I admit to many concerns about turning to nuclear power to solve our problems related to greenhouse gas emissions. A wise friend of mine who's a big proponent of building new nukes says that scientists in the future will figure out how to deal with dangerous spent nuclear fuel so my concerns about leaving something dangerous around for many, many new generations to deal with are unfounded. James Lovelock is also a proponent of building new nukes. He says that the damage from even a large nuclear accident such as Chernobyl only harms at most a few thousand people, while failure to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions may well end life as we know it on this planet. Today's EEI newsletter reports on an interview in today's NYT with Lovelock:
Eminent British Scientist Explains Need to Focus on Nuclear Energy
The New York Times today presents a Q&A with British scientist James E. Lovelock, who has long "foreseen a clash between humans and their planet," and who is said to have had much of his work serve as an underpinning for modern environmentalism. Lovelock calls for a new nuclear age, despite criticism that opponents have aired suggesting that his theories will release huge amounts of CO2 into the air and will serve as targets for terrorism.
To the question about the vitality of nuclear power, Lovelock said: "The really bad thing we did way back when was starting to burn things in the atmosphere to get energy. We started with fire, just cooking food, and probably could have gotten away with that. But once we started burning forests to drive the animals out as a cheap way of hunting, then we started on our downward course. What we're doing now with fossil fuels is just as bad. We live in a nuclear-powered universe. We're the oddballs by getting energy from burning carbon. My justification of nuclear power is that we've reached a stage now where the dire things that threaten us are so great that even the results of an all-out nuclear war pale into insignificance as unimportant compared to what's going to happen."
Lovelock said that the environmentalists' determination to press for renewable energy sources is "largely gestures. If it makes people feel good to shove up a windmill or put a solar panel on their roof, great, do it. It'll help a little bit, but it's no answer at all to the problem."
New York Times, Science Desk , Sept. 12.
He may be right.
2 comments:
Unfortunately, even as we discuss nuclear power as a future option, we understand little about how it currently being used. Few proponents or opponents of nuclear have any practical experience in this industry, and it's far different than what most people imagine. There is a lay person's guide to nuclear power by a longtime U.S. industry worker available at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com. It's free to readers, who seem to like it judging from their homepage comments. Endorsed by Steweart Brand, the founder of The Whole Earth Catalog and another iconic enviromentalist like Dr. Lovelock who has called for a second look at nuclear energy.
POD paperback coming in a month or two. There is a printable PDF file link in the upper right on the home page. My eyes, too, continue to wear down. Thanks for your interest.
Regarding your other comments, the problems with wind and solar are that they aren't very energy dense and they are intermittent. We use a huge, huge amount of power (conservation should be the number #1 priority) and we use it 24/7/365. (One of the benefits of a large grid is that when a few plants are out for maintenance, there's still power available 24/7. Also, it takes several thousand windmills with battery banks to replace one nuclear plant. And there's 100 nuclear plants. See the comments following the early chapters of my book.)
The above doesn't negate your argument, but when the math is all done it makes it less compelling. Hydrogen isn't an energy source - it is a storage mechanism similar to batteries. You use energy to make it.
It is true there is subsidization of nuclear on liability insurance beyond a certain level and some on research. Decommissioning costs are paid for by the consumer via an add-on to their bill - they're not subsidized in the traditional sense. Unfortunately, some of those billions in consumer money has gone to the government, which committed to dealing with the waste issue on behalf of the utilities. That's a mess no matter what your overall opinion.
Post a Comment