Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy
2GreenEnergy supporter Cameron Atwood and I are having a discussion I thought I’d share:Craig: I believe that nuclear energy is necessary to heading off climate catastrophe. Obviously, not everyone agrees.
Craig: Yes. I would add that both these articles are hatchet-jobs on nuclear energy, i.e., they don’t even try to treat the subject fairly.
It is true that nukes that were built 50 years ago are not nearly as safe as those made with today’s designs.
Also, upcoming technology in both fission and fusion represents an entirely new level of safety in terms of both operations and waste disposal. I’m thinking particularly about thorium on the fission side.
Cameron: Scaled up and online soon enough to make a difference? I sure appreciate your perspective, because I know you’ve looked into this pretty deeply.
Craig: I have looked into it, but a lot of it goes over my head. I remain convinced, however, that we will be unable to decarbonize our energy and transportation sectors without nuclear.
It’s unfortunate that the left is so anti-nuke.
Craig: I suppose that makes sense in principle. The problem is that our population is growing, and the consumption of energy per capita is growing as well. Solar and wind have not been able to gain much as a percentage of the overall grid-mix, and that’s not likely to change.
Cameron: And the reason for that slow growth in solar and wind is politics.
Craig: There is no doubt that getting oil money out of politics would help a great deal. If we could put something into place like the Carbon Fee and Dividend, this could turn around quickly.
Cameron: As quite distinct from the system of carbon offsets.
Craig: This is a variation on that theme, but it’s by far the best, IMO. Here’s what I’ve written about it over the years.
Cameron: Thanks for the conversation! Have a wonderful weekend!
Craig: I appreciate your thoughts as well.
