Editor's Note: Robert Wilson is a PhD candidate in Mathematical Ecology at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. He blogs at Carbon Counter, where this article first appeared. You can follow him on Twitter @planktonmath. All views expressed are his own.
At The Energy Collective, Robert Wilson brings out a discrepency in Al Gore vision for energy and climate change solutions. We here at [INFLUENCE] wonder - why is there such a strong inclination towards writing incomplete material - or, why are some of the most vocal solution providers or advocates often working from a narrow viewpoint? Hopefully that can be changed, or, looking at more perspectives can become more appealing...
I recently had the pleasure of reading Al Gore’s latest volume, The Future. This not particularly tightly written book has among other things a section on biotechnology that shows that Gore’s attachment to science is somewhat fleeting. Of particular interest to me is a comment Gore makes about nuclear power.
In the climate change section entitled “False Solutions,” Gore expresses some skepticism on nuclear power, and writes the following:
There is still a distinct possibility that the research and development of a new generation of smaller and hopefully safer reactors may yet play a significant role in the world’s energy future. We should know by 2030.
What's your take?