4 ms·

Mentioned this in another thread, but I've been reading Stewart Brand's "Whole Earth Discipline" [1], and it's very interesting. In particular, I feel persuaded

by gdubs 12y ago

Mentioned this in another thread, but I've been reading Stewart Brand's "Whole Earth Discipline" [1], and it's very interesting. In particular, I feel persuaded that nuclear power is our big shot at bringing atmospheric levels of CO2 down to manageable levels. Brand was one of the first "Greens". His Whole Earth Catalog inspired a lot of the 70's techno-hippies, like Steve Jobs, and it's fascinating to read how his positions have evolved over the decades, and how he is championing positions he wouldn't have expected to be championing when he was younger. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Earth_Discipline

superobserver 12y ago
Does he at least consider Thorium as a nuclear power source?
- beat 12y ago
  If thorium was all it's cracked up to be by its proponents, it would already be a major power source. Thorium reactor technology dates back to the 1960s, but there still aren't any commercial thorium reactors, although hundreds of other reactors have been built since then. The lack of market drive to thorium - not just in the tree-hugging US, but in less sensitive places like China - is a dead giveaway that either a: it's not nearly as easy as it's made out to be, b: it's not economical relative to other reactor designs, or c: it's not nearly as safe as claimed. I think c can be ruled out, based on common sense and the fact that China doesn't care so much about safety. That leads to either a, or b, or some combination of the two. At any rate, the hard reality of the invisible hand tells me that thorium isn't so awesome after all, or we'd see thorium reactors in commercial use by now.
  - rjsw 12y ago
    Current reactors weren't developed by the invisible hand, they were developed as part of the effort to make bombs.
    - beat 12y ago
      That just suggests that nuclear power is inherently uneconomical! It also doesn't make sense, because there are many nations that have nuclear reactors, but don't have or want nuclear weapons - Japan, Sweden, Belgium, and Spain come to mind offhand. Think the implications through, in a serious manner. If thorium is cheap and safe, why isn't it being used at all today? This is the question thorium advocates never ask (and will downvote you for asking, as per my example here), and it infuriates me! I don't have an answer for this question. Thorium looks good, on paper. What I do have is observation, and observed facts do not match the written theory. Science says you should question the theory.
      - rjsw 12y ago
        The countries without military nuclear programmes still made use of knowledge and technology that was developed in military programmes elsewhere. As with the bomb itself, just knowing that it can work will save a lot of time. Your list of countries doesn't look very "clean" to me.
- gdubs 12y ago
  He briefly mentions it and enumerates its potential benefits.
graycat 12y ago
Nuclear power was killed off by the World Secretary of Energy at Large Jane Fonda. Admiral Rickover was over ruled.
kragen 12y ago
Brand was always, in some sense, a counter-counterculturist; a lot of "Green"/hippie folks were and are not just antiwar and anti-environmental-destruction but anti-technology and even, in some sense, anti-civilization. Brand's always been at the opposite extreme, at the same time as he shared the counterculture's inspiration to build something new. Sort of like a Yankee Hernando de Soto. Ten years ago, even five years ago, it was plausible that nuclear power would be our only viable option to get off fossil fuels. Now it's clear that photovoltaic can get us there, and maybe even without a carbon tax or equivalent restrictions. http://discipline.longnow.org/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/4_-_New_Nukes.html http://discipline.longnow.org/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/4_-_New_N... has his updates on the nuclear energy chapter. (He doesn't have much to say about solar.) I can't find the text online.

by gdubs 12y ago

superobserver 12y ago

Does he at least consider Thorium as a nuclear power source?

beat 12y ago
If thorium was all it's cracked up to be by its proponents, it would already be a major power source. Thorium reactor technology dates back to the 1960s, but there still aren't any commercial thorium reactors, although hundreds of other reactors have been built since then. The lack of market drive to thorium - not just in the tree-hugging US, but in less sensitive places like China - is a dead giveaway that either a: it's not nearly as easy as it's made out to be, b: it's not economical relative to other reactor designs, or c: it's not nearly as safe as claimed. I think c can be ruled out, based on common sense and the fact that China doesn't care so much about safety. That leads to either a, or b, or some combination of the two. At any rate, the hard reality of the invisible hand tells me that thorium isn't so awesome after all, or we'd see thorium reactors in commercial use by now.
- rjsw 12y ago
  Current reactors weren't developed by the invisible hand, they were developed as part of the effort to make bombs.
  - beat 12y ago
    That just suggests that nuclear power is inherently uneconomical! It also doesn't make sense, because there are many nations that have nuclear reactors, but don't have or want nuclear weapons - Japan, Sweden, Belgium, and Spain come to mind offhand. Think the implications through, in a serious manner. If thorium is cheap and safe, why isn't it being used at all today? This is the question thorium advocates never ask (and will downvote you for asking, as per my example here), and it infuriates me! I don't have an answer for this question. Thorium looks good, on paper. What I do have is observation, and observed facts do not match the written theory. Science says you should question the theory.
    - rjsw 12y ago
      The countries without military nuclear programmes still made use of knowledge and technology that was developed in military programmes elsewhere. As with the bomb itself, just knowing that it can work will save a lot of time. Your list of countries doesn't look very "clean" to me.
gdubs 12y ago
He briefly mentions it and enumerates its potential benefits.

graycat 12y ago

Nuclear power was killed off by the World Secretary of Energy at Large Jane Fonda. Admiral Rickover was over ruled.

kragen 12y ago

Brand was always, in some sense, a counter-counterculturist; a lot of "Green"/hippie folks were and are not just antiwar and anti-environmental-destruction but anti-technology and even, in some sense, anti-civilization. Brand's always been at the opposite extreme, at the same time as he shared the counterculture's inspiration to build something new. Sort of like a Yankee Hernando de Soto. Ten years ago, even five years ago, it was plausible that nuclear power would be our only viable option to get off fossil fuels. Now it's clear that photovoltaic can get us there, and maybe even without a carbon tax or equivalent restrictions. http://discipline.longnow.org/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/4_-_New_Nukes.html http://discipline.longnow.org/DISCIPLINE_footnotes/4_-_New_N... has his updates on the nuclear energy chapter. (He doesn't have much to say about solar.) I can't find the text online.