I seldom see broad global scale discussions and data about environmental progress that has been made throughout history. The reduced environmental and human impact of innovative technologies is not often reported. It provides a hopeful perspective, not often seen today and greatly needed.
A very good article. When you write about limiting growth one further point should be added. Preventing any further economic growth freezes permanently the poor of the world into permanent poverty. Obviously they won't agree to that which means either peaceful economic growth or violent warfare against those who seek to impose constraints.
The history of human civilization has been one of greater access to energy equals greater economic prosperity particularly for the poorest in society. In opposing greater access to energy, the activists are seeking to impose a new and very real serfdom. Friedrich Hayek had a lot of very relevant things to say about modern serfdom.
So pleased to see that Hans Rosling quote! I love Hans Rosling, RIP, and often send people the link to his documentary "Don't Panic". I'm a new subscriber.
I've only just become aware of your SubStack when James O'Malley recommended it in his ‘Odds and Ends of History’ SubStack. When I saw the Terry Pratchett quote (“Hot water was civilization”) and then the Hans Rosling quote for this article (I'm a fan of both) I thought here is a woman after my own heart and felt compelled to subscribe straight away.
I agree with you that nuclear is an important energy source and come from a similar position in that I was against it in my teens, though never quite as vehemently as some of my compatriots. Forgive me if you've covered this elsewhere – it will be a while before I've delved into your back catalogue – but there were two points I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on. The first is Thorium reactors. The greatest danger from nuclear fusion using Uranium is the high temperatures the reaction generates and the required cooling. Reactor meltdowns are invariably a result of coming system failures. Thorium doesn't generate those high temperatures and doesn't require elaborate cooling systems. I can't pretend to know a great deal about them, my knowledge stems from two TED talks: one by Kirk Sorensen, a NASA scientist who was charged with designing energy sources for a lunar base. The other was by Taylor Wilson, at the time a remarkable 17-year-old who had designed and built a self-contained Thorium reactor in his parents' garage. The idea behind these roughly 30 cm a side reactors was that they could be buried 20 m below a house and provide sufficient energy for 30 years. I'm curious why this solution hasn't caught on? Not least among its advantages are its ability to overcome the objections and resistance of the anti-nuclear pressure groups.
The second idea is one that I first heard proposed by Bill Gates and I believe he's contributed substantial funds for research into it. The idea is to use nuclear waste as an energy source. I'm a little vague on the details but as I understood it the proposal is for large pits of waste material that is no longer any use as fuel to nevertheless still produce energy albeit at a much slower rate, somewhat like the embers of a coal fire. Again, this scheme would not require elaborate cooling systems, only the shielding to protect from radiation.
Like Thorium reactors, this is an idea I haven't heard anything new about since I first came across them in the 90s and I'm curious as to why? Were they both duds, proving to be impractical, too expensive or did they encounter some other insurmountable problem? They struck me as being very promising and practical but I'm sure you know much more about them than I (I'm a musician with a background in Computer Science & Discrete Mathematics. While I consider myself to be scientifically literate I'm by no means an expert – my favourite science at school was actually biology but I really didn't get on with chemistry. I quite liked physics but my objection to chemistry was the fact that every year began by telling us that what we'd been taught the previous year was wrong! Why teach us that then? I had a strong aversion to this historical way of teaching the subject but wish I'd persevered. Of well, that's all by-the-by anyway).
Allow me to thank you for your interesting article and I look forward to your future contributions as well as catching up with your previous ones.
Activist thoughtlessness is just one aspect of "activistism", but it is its core and it's spreading through the zeitgeist like a cancer. I fear reasoned arguments can only penetrate so deep, when the animating drives well from somewhere more sinister.... Have a peek at this out recently at the TransAtlantic. I textures some of what is in Zion's article…
Well done. I have argued the same –
Prosperity follows energy – more energy more prosperity
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-use-per-capita-vs-gdp-per-capita?yScale=log
1. First people want more energy
2. Initially, dirty energy (wood, coal) is cheap and does promote prosperity
3. Then prosperity allows transition to clean energy: Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal
Thank you for this detailed article. It's very frustrating having to explain to people things like "poverty is bad" and "people are good"
I seldom see broad global scale discussions and data about environmental progress that has been made throughout history. The reduced environmental and human impact of innovative technologies is not often reported. It provides a hopeful perspective, not often seen today and greatly needed.
