Amory Lovins on "The Charlie Rose Show"
In case you missed it, Amory Lovins, cofounder and chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, had a terrific conversation with Charlie Rose on the latter's PBS show a few days ago. With all the political posturing on energy policy and renewable energy these days in both political camps, it's refreshing to have someone as pragmatic, clearheaded, and knowledgeable as Lovins weighing in.
The interview ought to be required watching for both presidential candidates. One can only hope that whoever wins in November has enough sense to invite Lovins to the White House for a conversation.
Lovins made two key points: 1) the business case for nuclear power doesn't add up, posing a nearly prohibitive barrier to a revival of the industry; and 2) drilling for oil in the Arctic would be foolhardy strictly from a national security point of view, never mind the environmental issues it would raise.
On point #1, Lovins noted that the skyrocketing costs of building and operating nuclear plants means nuclear power is now three times more expensive than wind power. He also observed that constructing more nuclear plants will have a minimal impact on America's addiction to oil since it generates no more than 2 percent of all electricity in this country.
On point #2, Lovins cited the congressional testimony of former CIA director James Woolsey against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge due to the extreme vulnerability of the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which is mostly above ground. Without a doubt, it would present a tempting target to terrorists seeking to disrupt American oil production and distribution. Of course, there's also the question of what happens to the stability of the pipeline as the permafrost continues to thaw. Could be a bit of a problem, yes?
What I'd like to better understand is how France, unlike the U.S., has managed to build a network of nuclear power plants that seem to be relatively efficient and secure. These plants are responsible for producing nearly 80% of that nation's electricity, a much larger percentage than any other country in the world. What is it that the French know that the rest of us don't? Why are the economics so different than in the U.S.? Is it the regulatory burden imposed on the U.S. nuclear industry, as so many pro-nuclear groups insist, or is there something else at work here?
The interview ought to be required watching for both presidential candidates. One can only hope that whoever wins in November has enough sense to invite Lovins to the White House for a conversation.
Lovins made two key points: 1) the business case for nuclear power doesn't add up, posing a nearly prohibitive barrier to a revival of the industry; and 2) drilling for oil in the Arctic would be foolhardy strictly from a national security point of view, never mind the environmental issues it would raise.
On point #1, Lovins noted that the skyrocketing costs of building and operating nuclear plants means nuclear power is now three times more expensive than wind power. He also observed that constructing more nuclear plants will have a minimal impact on America's addiction to oil since it generates no more than 2 percent of all electricity in this country.
On point #2, Lovins cited the congressional testimony of former CIA director James Woolsey against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge due to the extreme vulnerability of the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which is mostly above ground. Without a doubt, it would present a tempting target to terrorists seeking to disrupt American oil production and distribution. Of course, there's also the question of what happens to the stability of the pipeline as the permafrost continues to thaw. Could be a bit of a problem, yes?
What I'd like to better understand is how France, unlike the U.S., has managed to build a network of nuclear power plants that seem to be relatively efficient and secure. These plants are responsible for producing nearly 80% of that nation's electricity, a much larger percentage than any other country in the world. What is it that the French know that the rest of us don't? Why are the economics so different than in the U.S.? Is it the regulatory burden imposed on the U.S. nuclear industry, as so many pro-nuclear groups insist, or is there something else at work here?
Posted by Peter at 7/21/2008 12:02 AM 
Categories: Nuclear Power,Sustainability,Peak Oil,Green Economy,Energy Policy,Renewable Energy
Tags: Charlie Rose Energy Policy Peak Oil Nuclear Power James Woolsey Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Rocky Mountain Institute Amory Lovins Trans-Alaska Pipeline Renewable Energy Green Economy sustainability
Categories: Nuclear Power,Sustainability,Peak Oil,Green Economy,Energy Policy,Renewable Energy
Tags: Charlie Rose Energy Policy Peak Oil Nuclear Power James Woolsey Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Rocky Mountain Institute Amory Lovins Trans-Alaska Pipeline Renewable Energy Green Economy sustainability
I just jumped into the Adoptic community, and this was the first post that caught my attention. I wasn't disappointed at all. Dr. Lovins is as thoughtful as they come. Thanks for the video.
Reply to this
Welcome aboard Adoptic, Jake. It's a pretty cool concept. Any insights you might have to share about the French nuclear industry would be much appreciated!
Reply to this