Slashdot Mirror
Pandora's Promise and the Problem of "Solutionism"
Lasrick writes "Kennette Benedict of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reviews Pandora's Promise, a new documentary that focuses on environmental activists like Stewart Brand who have gone from vehemently anti-nuclear to vehemently pro-nuclear views. Good points brought up by Benedict that weren't really addressed in the film."
From the article: "The flaw in the film's approach is its zealous advocacy of one solution — one silver bullet — to meet the tremendous challenges of providing for some nine billion people by 2050, while also protecting societies from the ravages of climate disruption. The kind of thinking that led some of these environmentalists to single-mindedly protest nuclear power plants during the 1970s and 1980s leads them to just-as-single-mindedly advocate a push toward nuclear power 40 years later."
Of course they want nuclear power -- they just don't want it here.
The "you can only skip six times an hour" does indeed suck!
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
If that doesn't happen, it will be because solar undercut the price of nuclear without the waste or security problems... in that case, even better!
around 2000 there was a huge push for natural gas. lots of greenie talking heads on TV and ads on TV saying how natural gas was awesome and oil was evil
demand surged, prices surged. people spent lots of money converting from oil heating
we got fracking which the same environmentalists now say is evil along with natural gas which now causes global warming. but it didn't 13 years ago.
Ethanol had the same story a few years later
i would be looking to invest in some nuclear power. these people aren't rooting for the environment, but are leeches looking to make a buck for themselves at the expense of everyone else
It's not a silver bullet, but it's probably the best shot we've got.
It's a great field for the government to subsidize for basic research, so we can move away from the technology of the 60s.
Can anyone tell me how and end-to-end thorium fuel ecosystem is supposed to work? All of the arguments I hear go like this:
Thorium! Its cheap and abundant
Put it in a special reactor
???
Power!
Well that ??? part is usually described as "fuel reprocessing". Nobody, as far as I can tell, has explained how that should work. And it's not a trivial issue. As far as I can tell, what's coming out the wrong end of a thorium reactor will be a molten salt soup of toxic, possibly very corrosive, and VERY radioactive materials. This is because the thorium breeding cycle can't go on forever, and the stuff needs to be processed to get rid of undesirable reaction byproducts (or refine out desirable ones?)
In any case, the above does not sound very pleasant. It sounds expensive and dangerous and potentially hazardous, a lot like how we store spent fuel rods now.
The most important thing for us to be spending our money on is trying to avoid that 9 billion, or at least trying not to go beyond it. Universally available (heavily subsidized) contraception is the first place to start. Secondly try to counter those who actually WANT to increase population numbers, like Erdogan & Romney and their respective religions. Once that's done there'll still be plenty of money left to pay for nuclear power.
Ironically, my mind has almost done the same but in reverse. As a sci-fi buff, and futurist, I love the idea, and have since the '70s, but the potential for megadisaster, though incredibly low, is severe if it ever happens.
Maybe the US and Western Europe can do it right, or right-er, anyway, but what about plants popcorning up all over the world? Will they follow the latest and greatest? Especially if it involves nationalism by local politicians to design it themselves.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
How about one BIG bullet and multiple smaller ones?
Dark Reflection
They will build them in China then, along with all jobs and industry. You will still have your banksters and McJobs of course.
Creaating nuclear power efficiently today requires uranium, something that is very limited on this planet.
If Fukashima has not occurred, we would be currently looking at a global uranium shortage in the next 5 years as existing major sources (re-purposing from old warheads) dry up and are not replaced with new mines.
Whenever production of power plants comes back on track, we will once again be facing such a shortage.
The review doesn't disagree that nuclear is a big part of the solution, it just complains that the authors sweep aside all other considerations and doesn't like their attitude toward anti-nuclear activists. In other words, it wants the anti-nuclear activists to have a voice.
What is disingenuous about Pandora's Promise is the way the new judgment is conveyed. The film mocks groups that continue to protest nuclear power, treating one-time colleagues as extremists and zealots. An audience discussion after a preview at the University of Chicago made it clear I was not the only one who sensed the self-righteous tone of the newly converted in the film's narrative. In the end, by dismissing the protestors and failing to engage them in significant debate about the pros and cons of nuclear energy, the film undermined its own message.
Nobody loves nuclear power, but what else can provide sufficient power to the world without damaging the climate? Burning carbon, including natural gas, will cause a catastrophe. Wind, solar and geothermal can't ramp up fast enough to meet power demand, AFAIK. Only nuclear power provides sufficient energy without causing more climate change.
