A member of the pro-nuke group writes: Craig, we have no $ interest in nuclear. We have concern for our descendants and all the species around us. We have concern for facts, since human progress proceeds no other way. You know this. What motivates you to support energy sources that waste resources, species, $ and intellect? So, Craig, what’s your personal interest that motivates your denial of those facts?
I’m like you guys in the sense that I don’t have a dog in the race financially. I suppose that’s not 100% true, as a few of my clients in the RE space have given me stock in their companies whose value is a function of the success of renewables. Having said that, like you, my real motivation for my actions is the sustainability of our civilization.
First, I should explain that I’m a huge fan of advanced nuclear, both in the normal thorium/fission sense and the fusion sense as well; a dear friend (Jim Boyden, PhD in physics, Cal Tech, 1960) is a significant player in TriAlpha. There is a whole chapter in my most recent book (Bullish on Renewable Energy) on LFTRs.
In terms of the numbers associated with RE, I have to say that I find all (literally all) of the analysis that comes from any other source than you guys to be compelling. Earth Policy Institute, EnergyFactCheck, RMI/Lovins, Climate Progress, Jeremy Rifkin, etc. It all suggests that over the next few decades, we can and will rid our society of oil and coal and reduce the use of natural gas with some combination of wind and solar at scale, efficiency/vehicle light-weighting, and various forms of storage. Here’s Lovins’ take on this (a presentation I’ve seen him give twice). Here’s an interview with Jeremy Rifken, author of the Third Industrial Revolution.
I also point out that “money talks and bs walks,” i.e., we need to notice that the world’s largest banks: Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, CitiGroup, etc. are in the process of investing many trillions of dollars in the RE space. In my experience, trillionaires don’t make childish arithmetical errors.
I’m sure you’ll have the normal pushback. (BTW, we know that RE has a lower CF and energy density than nuclear; we know what “nameplate” means; no reason to waste your time remaking these arguments.)
But you need to recognize two things:
- Virtually the whole world of science supports the scaling of RE etc. in one form or another, and the business world is in the process of making it happen
And, more importantly,
- Since I can see that you are 100% sincere about your beliefs, I need to point out that you’re not doing yourselves any favors with your approach; you’re only making yourselves seem ridiculous, as if you were just a bunch of silly spiteful people with some sort of bizarre agenda (which you’re not).
