Here at CV we spend most of our time looking at new technologies, the future, and how a rush to judgment or a poor public relations decision can doom a promising technology, service, or company to failure. We see how sensationalism, poor reporting and massive "click to complain" campaigns can generate outrage where there should be none, and amplify the shrill cries of a few to the point where they dominate the public discourse.
Now, instead of looking forward, we look back to the 1960's, when the relatively new technology of nuclear power brought a promise of unlimited, clean energy. Those days also were the height of the cold war, when the fear of atomic weapons clouded the nation's judgment of atomic power. This interview, and the resulting article, should serve as a cautionary tale for those who would rush to judge a new technology out of fear rather than optimism, and for those who create, who compete against each other without thinking of what he and his competitors have in common, and how they can fight to protect each other, in order to compete.
Vinod Khosla isn't known around Silicon Valley as a man who has bad ideas. With a net worth of around $1.5 Billion, he also knows a thing or two about a good investment.
Now, instead of looking forward, we look back to the 1960's, when the relatively new technology of nuclear power brought a promise of unlimited, clean energy. Those days also were the height of the cold war, when the fear of atomic weapons clouded the nation's judgment of atomic power. This interview, and the resulting article, should serve as a cautionary tale for those who would rush to judge a new technology out of fear rather than optimism, and for those who create, who compete against each other without thinking of what he and his competitors have in common, and how they can fight to protect each other, in order to compete.
For every nuclear plant that environmentalists avoided, they ended up causing two coal plants to be built. That's the history of the last 20 years. Most new power plants in this country are coal, because the environmentalists opposed nuclear. When you ask someone like the NRDC, 'Do you prefer nuclear or coal?' They'll say 'We prefer nuclear to coal, but we don't want either.' It doesn't work that way; we need power.
--Vinod Khosla, Co-Founder, Sun Microsystems, January 2008
Dr. Patrick Moore is no slouch in getting things done either. In 1974, he founded Greenpeace, possibly the best known and most successful environmental protection group in the history of the world.
Greenpeace, for those of you who have never heard of the Environmental movement, has been on the cutting edge of conservation for more than thirty years. It has critics who say that during those years it has either gone too far or not far enough. It has had a ship blown up by the French government. It has had one run aground on the very reef it was trying to protect.
Ironically, what this high-tech trailblazer and environmental pioneer have in common is the embrace of something very old that is in the midst of a renaissance: nuclear power.
Dr. Moore was on the first Greenpeace voyage in 1971 and stayed with the organization until 1986, coincidentally the same year that Khosla left Sun. Since then, he has spent his time as a consultant on environmental issues. Dr. Moore has never given up his conservationist leanings. However, whereas he first entered the public eye as an opponent of nuclear testing, nuclear weapons, and nuclear power while traveling on the Phyllis Comack to try and stop a U.S. nuclear test, today he sails a much different path. Dr. Moore wants to steer the U.S. back to being a nuclear nation in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In fact, Dr. Moore is now at odds with the juggernaut he helped create. In 2007, Voz Hernandez of Greenpeace South Asia called claims that nuclear energy is a solution to climate change "dangerous and misleading." Hernandez went on to fan the flames, saying:
"Besides the massive financial costs involved in building a nuclear power plant, the risks of accidents like Chernobyl or the most recent one at Kashiwazaki nuclear plant in Japan following an earthquake are real..."
I wouldn't have pictured this man as a founder of Greenpeace. Far from the "crunchy granola" stereotype of an environmental activist, or even the sharply dressed canvassers that I sometimes encounter outside the Metrorail escalator, I walked into a Dupont Circle cafe to meet a unassuming man dressed in a sharp grey suit, who could have been any lawyer working in the many law firms or agencies that line Washington's streets. Instead, he serves as the co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, and, in some way, is attempting to make up for the unintended consequences of the actions of his younger self.