The extreme pro-nuclear brigade always assume that energy consumption will rise indefinitely, or at least linearly with population. That simply is not the case.
LED lights are a good example. Brighter, better colour and consuming far less energy. Tablet computers and laptop use less power than desktops.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Chernobyl. Fukushima. Two megadisasters in my lifetime doesn't count as "incredibly low potential" in my book. Though frankly, I am more concerned about the lack of long-term storage facilities for high-level waste. Meltdowns can only happen while the reactor is operating; radioactive waste is a disaster waiting to happen any time in the next 10,000 years.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
What is this, 1950? I'm leaving these old timers behind and hopping on the pro-random-matter-fusion energy plant bandwagon. Yeah, the project is like 3x over budget and congress wants heads to roll but I want my Mr Fusion damn it. Also, I'm pre-pro-antimatter/matter reaction-based energy too. As in it hasn't technically been formally invented yet but I'm still all for it.
people are still arguing about this nonsense? If we don't need nuclear plants, then we don't have to take the extremely minimal risk they pose. But if the energy we have isn't enough or is messing everything else up, why not use it? Answer seems pretty clear to me.
If Fukashima has not occurred, we would be currently looking at a global uranium shortage in the next 5 years as existing major sources (re-purposing from old warheads) dry up and are not replaced with new mines.
Whenever production of power plants comes back on track, we will once again be facing such a shortage.
Yes there are limited reserves of uranium like everything else on the planet, but there is a lot more than 5 years... more like 200 according to this article. This is important because it buys us time to get technologies which are actually clean (looking at you, solar energy researchers) up to the speed of our current energy sources. Or find something else
-1 Comment Contains Portal Reference
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Best to have a diversified diet. The government needs to do only 2 things: don't subsidize, and make sure every energy form pays for its REAL cost. And that means one motherfucking hefty CO2 tax, and a big piggy bank full of money next to every nuclear plant to pay for dismantling when the time comes.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
The problem becomes the cost to create a plant the cost to maintain it. Then you have to deal with the waste, what do you want to do dig out any and every mountain side to bury it, as well as having security in place to prevent it from being stolen and used for evil purposes, or the containment building collapsing.
The "severe weather" from said global warming, as well as earthquakes, and other unforeseen events, doesn't really make the nuclear idea all that great. And it has been a known fact the industry has always pushed this idea because it can make ridiculous globs of money. I would dare to think this idea will lead to people not being able to afford the power bill, with the cost of building a plant, maintaining it (which is also suspect) and having to put in place proper security.
However if I remember right they are trying to create chambers that will allow a full molten state, and or use up the life of the radioactivity.
Yes for the most part they are safe, however who (country) and how any "trouble" is being reported accurately is also something I have questions over. And the ones that became disasters were because of laziness to make sure, depending on the region, that backup systems are in safe locations and fully functional.
Doesn't matter if you blame the hippies - the bankers are the ones that are not going to let nuclear happen.
I can hardly wait to see this documentary. So far all I have
see is the rejection of the view that the solution that nuclear
power represents, MUST NOT be used. To be replaced with the view
that Nuclear power should be considered promentaly in the solution.
people selling snake oil or people whining about "solutionism".
Since when is a documentary required to promote every possible agenda? I haven't seen the documentary, but I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that it does not ignore nuclear power's downsides, especially considering its focus on previously anti-nuclear environmentalists.
"Solutionism" is a thought terminating cliche, a way to dismiss any solution because it doesn't encompass every possible solution. It's a ploy for people who only know rhetoric and politics to wrestle control of the debate from people who know science and engineering.
Consider the vacuous absurdity of the closing of the article:
No one is under any obligation to please you, the head of an anti-nuclear activist group, which is no stranger to zealotry. If you want other options, make your own documentary to promote them. You can make it "fact-based" too!
I think thorim reactors have a lot of potential. It's frustrating if non-proliferation treaties are in the way because thorium reactors don't produce bomb material. You still have the waste-storage problem, though.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
if you double efficiency you can go from the now ~5 billion people to 10 billion no problem.
the problem is that that is NOT profitable.
we want growth and growth in profit too which means to waste!
