Brit Liggett

VIDEO INTERVIEW: Stewart Brand Says Nuclear Power Could Save the World

by , 02/19/14
YouTube Preview Image

Stewart Brand is an author, environmentalist, and above all, best known for his work as the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog. In 1966 Brand was one of the first environmentalists to push NASA — already with satellites orbiting the Earth — to release a picture of the “whole Earth” from space. He believed that a photo could be a powerful image for the then very young environmental movement, and when it was finally delivered to the world by the US government in 1968, it helped push the creation of Earth Day in 1970. An eco-trailblazer from the start, Brand recently penned the Whole Earth Discipline: An Eco-Pragmatist Manifesto, his sixth publication which explores how the Earth and its people are propelled by three transformations: climate change, urbanization and biotechnology. Recently, our very own Editor-in-Chief Jill Fehrenbacher had the chance to pick Brand’s brain, finding a thought-provoking discussion where Brand confers his belief that nuclear power might just be our green energy savior. Watch the exclusive video interview above and read the whole interview after the jump!


stewart brand, stewart brand nuclear power, is nuclear power green, can nuclear power be sustainable, is nuclear power sustainable, whole earth discipline

Brand has been a fighter for the world and in his honest pursuit for a better planet for the human race, he’s getting real about what we need to do to fight climate change. Never one to seek consensus, in his recent publication, Brand speaks candidly about his thoughts on nuclear power, genetic engineering and geo-engineering, hoping that his peers and readers will challenge his views. One of his honest decisions was to begin fighting for more nuclear power plants – watch our interview with him (at the top of the post) to see his convincing argument behind that decision.

INHABITAT: What do you think about renewable energy like solar power? Do you think that it has potential?

BRAND: It’s sad that we have to keep saying “potential” with regards to solar. It’s been around for 40 years and should have proved itself by now. In terms of providing grid electricity at the scale of coal, it’s not anywhere close to that yet. Wind is starting to gain significant speed, but environmentalists are learning that just to get a gigawatt of electricity from wind, it takes about 250 square miles of landscape.

Major solar application we’ll see will be across the Mediterranean with North Africa where there’s a mineral heavy desert and you don’t care if there are major solar farms on the sand. Direct current electricity can be sent without a lot of loss as it travels north into Europe. But generally, wherever you have a green desert like we do in California – where I’m from – you’ve got a lot of green-on-green fighting going on about solar now because there you need 50 square miles of bulldozed desert to get a gigawatt of solar electricity. In this light, the initiative starts to have a not so pleasant tradeoff.

Related Posts

LEAVE A COMMENT

or your inhabitat account below

Let's make sure you're a real person:


37 Comments

  1. fcfcfc March 1, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    Hello: Keep it simple, the glow in the dark Genie put some money in his pocket. Nuclear power is the most absurd energy source on th planet… But hey, he’s getting older now, so its like all the other old timers doing whatever commercial work they can get… keeps the cash flow up…

    …..Bill

  2. brennigmaier February 25, 2014 at 11:09 am

    It’s so typical american, to see you talking about energy problems with giant SUV’s in the background.
    Right there is your biggest energy problem! Wasting a hole lot of energy!
    If you would get your energy use down to european levels, you would see that getting to 100% renewables in the next 15 – 20 years isn’t such a big deal.
    Instead Mr. Brand goes for the nuclear option.
    But that isn’t a real option! Otherwise there would be hundreds of building sites all over the states. To replace the dangerously old ones.
    Ask the Finns how cheap it is to build an new nuclear power plant. There new plant will generate the most expansive girt electricity on the planet. When it’s finally ready 5 maybe 7 years later than planned.
    The British want create a energy tax to finance new nuclear power plants. I think that could really work for the US.

    This talk about nuclear renaissance is so 1987.
    Would you be so kind and move along to the “bridge technology discussion”!
    It will start when renewables are somewhere between 15% and 18%, and start cutting painfully in the profits of the coal and nuclear plants.

    And I can’t see “the problems” with renewables quite frankly.
    They getting cheaper and more efficient every day.
    You can plan and build them at an incredible speed.
    You will run out of need for more electricity before you will run out of unshaded rooftops.
    And the resource are endless.

