formed out of remnants from that nuclear explosion, so say the physicists, because otherwise there is no way to explain the existence of elements heavier than iron. These heavier elements were not created in the Big Bang, but only in supernova explosions of supermassive stars happening afterwards.

   So much of what your listeners are made out of was created by nuclear reactions in a supernova.

   We can tap into this stored energy now by using the process of fission in nuclear reactors. The IPCC points out that nuclear power is as low carbon as any renewable source, no matter what the anti nuclear types in “the movement” love to tell each other that this is not true.

   I’ve been involved in the climate issue for more than twenty years. In 1988 I was the only voice at the historic Changing Atmosphere conference in Toronto who called for stabilizing the composition of the atmosphere and reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases. No one else dared to say this. At that time merely saying this in public was taken to be evidence of insanity.

   Still, at that time I was agnostic about nuclear.

   It was when James Hansen wrote on the subject saying he was taking a look at the technology, now that his assessment of the evidence for climate change had him saying that civilization needed to reduce the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or risk losing the planetary system civilization had evolved on, that I decided to study nuclear.

   I’ve read a number of books, and authoritative reports. I’ve corresponded with pro nuclear types, and listened to what the anti nukes have to say. I toured an operating reactor and talked with the operators. There is no question in my mind that society has made a great mistake repressing nuclear power, and its time to stop.

   The “movement” made up its mind on nuclear before awareness of climate change dawned. The Sierra Club used to support nuclear as a way of conserving areas that would be flooded behind hydro dams. You can see it in the dates they adopted their policies. All the nuclear policy is dated prior to their first “enhanced greenhouse effect” policy.

   Your interview with Roger Ebert seemed incredible in this context. You put him on saying he’s realized civilization itself is in jeopardy, but you won’t even comment on the fact that many in the “movement”, who see this dire consequence looming as well, are taking another look at nuclear.

Leave a Reply