ghommes wrote:
I find the discussion of the safety of nuclear energy interesting, but am convinced that with the human population growing out of control almost everywhere, with a corresponding increasing demand for electricity, nuclear power plants must be a part of providing it.
The continued burning of fossil fuels can no longer be tolerated over the long term due to the catastrophic effects on the worldwide climate that are increasingly occuring. "Renewables", though very important, can never keep up with the insatiable demand for power.
Sorry … but nobody is going to be building nuclear power plants in places like Sudan, Congo, East Timor, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Liberia, Laos, Columbia … or anywhere else you find weak central states that lack the planning and research infrastructure to carry out important regulatory, financing, security, and implementation functions. We probably shouldn't be building them in Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and other states with serious internal conflicts within their borders, and also longstanding issues with their neighbors. I still have high hopes for a tough minded anti-proliferation framework from global leaders in order to stem the tide of rising security threats from weak or non-state actors. If not from well intentioned leaders, than by default from actual changing circumstances.
We have huge energy challenges. The EIA just published it's
World Energy Outlook for 2010. The most notable finding is that we have already
passed the crest of peak oil. Liquid fuels and tapping smaller undiscovered reserves will continue to hamper our energy outlook and the cost advantage of existing technologies (ending subsidies to fossil fuels is a top priority in the report). It's not even about climate change anymore. They see a rapid rise of renewables in the next 15 years. Their own accounting shows only a 2% rise for nuclear in installed capacity in 2009 (among the smallest gains for the year), and a shift of 2% globally for 2035 … with cost equations growing increasingly out of whack as renewables get cheaper, and nuclear gets more expensive (high cost of new reactor construction, improvements to regulatory infrastructure, challenges to public acceptance, and long term accounting for externalities).
The greatest potential for scalable and sustainable energy alternatives for the planet (as a whole … including places like East Timor, Liberia, Iran … all the rest) are solar, wind, geothermal, conservation, efficiency, battery technology, tidal, hydro (and perhaps some as yet undeveloped game changer). We achieve a
30% reduction in energy demand by transition to renewables (away from fossil fuels) so this helps too. There are plenty of plans out there for scaling renewables to cover the whole amount:
in the EU and
US (among the many). Not that I want to argue this point strongly (our energy challenges are too complex) … but it is technically and ecologically feasible with current technology. Germany has
declared the nuclear option dead (although conservatives still debate it). Most who seriously look at global challenges (and not just selling uranium and reactor designs to China) frequently come to the same conclusion. Why … well, it's costs (plain and simple), it doesn't change emissions or environmental concerns much, and it presents a huge long term security challenge.
Far more interesting to me ...
a game changer today from Kentucky, one of the largest coal producing regions in the US. "Recognizing the spiraling costs of coal-fired plant construction and more practical energy efficiency and renewable energy options, the East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) has agreed to halt its once fervent plans to construct two coal-burning power plants in Clark County." It's the result of a coalition of partners including EKPC, Sierra Club, Kentucky Environmental Foundation, and numerous other grassroots organizations and individuals. And how did such a thing happen in Kentucky, you say … well, it just makes sense (which should be our first priority in meeting our energy challenges). A
breakthrough report showed that investments in energy efficiency, weatherization, hydro and wind power would lower costs for energy and provide a greater benefit to consumers, the economy, and the environment: 8,740 new jobs, $1.7 billion to local economy, lower energy costs (all in a period of three short years). "Unlike projected economic activity that would result from construction of a new coal‐burning power plant, investing in renewable energy, efficiency and weatherization would result in jobs and benefits across the region rather than in a smaller geographic area around the site of the proposed coal burning power plant."
Why am I spending so much time on this … well, I'd like to highlight the multiple challenges for nuclear, and namely look at what makes sense and avoid the problem of making the same arguments over and over again (and talking entirely past each other). Is this possible? If your main argument (directed at FT) is that radiation is "healthful," that nuclear is "zero" emissions, that global security and waste storage issues don't matter, that mining tailings are safe, that public acceptability is high, and that the cost curve for nuclear is attractive … well, then we're not having an honest conversation.