I was reading the article last night and found it very interesting, especially coming from a founder of Greenpeace. The all or nothing mentality of the 70's has given way to the reality of today's situation. We ARE held hostage by the oil barons as there is NO clear alternative unless we use nuclear technology to its fullest potential.
FromTexas said:
You know I am all for a nuclear movement. I think we should be hoping on the pebble bed reactor bandwagon. However, I do have one point of contention with his article. Nuclear is more expensive than he makes out. The cost of producing nuclear energy is very low. The cost that is hidden deals with the waste. The government mostly carries that burden now which keeps nuclear energy costs low. It is a plus that they can get more use out of the "waste" now as he points out. Still, the cost to recycle that fuel is high, as well. Yet, the rising cost of other fuels makes this negligible.
I am a proponent of nuclear energy myself, although I would like to see other technologies such as solar, hydroelectric, wind, and geothermal sources explored, too. But as the author states, no other technology to date is a viable alternative to the coal firing plants due to unpredictability of energy generation or prohibitive costs.
But the huge problem facing nuclear plants is what to do with the waste. I believe it was during Jimmy Carter's administration that there was a decree that no new storage facilities, such as the one in the desert Southwest, would be allowed to be built and I believe that ban is still in effect. Calvert Cliffs NPP stores all its spent fuel rods on site because there is nowhere else to take it. This adds enormously to the costs to produce electricity. I was glad to see the article mention that recycling fuel is no longer banned, but it's going to take awhile until this becomes cost effective.
If we built 5 nuclear plants over the next 8 years, we could dramatically reduce emissions and reduce power costs. It would also be nice if we built up the technology to transfer power between grids. We lose a lot of potential energy (excuse the play on words) from aging and outdated transmission methods.
Reducing the amount of pollution in the air and cheaper energy costs most definitely.
And just as importantly, it would greatly reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
The power grids are definitely part of the the problem. They are sorely outdated and archaic. The infrastructure was fine 30 years ago but times have definitely changed. But overhauling the current structure will take an enormous amount of time and money, which is probably not something energy companies are going to buy into now that they must stay competitive.
As the author says, "Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely." The United States and other countries do have the technology to safely harness and use nuclear power, but will we and those others have the foresight and courage to use it? I sincerely hope so, for all of our sakes.