I transcribed the sequences you have been claiming that "prove" Gore is anti-nuclear. I also went looking for transcripts. It seems that no full transcription of Gore's remarks to the House on 3/24/2007 exists.
The
real content is different than you represent it.
(2:05:53) You mentioned nuclear -- uh, I'm sure that'll come up again, I'm not, I'm not an absolutist in being opposed to nuclear, I think it's likely to play some role, I don't think it's going to play a major role, uh, but I think it's going to play some additional role, and I think the reason it's going to be limited is mainly the cost. They're so expensive and they take so long to build, and at present, they only come in one size, extra large, and people don't want to make that kind of investment in an uncertain market for energy demand.
Gore is plainly talking about the conservatism of the market -- the same problem that has crippled most new energy development. It is the reason, for instance, that the growth of wind energy has been projected to be about 35% per year over the last five years, yet the actual output has barely doubled, a real growth rate of under 15% per year (assuming it did double, and using the Rule of 70).
And, yes, I think that Gore is out-of-date on the state of the art in nuclear energy generation. Nuclear energy is, in fact, scalable. And it takes a long time to build because they can't build when "activists" have chained themselves to the gates, or filed 30 different times for "injunctive relief". (They sure aren't doing that at coal plants.) Al Gore has also been concentrating on the environment, not the problems of getting a nuclear reactor built. For a man who single-handedly raised the public's awareness of the present climate crisis, after a series of humiliations that the press
and the progressive left contributed to, I give him a lot of credit. If he's a little off the mark on a side issue, it's no big deal.
Gore was also supportive of carbon commoditization, just like your other bludgeon, the IPCC4 policy recommendations. Again, Gore and the IPCC are not to be faulted. But YOU should know better --
especially if you retain your anti-nuclearist position, as these are all issues that are economic control issues, not nuclear ones.
While you focus narrowly on Gore's statement that nuclear energy won't play a major role, you overlook the far more profound implication in his statement:
energy money is scared money. He goes into detail a few minutes later. --
(2:18:59) I'm not opposed to nuclear; I have deep questions about it, I'm concerned about it; I used to be enthusiastic about it.
Back when I represented Congressman Gordon's district, TVA had 21 nuclear power plants under construction; and then later I represented Oak Ridge where we're immune to the effects of nuclear radiation, you know (laughter) so I was very enthusiastic about it. But, but uh, 19 of those 21 plants were canceled, and I'm sure Bart (?) gets the same questions I used to get about whether those partly finished cooling towers might be used for a grain silo ... but people are upset, still, that they have had to pay for 'em and not be able to get electricity for 'em ...
And I think the stoppage of the nuclear industry was really less due to Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and environmental concerns, and more due to the fact that after the OPEC oil crises of '73 and '79, the projection for electricity demand went from 7% annualized compounded, down to 1% and, and when energy prices are going up, the uncertainty over how much they can plan for also goes up.
Now electricity ought not follow the price of oil, but it does, because there's just enough, uh, fungibility between oil and coal on the margins that electricity chases oil. Now oil's back at $60 a barrel; where's it gonna be a year from now? We don't know, but the fact of the uncertainty is itself the reason why these utilities do not want to place all their chips in one large bet that doesn't mature for another fifteen years at a very expensive cost. The new generation, there may be smaller incremental power plants, standardized, safer, more reliable; perhaps we may get a solution to the long-term storage of waste issue -- I'm assuming we will; reactors are ... (chair interrupts at 2:20:52)
In other words, progress in nuclear energy came to an end because of an energy glut. If you'll notice, progress in non-nuclear
renewable energy came to an end because of the same energy glut. Ronald Reagan rode into Washington on a flood tide of cheap crude, promises of eternal affluence, and a pocketful of secret deals made with OPEC via the group we now call the "Bush Family Evil Empire".
Nuclear energy has taken a long time to get started again because the
corporations are unwilling to spend money on a long-term project. Like most
any energy project.
Today, most of the Western world's "wealth" is made by trading derivative, secondary, and abstract "financial instruments". Not only is there a market-driven reticence to build nuclear energy generators, there is a reticence to build more oil refinery capacity, or wind farms, or to even repair the sidewalks in the poor section of town.
Gore may also be concerned that if he advocates for nuclear energy, he will be pilloried by the current crop of activists, who are more concerned with making showy public statements than with social change and economic justice. Damned right he will. They did it in 2000, and once they get going again, "Swift Boat" won't begin to compare. There is as yet no significant progressive voice for nuclear energy ... but as you are finding out, that is changing. And it's going to be changing
fast.
Now at least people can read for themselves what Gore
really said -- and
WHY he said it. There is a lot more to it than being the premature victory whoop for your "team". The fact that we are so averse to risk, seek only easy money, and have neglected our physical infrastructure -- all the while destroying nature -- is going to prove to be the
coup de grace to both Peak Oil and Climate Change.
--p!