Perhaps the greatest strength of the 61-year-old native of British Columbia is that he could blend into any crowd on Capitol Hill, only drawing the sword of his considerable credentials when needed. Whereas Greenpeace is now known for its loud, emotional, disruptive and often self-defeating "mind bombs," Moore is soft-spoken, thoughtful and precise. He rebuts emotional arguments like Hernandez's with a razor-sharp grasp of the facts surrounding the issue that have dominated over half his life. In fact, the first question he answered dealt with the success of nuclear power in Europe and rebutted the concerns over Chernobyl.
Perhaps the greatest strength of the 61-year-old native of British Columbia is that he could blend into any crowd on Capitol Hill, only drawing the sword of his considerable credentials when needed. Whereas Greenpeace is now known for its loud, emotional, disruptive and often self-defeating "mind bombs," Moore is soft-spoken, thoughtful and precise. He rebuts emotional arguments like Hernandez's with a razor-sharp grasp of the facts surrounding the issue that have dominated over half his life. In fact, the first question he answered dealt with the success of nuclear power in Europe and rebutted the concerns over Chernobyl.
AMEN. Read the book "The Nuclear Imperative - A Critical Look at the Impending Energy Crisis", Publ. by Springer (2007); ISBN 1-4020-4930-7.
Andrew and Alex:
Great interview and interesting post.
Here is a thought exercise for you - do you really think that the Old Media portrayals of New Media as a dangerous place are accidentally inaccurate or do you think there might be an element of spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about a rapidly growing competitor? After all, people who are interacting on social media sites and creating their own content no longer have much time to be passive consumers of old line television, magazines and newspapers.
Now, really put on your critical thinking tin foil hats. If you are a powerful and rich supplier of fossil fuels and you have worked long and hard to encourage a serious habit of consuming massive quantities of those fuels - what would you do if a bunch of physicists came along with a magic material that is 2-4 MILLION times as concentrated, is relatively cheap and easy to use, and produces so little pollution that it can be safely used inside a submarine?
Why of course - you set out to independently spread as much FUD as you can think of and you make donations (sometimes through foundations, sometimes through influencing grant decisions of the buddies you helped get elected to office) to any group that actively opposes your fast growing competitor. You cannot afford to let the atomic energy business capture your addicts!
Even if you do not totally defeat the enemy, slowing him down for a couple of decades can give you many years of immense prosperity as the demand for energy continues to increase and the atomic alternative is avoided.
Not that such a thing could ever happen in a nation of free thinking citizens!
Rod Adams
Atomic Insights
I find it ironic and extremely sad that the environmental movement is cutting all of our throats by being vehemently anti-nuclear. The math is simple: opposition to nuclear power ONLY means that every time baseline power increases, then CO2 emissions increase!
Personally, I think that Greenpeace should be forced to pay a carbon emission tax just for the luxury of being anti-nuclear, and an additional tax for being anti-nuclear because of false conclusions propagated by their institution. Democracy is wonderful, and they have the right to act as they want, but when their actions cause more CO2 emissions, they are every bit as morally culpable as EVERY manufacturing industry in this country.
So, if Greenpeace want to continue to be a major contributor to the melting Arctic Circle and the increased threat of a global flooding catastrophe, then tax them for their past contributions to this problem, and continue taxing them now and until they start acting responsibly about the truth of nuclear energy!
Best Regards,
Dr. Cris Eberle
Critical Solutions Engineering, LLC
criticalsolutions@charter.net
Dr. Eberle,
I think Dr. Moore is rather honest and contrite regarding his role in the anti-nuclear movement of the 1960s and 1970s.
Something I didn't press him on, because honestly I didn't feel it was germane to the interview topic, was if he felt any personal debts for any problems the movement has caused, or if he feels a need to "pay penance" for derailing the Nuke train "back in the day."
That being said, I think he has done a wonderful job of bringing together a diverse group of opposing interests under the banner of bringing nuclear energy back into the public eye in a positive way, and that Dr. Moore, with his unique and checkered past, is in fact acting quite responsibly. Please note that he is no longer associated with Greenpeace, and that Greenpeace considers him to be an apostate to their cause. Dr. Moore no more speaks for Greenpeace than I do the Linux User Group I founded at my high school 10 years ago.
Time passes, and people change. Maybe if you'd listened to the interview, you'd realize that.