My latest blog post was a guest post by Guy Page: Nuclear is Green Energy. His article is also being published in Vermont newspapers and web sites. In particular, Page's op-ed has appeared on Vermont Digger . On that site, it has provoked a very lively comment stream (over 30 comments at this writing). I think readers of this blog will enjoy Willem Post's careful calculations: it is impossible to meet Vermont's energy needs with renewables.
In one comment, one nuclear opponent made a rather disgusting statement, in my opinion. Here's the quote:
The core problem that no one seems to ever want to talk about is that there are over 7 billion (soon to be 9 billion) people on the plant all demanding more and more energy. It’s not that we have too little resources and need to produce more nuclear (or any other kind of) power. It’s that there are too many of us.
In a later comment, Guy Page asks the author of that quote to explain himself. The author doesn't answer.
Is this man recommending genocide, or perhaps widespread famine? But maybe he doesn't want to make his recommendation too specific? No, of course, that couldn't be what he is saying. (sarcasm alert)
The answer in Pandora's Promise
The first few minutes of this interview about Pandora's Promise refutes that man. The promise of nuclear is the promise of an energy-rich world for all people.
Pandora's Promise is a documentary about nuclear energy. The clip below features the stars of that documentary in an interview with Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google. They are straightforward, not snarky. They say what they mean.
(This clip is also the Friday Matinee at ANS Nuclear Cafe today.)
See Pandora's Promise if you can possible arrange to do so. Here's a list of theaters and cities. Also, if it amuses you, you might go on the Vermont Digger posting and add your own comment
I am surprised the industry can't make a coherent vision of the future for the nuclear industry. They just keep making a stakeholder round table discussion deploying the same old bankrupt ideas.
I see these Google guys and new environmentalist don’t want to invest their own money and expertise directly into project…except to talk, talk, talk…
This film is mostly (not completely) pro-nuclear. The director did not solicit or accept any money from nuclear companies. He made that policy very clear at all times.
I have no idea if Google people invested in the film. Paul Allen of Microsoft and Sir Richard Branson of Virgin are supporters of the film. I don't know at what level they supported it.
The environmental stars of the film invested their time and expertise in the film, and that is all they have available to invest. I think your comment about "talk talk talk" is insulting to them. They are taking a public stand. You also take a public stand. Would you like it if I said that you just "talk, talk, talk"?
Post a Comment