Nathan Myhrvold, who pops up on this blog frequently, finds we need clean energy yesterday (and no natural gas) to avoid being cooked.

9 thoughts on “Myhrvold on Clean Energy

  1. People need to quell their emotions and get behind nuclear power. Europe is way ahead of America on clean power — primarily because of our nuclear power deficit. This is the solution we can start rolling out today. Next: hydrogen-powered vehicles and a hydrogen production and distribution network.

    It’s like everyone is waiting around for some magical non-nuclear solution to drop out of the sky. If it’s as dire as some are saying, we need to move now. And we only really have the one option.

    1. ironically, in Europe there is much controversy around nuclear power … would you want a nuclear power plant near your home?

      ironically a magical solution is constantly dropping out of the sky … from a nuclear source … the sun!

      the only “solution” that can be rolled out todays is drastic reduction of energy consumption … less driving not more efficient cars.

    2. Nuclear (fission) power is not dangerous, vulnerable and expensive because of human emotions. There is another kind of nuclear power (fusion) that drives almost all the energetic processes here on earth; let’s really use that one instead.

  2. Nice article with some good points indeed. It however sounds slightly alarming to me when co-founder of Intellectual Ventures is getting focused on global environment issues. The patent trolling business is no longer prospective, or what?

  3. It’s funny-sad that it takes people with “credibility” to get this message out (and onto a blog like this).

    Beyond the funny-sad aspect I also sense danger … because, from where I’m sitting it looks like the “credible” solutions are going to be as late in coming and obsolete as the acknowledgement of the problem.

    I do not believe sustainability can be achieved by business-people (at least not as business people have come to be) and it definitely will not be achieved by reading and writing about it.

    It looks like this process had advanced to the point where only a collapse of some kind will shake things up enough for people, individuals, to take responsibility. It’s kind of like peope who smoke and eat unhealthy only give up smoking and reconsider their diets after surviving cancer.

    Intellectual masturbation isn’t going to change anything … it’s a big part of what got us here in the first place.

    1. I don’t trust the man .. not because of his science but because of his motivation … no matter how you turn it around it is ego driven … and that is inevitably destructive.

      “We have done a lot of invention around trying to solve clean energy problems” … what if a better “solution” is to be found by reframing the problem instead of trying to solve it? What if the problem is not in how we create energy but rather in how we use it?

      If that is the case then “pursuing clean energy” will never result in much … unless … it is directed by business people who are in it for interim profits … but that’s not really about the environment or the people of this planet is it?

  4. A solution in the near future might not be non-nuclear but it could be nuclear fission instead of fusion – comparatively safer, with less radioactive waste