A very good article. When you write about limiting growth one further point should be added. Preventing any further economic growth freezes permanently the poor of the world into permanent poverty. Obviously they won't agree to that which means either peaceful economic growth or violent warfare against those who seek to impose constraints.
The history of human civilization has been one of greater access to energy equals greater economic prosperity particularly for the poorest in society. In opposing greater access to energy, the activists are seeking to impose a new and very real serfdom. Friedrich Hayek had a lot of very relevant things to say about modern serfdom.
So pleased to see that Hans Rosling quote! I love Hans Rosling, RIP, and often send people the link to his documentary "Don't Panic". I'm a new subscriber.
"Sizewell C will produce 3.2 GWh of electricity. Compare this with the 2.6 GWh produced by the Drax power station"
I believe this should be in GW, not GWh.
I've only just become aware of your SubStack when James O'Malley recommended it in his ‘Odds and Ends of History’ SubStack. When I saw the Terry Pratchett quote (“Hot water was civilization”) and then the Hans Rosling quote for this article (I'm a fan of both) I thought here is a woman after my own heart and felt compelled to subscribe straight away.
I agree with you that nuclear is an important energy source and come from a similar position in that I was against it in my teens, though never quite as vehemently as some of my compatriots. Forgive me if you've covered this elsewhere – it will be a while before I've delved into your back catalogue – but there were two points I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on. The first is Thorium reactors. The greatest danger from nuclear fusion using Uranium is the high temperatures the reaction generates and the required cooling. Reactor meltdowns are invariably a result of coming system failures. Thorium doesn't generate those high temperatures and doesn't require elaborate cooling systems. I can't pretend to know a great deal about them, my knowledge stems from two TED talks: one by Kirk Sorensen, a NASA scientist who was charged with designing energy sources for a lunar base. The other was by Taylor Wilson, at the time a remarkable 17-year-old who had designed and built a self-contained Thorium reactor in his parents' garage. The idea behind these roughly 30 cm a side reactors was that they could be buried 20 m below a house and provide sufficient energy for 30 years. I'm curious why this solution hasn't caught on? Not least among its advantages are its ability to overcome the objections and resistance of the anti-nuclear pressure groups.
The second idea is one that I first heard proposed by Bill Gates and I believe he's contributed substantial funds for research into it. The idea is to use nuclear waste as an energy source. I'm a little vague on the details but as I understood it the proposal is for large pits of waste material that is no longer any use as fuel to nevertheless still produce energy albeit at a much slower rate, somewhat like the embers of a coal fire. Again, this scheme would not require elaborate cooling systems, only the shielding to protect from radiation.
Like Thorium reactors, this is an idea I haven't heard anything new about since I first came across them in the 90s and I'm curious as to why? Were they both duds, proving to be impractical, too expensive or did they encounter some other insurmountable problem? They struck me as being very promising and practical but I'm sure you know much more about them than I (I'm a musician with a background in Computer Science & Discrete Mathematics. While I consider myself to be scientifically literate I'm by no means an expert – my favourite science at school was actually biology but I really didn't get on with chemistry. I quite liked physics but my objection to chemistry was the fact that every year began by telling us that what we'd been taught the previous year was wrong! Why teach us that then? I had a strong aversion to this historical way of teaching the subject but wish I'd persevered. Of well, that's all by-the-by anyway).
Allow me to thank you for your interesting article and I look forward to your future contributions as well as catching up with your previous ones.
Activist thoughtlessness is just one aspect of "activistism", but it is its core and it's spreading through the zeitgeist like a cancer. I fear reasoned arguments can only penetrate so deep, when the animating drives well from somewhere more sinister.... Have a peek at this out recently at the TransAtlantic. I textures some of what is in Zion's article…
https://thetransatlantic.substack.com/p/activistism