Can We Get to Low-Carbon Energy Without Nuclear Power?
Regarding my post in which I advised the nuclear power industry to “move on from the past,” a reader comments:
Craig, it sounds like, “The truth is the best policy.” I have a response from an engineer friend of mine that suggests that all nuclear based electric has problems. It just seems wiser to capture the free energy of the sun, our nuclear plant at a safe distance. Using that energy will meet all our needs and preserve our ability to live here, scientists tell us.
Unfortunately, this is complicated. In the first place, it depends on what you mean by “scientists.” This discussion is meaningless if it excludes people like economists and international relations experts. “Physically possible” and “practically achievable” are two entirely different things.
Making this even more complex is the fact that “scientists” in the normal sense of the word, i.e., climatologists, physicists and materials science professionals, are mixed on the idea that nuclear power is not necessary to get our civilization to a low-carbon energy future.
I’ve tried to summarize the main points of the dialog here. In brief, there is an enormous calculus problem going on here with about a dozen variables all changing at the same time. To name the top four, we have:
• Improving efficiencies and declining costs in solar and wind.
• Growing populations, growing rates of energy consumption per capita, and the immediate imperative to get rid of coal—all of which pose challenges to the scalability of solar and wind.
• Law-makers, especially in the U.S., who are owned by the oil companies.
• Grass roots efforts, that are getting stronger by the minute, working hard to bring about climate/environmental justice.
I wish there were an easy answer, but there isn’t. If there is a way out, it will come from an honest willingness to confront our challenges without the PR slant of big oil, the nuclear power industry—or the renewable energy zealots (by which I mean advocates who can’t or won’t deal with the mathematics) and the hysterical no-nukes people (by which I mean those who won’t consider the possibility that nuclear is actually very safe–and getting safer).
All this has to happen within the confines of pragmatism. What does that mean? I’ll give you an example. Do you want to tell 1.7 billion Chinese that they can’t live like Americans do? Good luck with that.
We need an honest, practical discussion, which means that the rhetoric needs to be checked at the door.
