[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well until that happens I can't support nuclear power.
-Sun_Tzu-
Until green movement gives a serious backing to nuclear power, I can't support it due to the fact that I can't take it seriously.
There's good reason to be reluctant to jump on the nuclear bandwagon though. It's not like other alternative energy sources. If a solar farm fails thousands of people in the area aren't put at risk. That's not the case with nuclear power. And as safe as nuclear power may be, there will be accidents going forward, and there will be accidents caused by circumstances that no one today ever accounted for (which was the case in Japan). I'm not completely against nuclear power in principle, but I don't think it'd be wise for nuclear power to be the primary means towards alternative energy, not only because of the inherent risks involved with nuclear power and radiation (and the fact that the industry is not liable for any catastrophic damages, even in cases of incompetence, which creates an obvious moral hazard) but the overhead costs in operating these plants and keeping them safe are very high, so high that it becomes hard to justify the cost, especially when compared to other energy sources. There is not actually good reason to be reluctant to jump on the nuclear bandwagon due to concerns with regards to safety taking into consideration that conventional means of power generation are significantly more dangerous. Safety concerns can be addressed and regulated. The plant in Japan was old, obsolete (from a time shortly after the inception of nuclear power) and simply not designed for the types of damage it sustained -- which can certainly be remedied by addressing a few relatively simple design flaws. In spite of its few hiccups, historically, nuclear power hasn't been the proverbial nuclear bomb warehouse awaiting detonation, and in fact, relative to its contemporaries, was remarkably safe and does not emit CO2.
Yes, there are other energy sources and they should be researched and implemented to the extent which they can for the reasons you mentioned with respect to cost, but that holds true as these energy source become more efficient. That said, part of the problem with moving away from fossil fuels is meeting energy demands in their absence. This problem is compounded by global growth and increased energy expectations. For this reason, other sources of energy are, frankly, inadequate to meet the amount energy which needs to be produced alone. Do not get me wrong; nuclear can't account for this itself, either. There is simply no single source of energy which can replace fossil fuels, and additionally, the rising global need for energy. That said, nuclear power is, over its lifetime, a comparably expensive, clean and, equally importantly, sizable source of power. Granted, nuclear power is expensive, particularly in its startup, which is part of the reason why it should not be implented exclusively. That said, its cost per KW*hr throughout its lifetime is not really higher at the present moment than other sources of energy, namely solar and wind, which are likely to be the backbone of the rest of power generation. In fact, according to the DOE, and taking into account regional efficiency which benefits solar and wind, nuclear is currently less expensive than solar and on par with wind. If there is going to be anything resembling a serious effort to replace greenhouse gas emitting sources of energy, failing to utilize nuclear power extensively is simply NOT an option.
Part of moving forward with energy reform is addressing a myriad of issues associated with them. For all of the ingenuity and effort allocated towards resolving these issues for other issues of energy, I cannot reiterate enough how puzzled I am with some of the environmentally-minded liberals simply not focusing on eliminating barriers to the implementation of nuclear energy and eliminating solvable problems such as accountability and waste management. Throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a realistic option if there is any shot at significantly scaling down greenhouse gas emissions (until the peak, anyway, but I don't think waiting until then is a good option, either). Yet I immediately see the understandable criticisms of the right wing when they seek to end gov't programs due to waste. There is also the fact that this is the one source of alternative energy which the right isn't throwing a b!tch fit about and seems to want to implement. Perhaps it would be premature to call out partisanship as the cause of the squabble, but at the very least, the vast majority of hesitance to forward the implantation of nuclear energy seems to result from irrational paranoia, jeopardizes the efforts to move away from fossil fuels, and ultimately delegitimizes the movement as a practical effort to actually accomplish its goals which I happen to sympathize with.
Log in to comment