A Few Notes on Nuclear, Fossil Fuels and the Future of Energy
Here are a few remarks I made to a friend about the future of energy—nuclear in particular:
In response to your question on safety issues, interesting, nuclear has the lowest death rate per KWh of ALL sources. Obviously, the main focus of the wars in which we involve ourselves is maintaining access to oil. But people also occasionally slip and fall to their deaths installing and maintaining solar and wind. As you point out, France has an enormous reliance on nuclear, and has never had a problem. In fact, problems are rare, and they can all be traced back to errors: operation errors like Chernobyl and design errors like Fukushima.
There are also cost issues. Building new nukes is extremely expensive, for both the developer/investor and the taxpayer, since the federal government is the only available source of insurance (it’s too large and risky for commercial insurers).
As far as where (the future of energy) is going, there are so many moving parts it’s hard to know: the falling cost of renewables, the falling demand for baseload, low-cost energy storage, and the availability of new nuclear technology that doesn’t make waste and enable the development of weapons.
Since the beginning of the nuclear age a half century ago, people have been saying that energy will be too cheap to meter. Obviously that hasn’t happened, but it very well could, which (sorry to sound cynical) would simply force humankind to find something else to kill each other over.
The only thing that looks certain is that fossil fuels are going away, a phenomenon which, ironically has essentially zero to do with our concern for the environment (or lack thereof); it’s rooted in the cost curves, which are looking more attractive by the day.
I agree with your statement about clean energy and national security, and, as I’m sure you’re aware, this idea isn’t lost on the U.S. military, an organization that recognizes that the single most dangerous job in places like the Middle East is guarding oil supply lines. When I speak on this subject, I often make the point that the single most patriotic thing you can do is rid our country’s reliance on fossil fuels. I very seldom talk about climate change, because there is no reason to raise people’s hackles unnecessarily.
I know there are people who don’t believe in climate change. But are there any who don’t believe in terrorism (funded by the Saudis)? Dying coral reefs? Lung cancer?
Craig,
Currently, you have gained your wish. Thanks to increases in North American oil production, the US is no longer, and hasn’t been for some time, dependent on oil from the Middle East.
There never was any need to worry about “oil funded ” terrorists. Most terrorists are completely self funded. Terrorism requires very little funding. Terrorists act from adherence to extreme ideologies, almost never on behalf of nation states.
As for your concerns relating to dying coral reefs. The most comprehensive studies show coral bleaching and erosion to have other causes only now being understood.
What’s strange is you never mention the one cause of environmental pollution that can be easily fixed with acceptable economic consequences, (even benefits to the US).
Instead of persisting in disseminating dubious information regarding coral reefs, why not mention the use of bunker oil in maritime trade.
Bunker oil usage is the single largest cause of carcinogenic and climate change pollution, supported by documented and undisputed scientific evidence.
Oh, I know it’s only a practical suggestion, with no exciting political ramifications, but isn’t the real importance to help the environment ?