    But the real question is:
    What will you do when something goes wrong?
    Who will you sent in to fix it?
    I don’t know about any democratic country on this planet, who has an answer to that in there disaster plans.

  3. alvdh1 February 22, 2014 at 10:49 am

    It is hard to believe that anyone but the most uninformed would fall for the Stewart Brand Nuclear Myth. Creating a massive radioactive legacy is no way to save the world or to protect the integrity of our gene pool while bankrupting the world’s economies.

    Fact Number 1: Each 1,000 megawatt reactor produces the fission equivalent of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs worth of radioactive waste per year. Their are approximately 430 commercial nuclear power plants operating around the globe.

    430 X 1,000 = the fission equivalent of 430,000 Hiroshima bombs of radioactive waste produced per year with no permanent nuclear waste repositories in operation. A thirty year look back on the nuclear industry reveals that they have produced the fission equivalent of nearly 13,000,000 Hiroshima bombs of radioactive waste, which does not include waste in the form of uranium tailings or equipment and materials that have become radioactive as a result of uranium fuel processing, fabrication and enrichment.

    Only a nuclear fiend would agree that this is the way to save the world.

    Fact Number 2: The world doesn’t have 30 to 40 years to build out enough new nuclear plants to make a sizeable dent in climate change nor does it have the capital to be specifically allocated to the development of nuclear power plants – especially when relatively inexpensive energy efficiency measures are available to us now. In fact, energy efficiency pays immediate dividends to every individual, business or government that invests in it.

    We waste 65 percent of the energy produced at thermal power plants as heat escaping into the atmosphere or into stream, lakes and oceans. We waste another 8 percent transmitting it down the grid, which makes a thermal power plant 26 percent efficient at producing energy. This is not a sustainable form of energy production. We live on a planet with finite coal, natural gas, oil and uranium resources that are being squandered away from future generations because of our inefficient use of it in thermal power plants.

    Our end use efficiencies are as appalling bad as are our production efficiencies and in some cases worse. The incandescent light bulb, for example takes our 26 percent efficient electricity and squanders another 95 percent of the energy as a heat producing light source as opposed to super efficient LED and OLED light sources. High output metal halide, high pressure sodium, mercury vapor and halogen fixtures unnecessarily add the end use waste of precious finite resources that can all be replaced with climate change mitigating LED’s today.

    Super efficient Geothermal heating and cooling, insulation, thermal windows and building day lighting are all available now to reduce the unnecessary waste of energy.

    Today, 10 percent of our electricity is produced by combined heat power plants that can operate at efficiencies approaching 80 percent. There is no reason that this contribution to grid based energy cannot be increased to 50 percent or more with the added benefit of utilizing the waste heat for heating and air conditioning purposes.

    Stewart Brand knows that these energy efficient technologies exist today a pittance of the cost of nuclear power. Yet, he wants to maintain the status quo nuclear socialism where large amounts of money and power are concentrated into the hands of a few utilities instead of cutting the power bills of hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and billions of people around the globe that will ultimately funnel those saving back into the economy while providing new employment.

  4. johncz February 19, 2014 at 11:41 pm

    There are some 1400 coal power plants in the U.S., I believe it would take roughly 400 medium sized nuclear plants to decommission all those coal plants. I support nuclear power but not to that extent and there is no way we could go through the planning & regulatory approval process for 400 plants in say the next 50 years. Whats the average cost of a nuclear power plant .. $15-20 billion. Alternatively with that $15-20 billion, lets say annually, how many coal power plants could we shutdown if every residence/business upgraded to LED lighting, we funded research that resulted in big improvements in appliance efficiency, gave builders tax incentives to implement passive cooling, etc, etc. We have so many opportunities for improving efficiency on the consumer side. One day I can imagine solar roofing tile and shingle systems that not only collect sun & wind energy but also capture co2. For me, the all nuclear option isn’t even on my radar.

  5. narzin April 4, 2012 at 5:44 pm

    The nuclear industry could NOT support itself without HUGE taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies.