"TEH BEST(tm)" economy wise would be 150 watts light bulbs inside the fridge and MOER nuclear power.
srsrlsy tho, car traffic in cities can still see major efficiency gains, like 300% better, which means 3x less
gasoline consumption. RED lights are like "TEH WORST(tm)" for gasoline consumption.
jsut don't forget that "efficient" is NOT equal to "profit". less money spent also means less money earned.
so either make them robots/machines that make nearly everything real smart and thus the
products next to free -or- scale the way of living now and thus scale waste and inefficiency too.
to be honest this post is completly inefficient because decision makes (or future shapers) won't have
time to read this anyways : )
you think this is a democratic world? you think you're free? dream on in your virtual machine : D
You have to admit there is a certain amount of Schadenfreude when watching the environmentalists trying to reconcile the fact that nuclear is the only practical solution to AGW and power needs and their distaste for nuclear.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You seem to be saying nuclear power is safe because the risks were known, but nobody did anything about them. I say nuclear power is unsafe, for exactly the same reason.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
We need more like him: Stewart fuckin' Brand.
See also Long Now Foundation.
-kgj
Solutionism?
Seriously?
How deprived of all faculity of thinking must a movement become to come up with the idea of "solutionism" as a critique? There is a problem and people think about solutions. Any solution would, of course, be reason for existential difficulties of the problem. But the problem is the basis of power of said movements. When the problem goes away, so does the power that came with it, when the movement came into existence and so does the only solution the movement sanctioned: complete austerity and refraining from any use of technology and any interaction with nature as much as in any way possible.
"Solutionism" is the latest, most ludicrous and hopefully last, attempt at defending the only solution "environmentalism" ever came up - by denying the adequancy of any solution of their problem whatsoever. Thus perpetuating their claim to power indefinitely - you know, the UNSOLVED PROBLEMS of technology.
Go and rot in hell.
is that those who are convinced they are right, are not.
The fact that some people have done a complete 180 in 30 years justifies no one listening to them then, or now.
So much money spent chasing different solutions... Billions into solar etc. Why can't we get $200 Million for a 100 megawatt Polywell Fusion plant? It'll either work, or fall on it's ass. Compared to the billions spent on the other pipe dreams a $200 Million dollar yes/no crapshoot seems pretty reasonable to me. The reward is worth it. The risk is pretty minimal. $200 Million that would be wasted in any other area of government.
The summary paints this picture that it's defective motivations that lead people to go from anti nuke to pro nuke. Au contrair. In the 1970s and 1980s it made a lot of sense to be anti-nuke just as it now makes sense to be anti-GMO. Those people did us a huge favor. They forced these industries to account for the unpaid externality costs that they were free ridiing on. The nuke industry was a headlong rush to market paid for with public bonds going into private investors pockets with very little accounting for the costs of downstream waste disposal, the risks of faclities, and under appreciated environmental costs (such as the tennessee rivers being sterilized by excessive heating).
The protestors forced the nuke industry to face a large regulatory and captical risk hurdle to develop new plants. This forced a better accounting even if the actual costs they were including were only proxies for the real costs. IN the mean time the technology has advanced remarkably.
We also have a better grip on the future costs of peower production and an attentiveness to conservation of power that we did no have then. Fracking has come online, renewables are forming a competitive market.
Nuke power now has a good role to play as a major part of a power mix, especially in china where demand is insatiable and the olny alternative is coal.
It makes complete sense to start developing nuclear power under these safe, sober conditions with the externalities properly built into the costs.
thus this is not "soluionism" as a reasoning defect. It's simply good reasoning in both cases. changing your mind as conditions change actually shows these people were not simply hung up on nuclear = evil but rather the nuclear plants of the time in the market of the time were potentially a bad idea.
I'd say GMO and Fracking are at the same level today. There's a gold rush for these with very little accounting for the true external costs (e.g. water aquifer destruction, fugitive methane, and maybe earthquakes, all being uncosted while wars are driving up the price of oil faster than alternatives can replace it. This means market forces now are out of balance and could cause imprudent envirnmental destruction).
But fracking can be done safely eventually but may have to be done away from aquifers and with better technology.
GMO is going to be the next green revolution. But it's fraught with perils. Even the risk of excessive monocropping leading to a potatoe famine like disaster is not absurd. GMO is oversold right nowand is dangerous because of the unkown risk exposure but will be very important later. We need to let a generation of beta testers pass by at very low levels of introduction of GMO before we allow it to spread. By then we will know how to monitor it's hazzards better.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The problem with uranium is that it is much scarcer as a proportion that even oil, and we may have already mined the majority of it. So the costs go up and the supply drops, like oil. And nuclear poses it's own toxic to that could lead to mass extinction as well, not to mention proliferation, dirty bombs, no disposal solution, mine wastes. we would have to build 10,000 nuclear plants to make up for the shortfall in petroleum in a decade. Population limits, and energy conservation anyone?
