More on bogus arguments against clean energy

Learn to identify certain common fallacies.

Posted by David Roberts at 5:07 PM on 12 May 2005

In response to this post, both Jeff and Ana have good points.

Jeff's is that a parallel bit of slipperiness often pops up in arguments about nuclear energy. On the one hand, we hear that renewables aren't "mature" and that only nuclear can get us safely through the global warming crisis. On the other, we hear that nuclear can do this (safely) only with a decade and billions of dollars in R&D costs for new technologies. But if we have a decade and billions of dollars, why not funnel them into clean energy?

Ana's is about the related bogus argument that, to meet our energy needs, solar would have to carpet the entire state of Oklahoma! Or wind turbines would have to fill the state of North Dakota! Plus they are intermittent, so they would leave gaps in our power! Etc. But of course no one claims that any one of these alternatives can fill the gap. The point is that we should move to a distributed mix of sources: solar, wind, wave/tidal, biomass, and let's not forget, conservation.

On Ana's point, check out this story, which discusses research done at Oxford showing that such a mix could provide a much larger percentage of the U.K.'s energy needs than had been previously thought. Jamais looks at the research in more detail.

Arguments against clean energy often indulge in these fallacies casually. It's time greens started challenging them.

For story: More on bogus arguments against clean energy
6 Comments | Post a Comment

asdf

OT - just discovered this blog, it looks like a great idea! Have always been fascinated by environmental and economic issues, so hope to learn lots more from the good folk here!

by zubs at 11:37 AM on 13 May 2005

Sound the alarm!! Rove pro-nuke campaign!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/national/15nuke.html?hp&ex=1116129600&en=1c78e4248b7ee1c3& amp;ei=5094&partner=homepage

"The addition to the McCain-Lieberman bill, which is being circulated in draft form, would codify a new political bargain. Conservatives would support emission controls in return for liberal support for a new generation of nuclear power plants, a shift that could reshape the existing alignments on these issues."

When wind power has a proven cost of 3.5 cents per kwh in the latest installations in high wind speed ares, many on the left are turning to support new nuclear plants.

Alarming, but not unexpected. The talking points propaganda was reported here in the "Ecomagination" article, and before that in my blog asnd others.

When the likes of Stewart Brand now support nuclear power as an alternative to wind, solar, and biofuel as a solution for global climate disaster...we are in serious trouble!!

Will we lose on this issue too, as we lost the fight to stop the invasion of Iraq? It appears so.

The odds are now officially hopeless to stop new nukes from being built. Luckily that has not stopped us before. Fight the power!!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:10 AM on 14 May 2005

Brand blogging for nukes!

http://brand.trblogs.com/index.html

Check it out! This is a bad sign. Sophistry for nuclear power from not only brand, but an organization backed by James lovelock for nuclear power too?

"You can find the whole piece and other Lovelock writings on the subject at the site of The Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy (http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm)."

Local lawsuits to prevent siting nuclear plants are next folks. Will they work once bushco inc. nuclear contractors pull eminent domain out of the black bag of tricks and bribery? Unlikely.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

by amazingdrx at 10:33 AM on 14 May 2005

Let's Tell It Like It Is

I know Dave hates it when I do this, but this situation is a perfect example of why we need to call into question the environmental credentials of anyone who supports nukes in any form. Unless they can create nuclear power without mining or processing uranium, and without making horribly toxic compounds like plutonium, no real environmentalist would ever support it.

The first step is to confront so-called environmentalists who support nuclear power with all of its harms, beginning with the mining and processing of uranium all the way to the horrible toxic waste created that cannot be removed or detoxified. If they don't renounce nukes at that point, let's call a spade a spade and tell the world that those who support nukes are not enviros, whatever their agenda might be.

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 9:48 PM on 15 May 2005

Questionable Credentials

I know determined environmental advocates who have impeccable credentials, who work in a professional capacity toward improving the environment, and who support the immediate development of distributed, renewable energy on a massive scale. The fact that these individuals, myself included, think that nuclear energy will need (regretably) to be a part of the energy mix in order to facilitate the widespread development of renewable power does not in any way affect their credentials or imply any unseen agenda. A reluctant argument for development of additional nuclear power capacity is not necessarily the same as an argument against clean energy; some people who have studied the matter have simply formed the opinion that nuclear power must be a part of the future energy mix, for a number of reasons that can be debated by reasonable people in another forum, another day.

jdhlax says:
...without making horribly toxic compounds like plutonium

I would be more inclined to question the technical credentials of someone who refers to plutonium as a compound when it is, in fact, an element; as opposed to questioning the environmental credentials or motives of everyone who has a differing opinion regarding the hazards versus benefits of nuclear power.

Environmental advocacy is a broad issue, fraught with contradictions and unfortunate compromises with the "devil" (and those pesky details where the devil resides). The environmentalists I know who support nuclear power (under limits and conditions...again another forum) make real contributions to the cause on a daily basis; I for one can live with the knowledge that I do not meet the definition of environmentalist espoused by jdhlax.

by Spectrumist at 10:27 AM on 16 May 2005

What have we accomplished?

I find it disturbing thinking about how unavoidable the path of human consumption is. We can argue all we want about how to fix our problems with fossil fuels and environmental damage, but the problems are still there. How long has it been? Fifty years at least. That's how long thousands of people have been trying to make predictions of when our oil supplies will run out. Have they run out yet? No. Do we still say "maybe tomorrow"? Yes. What do these people expect?
On a different point, what about what happens after? It's obvious that we will run out of oil, why are we trying so hard to be preventative? We haven't prevented jack. I say someone should start planning how the country will handle another depression. Fifty years, maybe more, the end of our age of oil cunsumption will be in my lifetime. I go to highschool. Out of our thousand students, I'm the only one I know of that's given any thought at all to this looming disaster. People just don't care, and won't care, until it's already here.
Wanna know my idea for conservation? Raise gas prices to where they will be after we run out. It may not be popular, and I admit it has a billion in one chance of happening, but it would work. Think about it, really think about it, all the effects that it would have... I'll give you a minute... Now, wouldn't you say public transportation would be more popular? There would be less cars on the roads. People (unless they were governor movie stars) wouldn't be driving around in diesel breathing hummers. I'll admit that this wouldn't be that wonderful for anyone in the automobile industry, but I said this probabably wouldn't happen anyway, and hey, this is an environmentalist website right?

by d on pc at 4:23 PM on 17 May 2005

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.