    The taxpayer pays for:

    – the insurance for nuclear power plants
    – clean-up of radioactively contaminated areas like Hanford which is costing BILLIONS
    – storage of nuclear waste
    – guarding of nuclear waste
    – hugely expensive government agencies like the NRC who oversee nuclear energy
    – government studies
    – the unending lawsuits when the NRC is sued
    – billions of dollars for wasted storage sites like Yucca Mtn.
    – DOE studies to search for storage sites
    – research and development
    – medical studies
    – decommissioning
    – uranium processing plants which are HUGELY expensive
    – MOX fuel plants like the SRS plant which is costing BILLIONS
    – payoffs to nuclear workers who were sickened from working in the nuclear industry
    – hazardous waste incincerators

    The list goes on and on of how the taxpayer has subsidized the nuclear industry for 60 years and has costed the taxpayer TRILLIONS.

    Nuclear energy is the most expensive energy there is to the taxpayer.

    And also to the ratepayer whose rates are raised everytime there’s a downtime at a nuclear power plant, etc.

    Even the ex-CEO of Exelon admits that nuclear energy is not economically viable.

  6. Germany To Completely P... May 30, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    [...] Germany derives 22 percent of their energy from nuclear power plants. The shut down will force authorities to allocate alternative sources- either natural gas, [...]

  7. izzy May 11, 2011 at 5:25 am

    I have long admired Stewart Brand for traditional common-sense philosophy and looked up to him for alternative solutions to save humanity.
    But if Stewart Brand suddenly thinks that nuclear energy is perfectly safe and the answer to all our problems, perhaps it is time for him to retire to a homestead in Chernobyl. He can let us know how that pioneering experiment works out…
    Time for you to feature Amory Lovins instead.

  8. katiebell May 10, 2011 at 9:31 am

    not happy, can the conversation still be had when we know nuclear issues are potentially globally devastating to the whole world!

  9. metis April 13, 2011 at 11:19 am

    i find it interesting that when someone takes a pragmatic, and reasonably educated look at a problem, they are attacked for emotional reasons, and that the solutions others claim to be superior either have similar issues, or they are choosing to compare modern tech to out of date tech.

    modern nuclear *IFF* responsibly managed in modern reactors produces negligible waste, or radiation, and may be usable as a “geothermal” style heat source as well. it’s not perfect no, but large scale solar has massive impact locally (soil temps changed, thermals changed for miles around) and wind needs ongoing significant maintenance.

    there are places for all of them for various energy needs, as well as some limited uses for carbon fuels in a sustainable future.

  10. ioconnor March 28, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Stewart Brand throws erroneous numbers about to support his pro nuclear stance. For instance he says 50 miles of land are needed for 1GW of power as if this were a known fact. Official government sources calculate it out to be less than a third of a mile. (See http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/calc_wind.php which has a calculator to make this easy for everybody.) Stewart now makes his money off making controversial statements. Most of his “facts” here were far from close to official sources. Stewart should be considered no more accurate than any other lobbyist.

  11. mijari March 23, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    @Steevo

    It’s “mijari,” not “migari.”

    Those were my thoughts since the earthquake. I was taking aligatorhardt’s statement (above my post) and turning it around. I’m not defending old nuclear, I’m supporting Integral Fast Reactor technology. I think we all have concerns about poorly enforced nuclear regulations by governments, and questionable safety decisions by nuclear operators.

    But, throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn’t the solution.

    Efficiency is very good, if you’re relying on fossil fuels and part time energy generators such as wind and solar.

  12. Steevo March 23, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    migari. What are your thoughts about peoples concerns of 40 year old nuclear technology since the Japan earthquake?

    The eco-emphasis in my opinion should be on reduction of use through efficiency.

  13. mijari March 18, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    @aligatorhardt:

    Why do some anti-nuclear people insist on talking about 40 year old nuclear technology? Judge the future of nuclear energy by the technology that has been developed recently, and is backed by many of the top scientists of our times: http://xrl.in/7hwh

  14. aligatorhardt February 21, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Brand’s value as an environmentalist seems to be more dependent on stating it than living it. He must be judged on his actions of today, not what he appeared to be 40 years ago, which may have just been opportunistic capitalism, with a green overwash. Why do proponents of nuclear power always want to talk about the damage from coal instead of discussing their own industry? The safety record of nuclear power is not so clean, and claims of reprocessing have not been demonstrated to be economical or to remove any significant portion of wastes. Why are the facts of nuclear power so hidden from public oversight? Read the NRC guidelines for waste disposal, judge for yourself if they seem adequate. Low interest loans for rooftop solar power would be a better use of public funds than any investment in lethal technology without solutions to it’s many problems.