It doesn't matter if you subscribe to the latter solution as I doubt human ability to engineer a solution although they have been more than capable of engineering the problem. Lucky that much discredited natural processes nature sorts that out, although not in ways that we find attractive and sexy like high tech.
To quote slashdot what we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
Why didn't he say 'man made global warming'? I can't imagine.
Nothing wrong with LFTRs either, not all nuclear reactors are the same.
www.climatedepot.com
when the fracking fluids are coming out in the tap water
Typical Americanism.
Or is it Americanismism?
It isnt the "anti-nuclear" or "pro-nuclear" that I have a problem with. It is the "vehemently". Blindly pushing any agenda, even one I mostly support, is going to lead to problems.
I suppose it is too much to ask for people to consider options rationally.
Politics can be defined as "If they are for it, then I am against it!"
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Our sun is nothing more than a very, VERY large radioactive compost pile?
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Nuclear power is useful, but as a technology, it's frustrating. The power reactor technology that works is basically a simple water-cooled device with a lot of external plumbing. It's a mediocre approach, but everything else is worse.
Many fancier reactor designs have been tried - sodium cooling, pebble bed, gas cooling, breeders, etc. The track record of alternative designs is very poor. Anything with moving parts inside the reactor, which is a very hostile environment, tends to fail. Sodium cooled systems have sodium fires. Pebble bed reactors have pebble jams. Gas cooled reactors leak. Breeders have trouble with the fuel changing mechanism. Anything that fails inside the reactor means a complete cold shutdown or worse. The failed German pebble bed reactor which had a pebble jam can't even be fully decommissioned.
That's why we're stuck with big, dumb water-cooled reactors.
The survival of technological civilization depends vitally on energy supply. Which means that the omni-obstructionists and the arithmetic deniers are, knowingly or by being duped, enemies of technological civilization. The alternative to technological civilization is getting rid of about six billion people on a very short time span.
"I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic" -- Stuart Brand, not an arithmetic-denier.
The problem with nuclear power is that it creates nuclear waste. :) Duh. I talked to a nuclear engineer for a while about some little-used technique that could recycle nearly all of the "spent" fuel. Now, that is very, very interesting. But as it stands, nuclear power may be safe for as long as the planet is in operation (disregarding massive natural disasters...which do happen on occasion), and it's not making any greenhouse gases, but it's steadily churning out stuff that is incredibly toxic and/or lethal, depending on the dose/proximity, to all life on the planet. We just keep storing this stuff at--well, honestly, we don't have a storage solution yet! In the U.S., I believe that most of the spent fuel is still stored on site at the nuke plants. You just have to look at the birth defect and cancer/leukemia/etc. rates in Iraq and Afghanistan to know how bad it could get if, say, a bunch of this waste ever got spread around.
But this waste, we are asking our future selves to solve the problem, and what if we can't do it then? We just create this stuff that needs to be safe for the next few billion years. How much does our geology change in a few billion years? Quite a lot. My point is we think it's safe now because we haven't had the other end of the shoe drop. And that shoe seems destined to drop it's just a matter of probabilities and that game will be played from now on. Every year, the dice are rolled, and so far, those 10 dice haven't come up snake eyes. A few times we've crapped out and had a plant spring a leak, meltdown, etc. but that's not nearly as bad as it can get, and the fact that this kind of thing happens every decade or so implies that the overall odds for continuing to be safe are not in our favor, at least in terms of the worst possibilities.
Sandstorms + windstorms are pretty bad for wind generation because they destroy your expensive capital.
Gobi desert is in the middle of nowhere and the populated areas somewhat close by (India/Pakistan) are separated by the Himalaya mountains.
And besides, "solutionism" is a whole lot better than "nihilism" or "nimbyism".
A very large fraction of total stationary energy consumption is heating, ventilation & cooling. With climate change and increasing wealth in hot countries, this demand will increase more.
no Moore's law for HVAC.
100% fresh on rottentomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/into_eternity_2010/ nuclear waste has to be stored safely for 100,000 years.
The Bulletin used to be good, and it used to be really meaningful and respectable back in the day of legends like Bethe, who were passionately interested in working towards a world free of nuclear weapons, but who tempered that passion with pragmatism and political realism, an understanding that nuclear power is not the same thing as nuclear weapons, and a thorough technical literacy in nuclear weapons and nuclear power.
Today, though, it has gone disappointingly downhill, and every other thing it publishes seems to be a weak, rhetoric-packed attack on civil nuclear power written by an author who usually has something like a background in political science without experience in nuclear science or engineering.