STEWART Brand, author of “The Whole Earth Catalog,” visited Seattle last week, promoting his latest environmental manifesto and surprising more than a few members of the audience with his ideas about tackling our energy and climate crises.

In sum, while judging that solar and wind power are part of the mix of renewable energy sources required to sustain world living standards, Brand flatly asserts that we must rapidly deploy nuclear power plants to meet both environmental end energy goals.

In his “Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto,” Brand sifts through data to establish that wind power is much less reliable and much more expensive than initially thought. Geothermal is almost tapped out in terms of dramatic growth. Deploying solar for generation of electric power would take 50 square miles of desert per plant to generate 1 gigawatt of power.

It’s not the message we might associate with a prime mover for renewable energy for 40 years, but an argument we should expect from a man so closely associated with ahead-of-the-curve thinking on key issues ranging from the future of computers to space colonization.

At age 70, Brand doesn’t mince words. Countering fears surrounding long-term nuclear waste disposal, Brand urges us to trust the evolution of science to find better ways and new options to treat waste 200 years from now. In the meantime, the “short-term” multigenerational solution of containing waste in concrete and steel containers will suffice. Brand frames the choice we face by challenging us to think about the hazards posed by coal mining and burning, huge wind farms, and damming our rivers.

The “ecopragmatist,” therefore, weighs the costs and benefits, both short- and long-term, of each potential energy source, looking for a mix that sustains our economy while cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. A growing list of environmental leaders, including the former head of Greenpeace, apparently agree that nuclear must be part of our energy equation.

I would add that the nuclear plants of the 1960s and 70s — generating 20 percent of America’s electricity today — are dinosaurs compared with the next generation of reactors that will burn uranium more efficiently and produce lower volumes of radioactive material. In the race to combat climate change, the Chinese, Russians, French and Indians have taken the lead in developing breeder reactors and even experimenting with the thorium fuel cycle.

France produces 80 percent of its electricity from atomic power and generates a surplus that it sells to the rest of Europe. China and India, acutely aware of the need to fuel their economic growth, are building or planning 30 new nuclear plants of various designs.

While the United States has lagged in nuclear innovation, a Bellevue startup named TerraPower is working on the design of a “traveling wave” reactor that uses depleted uranium as its primary fuel and contains waste within the reactor core for scores of years. By not requiring fuel-enrichment plants, this new type of reactor would eliminate a part of the fuel cycle vulnerable to diversion of fissile material. This proliferation-resistant technology would be especially timely for the 26 countries in the world seeking first-time civilian atomic energy.

 

And how are we Canadians doing? Our government is trying to sell off CANDU and to foreign companies like Areva, where the once industry leading technology will no doubt fade away as Areva promotes their own NextGen reactors and eliminates a competitor with the swipe of a pen.

[via SeattleTimes]

Slashdot It!