  15. lazyreader February 21, 2011 at 7:50 am

    Mining, Transport, Refining are all carbon intensive activities. that’s true but you have to do the same process for building wind turbines. You think there made out of thin air…..pardon the pun. You gotta extract raw materials, make concrete, build motors out of rare earth elements, transport them. And Solar cells are made out of a lot of toxic compounds.

    As for radiation, beer is 13 times more radioactive than the discharge water from a nuclear plant. The Jersey Shore crowd get’s more radiation tanning once a week than if they camped out near a nuclear plant for a year.

  16. SAMarshall February 19, 2011 at 11:17 am

    @jeanruss,

    Your lack of credibility is starting to show itself. First, nuclear energy and life on this planet can, does, and has co-existed for ~60 years now. I’m sure you realize that just because one man writes it in a book doesn’t mean it’s true.

    Second, The University of North Carolina did NOT confirm the technology to be credible. The physics department head took a tour of Blacklight and said that the data looked promising. This is MILES away from the University confirming the technology. Please get your facts straight. I would love to see this technology come to pass, but until it actually does, let’s try to use what we have.

  17. JamesHopf February 18, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    Sharma’s statements that nuclear a (significant) CO2 producer and safety and health hazard are all demonstrably false.

    Even after accounting for uranium mining, enrichment, plant construction, plant decommissioning, waste management, etc.., nuclear’s CO2 emissions are ~2% of coal’s, ~5% if natural gas, and similar to or lower than most renewables. The bottom line is that the global warming impact of nuclear and renewable sources are negligible:

    http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf

    Whereas fossil fuel power plants cause ~25,000 deaths every single year in the US alone (according to EPA), and are the leading single cause of global warming (~33%), US nuclear power plants have not killed a single member of the public, and have never had any measurable impact on public health. No formal scientific body or govt. agency attributes any public health impacts at all to nuclear power plants. All scientific studies of overall public safety risks from various energy sources (i.e., deaths/TW-hr) show nuclear to be the safest of all, by far.

    It is clear that nuclear regulations (NRC) are the MOST strict of any energy source or industry, and the impeccible health and safety record described above is clear proof of that.

    Evacuation zones are just one more example of the comically excessive levels of regulation. Even the anti-nuclear Union of Concerned Scientists acknowledges that even a worst-case nuclear meltdown would have impacts that are a tiny fraction of coal’s ANNUAL impacts. Even a worst-case event at a US nuke would not result in any signifcant land area with radiation levels above the range of natural background.

    Another example of the comical level of attention paid to tiny nuclear-related issues (while routinely ignoring much larger issues with all other industries) is the so-called tritium issue. The levels of radioactivity are so trivial that there is no potential for any member of the public to get more exposure than what they get from eating a single, ordinary bannana; orders of magnitude lower than that required to yield a single sickness (let alone death) of any member of the public.

    Meanwhile, the pollution that continually streams from the regions’ fossil plants are causing thousands of deaths, every single year, as well as global warming. It’s insane.

  18. JimHopf February 18, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    Derek’s logic is flawed. He says that if nuclear can’t compete in the market w/o subsidies, then renewables must be cheaper (under the apparant assumption that renewables aren’t subsidized).

    The only thing nuclear can’t quite compete with is fossil fuels, under the current system where fossil fuels get to massively pollute the environment, for free. As a result, nuclear needs minor subsidies to compete with fossil fuels, whereas renewables require (and are receiving) massive subsidies in order to compete with fossil fuels. And, in case even those subsidies aren’t enough, there are mandates in many states requiring a large amount of renewables use, regardless of cost or practicality (essentially an infinite subsidy). This is why renewables are being built.

    What we need is either pollution taxes, a cap-and-trade system, or a Clean Energy Standard that mandates a certain fraction of power be generated by non-polluting (i.e., nuclear or renewable) sources. Such policies would finally have fossil fuel power costs reflect the environmental/health costs, and would allow nuclear and renewables to compete on a fair, level playing field. Nuclear will do quite well in any sich competition.

  19. jeanruss February 18, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    Sorry, I mispelled “there”.

