Is Nuclear Energy a Necessary Component of an Environmentally Responsible Energy Platform?
I came across an article this morning (though I can’t find it now) that referenced a recent conversation that someone supposedly had with legendary environmental activist Bill McKibben, in which the question was posed: “Where do you stand on nuclear, and why?” The short answer is that McKibben himself is not anti-nuke; in fact be believes that it may be vital in lowering carbon emissions in time to avoid catastrophic climate change, but that he doesn’t make this public on the basis that it would “split the movement in half.”
I suppose that’s true, but it’s sad, to be sure. While it’s certainly the case that 99+% of environmentalists have an adamant position on nuclear energy (most of them against it), I’d like to think that the vast majority of people who care deeply about the quality of life we’re creating for ourselves and leaving to our children are essentially people of science. I.e., we defer to scientists to tell us what to do with respect to matters pertaining to science.
FWIW, that’s where I am personally. My viewpoints on the safety and overall validity of nuclear are formed entirely by the top minds in energy and environmental science…and the consensus seems to favor the development of advanced nuclear energy solutions with lower cost and better safety profiles.
It seems a shame that a movement of compassionate and intelligent people would be split apart by our inability to rethink our respective positions in the presence of new information.
Nuclear power is absolutely necessary for the developing world. India is not going to get there with just solar energy (they are too crowded), and they have very little wind resource. They need nuclear reactors, and they need to build about 50,000 small hydroelectric dams (not an exaggeration).
That’s just India. China is still the biggest emitter, and Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan… etc.. These nations have too high of a population density to imagine them using just wind and solar power in order to satisfy all of their needs under the current technology paradigm. We need to embrace everything that is not based on fossil carbon: efficiency, nuclear, wind, hydropower, solar, biomass, geothermal, even tidal…
Anything we seek to remove from the list just means more coal gets added on. Even with an all-in approach, it will be at least half a century before we fully eliminate coal. Adding on another ~10-20% of total energy needs just because someone wants to indulge in their own ignorance as far as nuclear energy goes would just add that much more coal, and that much more time… and it would make the problem that much worse.
Craig,
“a movement of compassionate and intelligent people “, Ah, if only that were true !