And yes, I mean irrational. The fear of nuclear waste goes far beyond its actual danger to human health. This falls into a difference between perceived and actual risk. Many many more people are afraid of flying because of the spectacular images of plane crashes than are afraid of driving: but driving is the far more risky activity. Nuclear waste is dangerous, yes, but far less dangerous than many would portray it to be.

I agree that consumption will continue to increase, but I don’t think it will increase anything like you say. There are fundamental limits to human consumption that are set by the environment in which we live and the cost and availability of resources. Unlike you seem to suggest here, consumption is not evil. Consumption beyond the means of the environment to support it is. But, if we lived in a world in which infinite energy was available to us, and all waste was nearly completely converted back to energy upon disposal, consumption would be like breathing is to us. It would become an intimate and integral part of our very nature.

If we do not expand our energy supplies while also conserving our ecoystems and the resources they provide, we will get hit by some fundamental limitations that will cause drastic decreases in comfort levels. But far more threatening to our common future is a population that does not stop its exponential increase. Our energy supplies have much greater leg room than do our prospects for increasing agricultural yields.

So, let’s talk about a different vision of the future. Let’s talk about severely restrained growth rates, even negative population growth, but allowing consumption to expand in a way that is truly sustainable (i.e. millions of years, not just till the next election cycle). Because let’s face it, all the bikes in the world won’t keep us safe when there are 15 billion hungry and angry mouths to feed.

I agree that both hydrocarbons and uranium are limited supplies, and I think renewables have a major role to play in our energy future. In fact, I think solar energy will be what fuels the human race for millenia to come. But, until we get to the point where we can harness enough of the virtually limitless energy that the sun outputs, there is no viable renewable solution to meet current energy demands.

I also agree that reducing energy use is a noble goal, and one which should be pursued through methods that do not decrease comfort, safety, or prosperity. I certainly think we could all do with a little bit less (see my blog post, “Better Off?”), but the broader public is not going to accept that anytime soon. The environmental movement has pushed conservation for decades to little or no success, unfortunately.

I am a realist. I see major benefits to American society through things like increased public transit, denser residential areas, and increased consumption of local and organic produce. But, I care too much about the environment for me to be unyielding on the limited danger of nuclear energy in light of the enormous dangers inherent in fossil fuel burning (hydrocarbon burning, i.e. vegetable ethanol, is a significantly less harmful course).

Continue to live carefree, Kevin. I believe you that anyone can, hell my energy is renewable too. But I don’t believe that everyone will, and I want a brighter future with a few compromises, rather than a black and lonely future where I kept to my righteous principles.

So we should go with cheap, stable energy even if it might ruin our environment through radioactivity?

Maybe you should do a bettery job of promoting nuclear. Perhaps prove it is benign to the environment. I doubt that you ever could, as we continue making piles of waste that will be around millions of years longer than we will. Future generations of humans will pay for your selfishness and greed.

Hydrocarbons are finite. So is uranium. Our best bet are clean renewables and greatly reduced energy use. If Costa Ricans can live as long as Americans do on 5% of US energy use per capita - I think humans can survive on MUCH MUCH less.

I live carfree in Minneapolis. If I can do it anyone can.

I’m sure your career in nuclear engineering would have gone well too, there is still a lot of good work being done there, just much that has yet gotten out of the laboratory!

Perceived vs. Actual risk is a really interesting thing to think about, and is, I’m sure, an active area of psychological research. We humans are not really that good at computing the odds on a regular basis, and even if we can compute them, our penchant to believe superstition is much deeper than our logical reasoning. So, in our reptilian brains we believe nuclear to be dangerous, though our cortices may argue otherwise the reptile in us wins most of the time.

We really need more people to bridge the gap between “doing what’s best for people and the environment” and “anything ‘nuclear’ must be dangerous, bad, and/or beyond human control.” There’s guilt by association with nuclear weapons because they share the word “nuclear” - when nuclear families probably harm more people every year We can’t ignore safety, of course, but nuclear power can be safe. It’s also related to the average person’s limited understanding of the nature of risk. The more familiar (car rides or coal burning) may SEEM safer than the less familiar (airliners or nuclear power), but the statistics may show otherwise. But most people don’t go by statistics, they go by what “makes sense.” So we need more communication like this article. I also admire how you strive to live green as well as talk it — more than most people (including me!).

-Bruce

The most interesting part of your article is how much effort you felt that you had give to convince everyone how green you are, because if you endorse nuclear power, then you must be a wicked, rootinist-tootinist-pollutinist right-wing conservative anti-environment powermonger capatalist pig.

Anyway, I think your assessment is very well thought out and scientifically justified.