  20. jeanruss February 18, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    The technology of Blacklight Power has been confirmed by the University of North Carolina. This is an entirely new science that will revolutionize energy usage and how physics is taught. Walter Russell’s book “Atomic Suicide” is a must read for anyone wondering about the safety of nuclear energy. It explains scientifically that nuclear energy and all life on the planet cannot co-exist. This is NOT an option if organic life is to continue on this earth. Russell was the first scientist to exhibit the nuclear elements on his revised elements chart. He also showed that their are several types of Hydrogen, not one on his completed chart.

  21. Glorax February 18, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    It did wonders for Chernobyl.

  22. SAMarshall February 18, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    @jeanruss

    Blacklight Power is as of this moment a figment of your imagination. They have good claims but nothing solid. Thay are not already selling prototypes, they have licensing agreements to sell if Blacklight someday actually proves they can make this work and build one, which they haven’t yet. They claim they have a working prototype but no one has seen it yet. Get back to me when Blacklight actually does something.

    @Derek,

    The nuclear industry can support itself just fine without subsidies. You know those “subsidies” you speak of have never given a penny to the nuclear industry. The loan gurantees will actually make the governmet money, not the other way around. And the only reason the gurantees are needed in the first place is because the govt. made it possible to for anti-nuke’s like yourself to shut down a plant as it’s being built. Who in their right mind goes through all the work of giving a license for a nuclear power plant and THEN lets lawsuits happen? Only the govt.

  23. Peter Sharma III February 18, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    Nuclear Power is hardly a carbon reducing solution. Mining, Transport, Refining, Security, and Storage are all carbon intensive activities.

    In addition we have the damage to waterway ecosystems caused by the cooling scenario practiced at most plants along with the commensurate fish-kill that occurs. We in Southern Vermont must also deal with tritium leaks that are poisoning our river and wells!

    The NRC & DOE have failed miserably in regulating the 104 plants currently operating tin the USA, due to underfunding and lack of interest by the past four administrations, with Obama’s group fairing no better. I’ll not stand by and watch 1000+ new “Micro-Reactors commissioned for operation by a couple of hundred under-regulated profiteers.

    It is unacceptable to utilise any technology that requires designation of a population “Sacrifice Zone” as I live in in Brattleboro.

    Nuclear power is a carbon producer, a safety and health hazard, and a non-starter. Any argument to the otherwise is based in poor logic and pure economic expediency to the benefit of a very few at a tremendous cost to the rest of us.

  24. Van Rainey February 18, 2011 at 11:55 am

    The conversation about “nuclear” continues to center on older forms of Uranium based generation when and the problems posed by that technology and the newer solutions for dealing with them. However, there exists newer emerging technologies reliant on thorium that cannot contribute to weapons proliferation, produce less than ten percent of the waste of a uranium/plutonium breeder reactor without processing, produces a lower grade radioactive waste, and is cheaper and easier to build than the classic contaiment type plant. Thorium fueled plants will provide electricity cheaper than coal with no green house gases, can be decentrally located to avoid transmission losses and be mass manufactured in a short time frame. The US has at this time the superior technology and if we can get the governemnt out of the way or better yet supporting the technology, we can create a significant job generating industry that we can control and not need to export to China. Most importantly there is enough Thorium to provide all the conceivable energy needs for the planet for 100′s of thousands of years.

  25. lazyreader February 18, 2011 at 8:04 am

    I so want that T-shirt. And a reactor in my state. If you account for all the average energy (if it were all nuclear) you use in your life from age 0 to 77, the amount of waste you would generate would be the size of a coke can. It’s not really waste, it’s spent fuel (over 90 percent of which is still useful uranium). With Neutron absorbing fast reactors, spent fuel reprocessing, modular constructed reactors, we could extend the nuclear fuel supply far beyond the supposed peak. There’s enough nuclear fuel to last tens of thousands of years. While not renewable technically, in the human timeframe it’s sustainable. In Canada they use heavy water moderated reactors that run on natural uranium, so they don’t generate plutonium.

  26. anthonygcutri20 February 17, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    Steward Brand is a visionary and pragmatist. I have followed his writing/publication for over 36 years. But let’s not lose site of the importance of conservation and efficiency in our buildings and systems.

