Is Nuclear Power Part of a Balanced Energy Diet?
A reader named Mark writes on my piece about nuclear power, in which I favor solar thermal and point out the dangers of further nuclear development:
Energy and power sources/systems are complex topics. They encompass national and international political factors, human health factors, economic considerations, fuel source/feedstock considerations, and more.
I believe a diverse portfolio is desirable. As a human diet that is diverse (balanced) contributes to human health, a diverse portfolio of energy and power sources reduces overall risks greatly, from a number of perspectives. Problem is, most individuals or groups are motivated by some form of self-interest. Yours happens to be solar. Others favor nuclear and so on. ….. Until the power of special interests is reduced substantially, we likely will continue to land on the wrong squares. Unfortunately each human mind is its own “special interest”.
This is a terrifically astute comment. I particularly love: Unfortunately each human mind is its own “special interest.” You’ve touched not only on the energy industry but on the human condition itself; thanks so much for writing.
And you are so correct. We spend most of our mental lives trying to confirm our hypotheses about ourselves and the world around us — and almost no time looking for clues that may disconfirm these beliefs — a pursuit that would have been so much more productive. And I’m a living laboratory; I think of myself as a person strong enough to accept even the harshest criticism, but I have to admit that everytime I open an email from a stranger I hope it expressed approval of my ideas.
Having said all this, I’m not convinced that your analogy is perfectly valid. The idea that a balanced human diet leads to health does not imply that a balance of energy generation technology leads to sustainability. You wouldn’t suggest that a human diet that should include even trace amounts of cyanide. Likewise, I submit there are modes of energy generation that are simply unhealthy for humans and other living things.
Aloha Craig,
I appreciate your post. Frankly, I’m in favor of diversifying our energy-base. I’m preparing a Proposal to co-engineer a replicable “BioEnergy Hub”, for coastline sites, integrating on the same grid; a WtE Platform; an Algae PBR, a Windfarm, a near-shore Ocean-wave Generator, and Solar. This ‘BioEnergy Hub’ will support diversified Ag-Parks. The WtE provides CO2, heating & cooling, and Energy to operate the PBR Platform. The effluents utilized as “micronized nutrients” for the Ag-Park. Zero-carbon footprint balance of Plant(s). Let’s hedge our bets and “marry” these Alternative Technologies;…..I’m favoring the “shot-gun” approach to AE.
Although there is growing awareness of thorium instead of uranium for nuclear power, thorium has not received as much attention as it should. The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) eliminates most of the objections to uranium fueled reactors.
For more information, visit the following website:
http://energyfromthorium.com/
Because of their intermittent nature, solar and wind power could not currently meet the world’s demands for power. The technology for economical storage of power to provide power when wind and solar are not available does not exist. Also, both wind and solar require considerable land area which is not available in some parts of the world. That is especially true in China, which has a population density three times greater than ours, and India, which has a population density ten times greater than ours.
Wind and solar power, although not practical as a major source of power in most of the world, are useful in areas where connecting to the grid is not practical and therefore development work on them should continue. Also, it is possible that advanced power storage technology could, at some future date, make wind and solar power more practical. However, it would be unwise to place excessive reliance on storage technologies which do not currently exist.
Meanwhile, the only energy technology capable of meeting the world’s energy requirements is nuclear. Opposing nuclear power will prolong our dependency on coal and other fossil fuels which no environmentally aware person would want.
I have read that many (but not all) environmental organizations which oppose nuclear power are supported by fossil fuel companies because fossil fuel companies know that delaying the implementation of nuclear power will delay the phase-out of fossil fuels. However, I have not seen supporting documentation.