Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economist (magazine) Debate: Would the world be better off without nuclear power?
Would the world be better off without nuclear power?Defending the motion
Tom Burke
a founding director of E3G (Third Generation Environmentalism)
Against the motion
Ian Hore-Lacy
Director for public communications, World Nuclear Association
Tom Burke
a founding director of E3G (Third Generation Environmentalism)
Against the motion
Ian Hore-Lacy
Director for public communications, World Nuclear Association
Overview page: http://www.economist.com/debate/debates/overview/201
Opening Statements plus Audience Comments: http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/681
Rebuttal Statements: http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/685
Closing Statements: http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/687
Results: 39% Yes 61% No
Featured Guests
Would the world be better off without nuclear power?
Amory Lovins
For four decades we have known modern energy systems could threaten civilisation in two ways—climate change and nuclear proliferation—so we must reject both fates, not trade one for the other.
New nuclear build worsens both problems. It provides do-it-yourself bomb kits in civilian disguise. It reduces and retards climate protection by saving 2-10 times less carbon per dollar—and 20-40 times slower—than superior low- and no-carbon competitors. But taking economics seriously and buying those cheaper options instead can protect climate, peace and profits.
Nuclear enthusiasm pervades powerful bureaucracies from Beijing to London and Tokyo to Washington, so 65 nuclear plants were under construction worldwide at the end of 2010. Twelve had been so listed for over 20 years, 45 had no official start-up date, most were late, 50 were in four untransparent power systems (25 in China, 25 in India, Russia and South Korea), all 65 were bought by central planners, and not one was a free-market purchase fairly competed against or compared with alternatives.
In contrast, renewables rule the marketplace, providing half the world's new generating capacity in 2008-09 and 55% in America in 2009 (compared with 2% in 2004). But while wind and solar boom, nuclear and coal orders wither. Their cost and risk dissuade investors.
New American nuclear plants are ...
Amory Lovins
For four decades we have known modern energy systems could threaten civilisation in two ways—climate change and nuclear proliferation—so we must reject both fates, not trade one for the other.
New nuclear build worsens both problems. It provides do-it-yourself bomb kits in civilian disguise. It reduces and retards climate protection by saving 2-10 times less carbon per dollar—and 20-40 times slower—than superior low- and no-carbon competitors. But taking economics seriously and buying those cheaper options instead can protect climate, peace and profits.
Nuclear enthusiasm pervades powerful bureaucracies from Beijing to London and Tokyo to Washington, so 65 nuclear plants were under construction worldwide at the end of 2010. Twelve had been so listed for over 20 years, 45 had no official start-up date, most were late, 50 were in four untransparent power systems (25 in China, 25 in India, Russia and South Korea), all 65 were bought by central planners, and not one was a free-market purchase fairly competed against or compared with alternatives.
In contrast, renewables rule the marketplace, providing half the world's new generating capacity in 2008-09 and 55% in America in 2009 (compared with 2% in 2004). But while wind and solar boom, nuclear and coal orders wither. Their cost and risk dissuade investors.
New American nuclear plants are ...
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/685
Would the world be better off without nuclear power?
Mark Lynas
I am perplexed that anti-nuclear activists portrayed in the media are almost always described as "environmentalists". In my view, environmentalists are those who want what is best for the planet, and I would assert—in contradiction to the motion proposed—that the world is better off with nuclear power, and therefore true environmentalists should support it. In an imaginary scenario where nuclear fission had never been invented (or rather domesticated, since it happens naturally all around and even within us constantly), we would be in a much worse position in terms of our ability to address global warming.
The rise of modern human civilisation has come about largely through the harnessing of enormous fossil energy resources extracted from underground, which, when burned, liberate prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide. This has now accumulated in the atmosphere to the extent that ambient CO2 levels are higher than for millions of years. In response to this, the climate system cannot do anything else but warm if it is to abide by the laws of physics, as it usually tends to. This warming will accelerate to a civilisation-endangering extent if global emissions do not peak and quickly reduce within the next few years.
I entirely understand the arguments espoused by anti-nuclear campaigners, especially because I used to make them myself for many years. Personally I am embarrassed not that I changed my mind on nuclear, but that it took me so long to do so. I ignored overwhelming scientific evidence that nuclear is far safer than most people suppose, and in the process insisted on solutions to global warming which are neither technically feasible nor politically realistic. I would like to apologise for that.
It is appropriate to focus on Japan, because the Fukushima disaster is what has sparked this much-needed debate. I said right at the beginning of the crisis, and I still assert, that no one should die from radiation-related causes. Within the context of a catastrophe that has taken the lives of 20,000 people or more, this should give us pause for thought. Consider that a 14-metre tsunami can knock out the cooling systems of four operating reactors, causing partial meltdowns and gas explosions in three of them. And still radiation releases, while barely controlled and extremely dangerous to the heroic workers battling to keep the plants cool, should not endanger the general public.
That radiation presents risk is undeniable, but ...
Mark Lynas
I am perplexed that anti-nuclear activists portrayed in the media are almost always described as "environmentalists". In my view, environmentalists are those who want what is best for the planet, and I would assert—in contradiction to the motion proposed—that the world is better off with nuclear power, and therefore true environmentalists should support it. In an imaginary scenario where nuclear fission had never been invented (or rather domesticated, since it happens naturally all around and even within us constantly), we would be in a much worse position in terms of our ability to address global warming.
The rise of modern human civilisation has come about largely through the harnessing of enormous fossil energy resources extracted from underground, which, when burned, liberate prodigious amounts of carbon dioxide. This has now accumulated in the atmosphere to the extent that ambient CO2 levels are higher than for millions of years. In response to this, the climate system cannot do anything else but warm if it is to abide by the laws of physics, as it usually tends to. This warming will accelerate to a civilisation-endangering extent if global emissions do not peak and quickly reduce within the next few years.
I entirely understand the arguments espoused by anti-nuclear campaigners, especially because I used to make them myself for many years. Personally I am embarrassed not that I changed my mind on nuclear, but that it took me so long to do so. I ignored overwhelming scientific evidence that nuclear is far safer than most people suppose, and in the process insisted on solutions to global warming which are neither technically feasible nor politically realistic. I would like to apologise for that.
It is appropriate to focus on Japan, because the Fukushima disaster is what has sparked this much-needed debate. I said right at the beginning of the crisis, and I still assert, that no one should die from radiation-related causes. Within the context of a catastrophe that has taken the lives of 20,000 people or more, this should give us pause for thought. Consider that a 14-metre tsunami can knock out the cooling systems of four operating reactors, causing partial meltdowns and gas explosions in three of them. And still radiation releases, while barely controlled and extremely dangerous to the heroic workers battling to keep the plants cool, should not endanger the general public.
That radiation presents risk is undeniable, but ...
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/686
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