  27. Derek February 17, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    How Much Does Nuclear Cost? $6,000 a Kilowatt or More:

    Constellation’s bid to get government backing sheds some light on the high cost of nuclear.
    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-much-does-nuclear-cost-6000-a-megawatt-at-least/
    “Constellation Energy, which wants to build a 1.6-gigawatt plant in Maryland, shed some light on the subject when it pulled out of the DOE loan program. Constellation had been seeking a guarantee that would cover 80 percent of the $7.6 billion loan on the Calvert Cliffs 3 project. The entire budget for the project is estimated at $9.6 billion. Constellation pulled out because the DOE requested a $880 million fee — around 11.6 percent of the loan — for the guarantee. The fee would make the project un-economical, Constellation said.”

    Nuclear solution comes with a huge price tag
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/28/AR2009042802193.html

    The cost of labor, raw materials and technology have all grown exorbitantly. Because much of the new technology and building techniques are untested in the U.S., construction will be lengthier, more expensive and riskier, according to a report issued by Standard & Poor’s.

    In Georgia, customers of Georgia Power, a subsidiary of the Southern Co., will pay $1.30 extra a month beginning in 2011. However, to cover the cost of two new nuclear reactors that will cost $14 billion, consumers will be paying an extra $9.10 a month by 2017.

    Nuclear’s Comeback: Still No Energy Panacea
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869203,00.html

    But some little-noticed rain has fallen on the nuclear parade. It turns out that new plants would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive. The first detailed cost estimate, filed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) for a large plant off the Keys, came in at a shocking $12 billion to $18 billion. Progress Energy announced a $17 billion plan for a similar Florida plant, tripling its estimate in just a year. “Completely mind-boggling,” says Charlie Beck, who represents ratepayers for Florida’s Office of Public Counsel.

  28. Derek February 17, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    The Nuclear industry is old and well established and should be able to support itself without federal subsidies. Let Power companies pay for Nuclear Power plants without government subsidies. If they cannot afford it, then it must not be more affordable than other renewables which do not create nuclear waste requiring expensive and dangerous disposal.

  29. Rate Crimes February 17, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    Yet, we are content to flatten and pave thousands of square miles of green desert in exchange for a sprawling ocean of ‘masterplanned’, McMansioned subdivisions that have upgraded kitchan cabinets but no solar on the roof.

    What Mr. Brand appears to be proposing is death by ‘pragmatism’.

  30. jeanruss February 17, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    It is so discouraging to hear that nuclear power is still under discussion as a solution to the Earth’s energy needs. Walter Russell, a 20th century American genius, built a Hydrogen engine over 70 years ago, displayed it to President Roosevelt, and was told that it would destroy the economy and it was put away. We already should have been in the Hydrogen Age, but fossil fuel interests work feverishly to suppress this technology. Blacklight Power in New Jersey is already selling its Hydrogen Plant prototypes to corporations that recognize the future of ebergy. They are MUCH cheaper than a nuclear power plant, have ZERO waste and run perpetually from only ONE gallon of water. This is the safe “free energy” future that will be ours when the government and industry get out of the way.

  31. Andrew Michler February 16, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    While I think he understates the hazards of nuclear his analysis of renewable energies problems of sheer scale is important to recognize. If it was an easy choice we would have done it by now.

  32. Jessica Dailey February 16, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    Great interview! Really interesting to hear Brand’s perspective, especially about nuclear power.

  33. Kestrel Jenkins Kestrel Jenkins February 16, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Super interesting article — and really enjoyed hearing Brand’s perspective and angle on this discussion.

  34. Yuka Yoneda Yuka Yoneda February 16, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Interesting what he says about the “green on green” fighting. I agree that demolishing a green desert to put up solar is a bad tradeoff.

  35. Adam Schwartz February 16, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    Really nice honest conversation about the realistic potential of solar, wind a nuclear. Still worried about the storage of nuclear waste though!

  36. Diane Pham Diane Pham February 16, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    fascinating interview! interesting to hear from someone who’s a major proponent of nuclear power!

  37. Rebecca Paul Rebecca Paul February 16, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Great video!

  • Read Inhabitat

  • Search Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Browse by Keyword

get the free Inhabitat newsletter

Submit this form
popular today
all time
most commented
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
Federated Media Publishing - Home