Let me ask you a question, Al. I'm not huge on nuclear power. It carries some rather negative connotations. We think of nuclear bombs and we remember 3 Mile Island and Chernobel.
But if it is done right, it is relatively safe (everything carries risks). It seems like it is infinite in capacity. That is to say, if we were wired in to it and if plants were created with the highest safety standards and the understanding that they would be used for a maximum of, say, 30 years before shut-down and rebuilding, then it would seem like we could have power "for ever" with little or no need for fossil fuels.
The nuclear genie is long out of the bottle. I believe the issues of "weapons" must be treated completely seperately from "energy". I can even envision a "Marshall Plan of Energy", where the U.S. could build plants free of charge around the world that would serve to power 3rd world countries (the only "catch" would be that the U.S. government would have complete security control over the plants. What do you think?
I think that nuclear has to be a big part of our energy future. In 50 years, there have been 2 accidents, Three Mile Island anc Chernobyl. As bad as these are with the radiation leaks and cancers down the road, nuclear's safety track record as compared with coal with miner deaths, black lung disease, and the pollution the coal fired power plants spew in the air.
We probably still have a narrow window where we can pick and choose what energy we want for the future. If we wait until we are past peak to address this, then out of panic I expect to see drilling everywhere, clean air standards disregarded, and coal plants popping up everywhere with relaxed standards on pollutants. Given that alternative, I'd much rather go nuclear.
Bob, I agree with that as well. With the increase in the abilities of lithium batteries to deliver, we should be going hard in this direction. Even the military has been making a big push here, and whatever the military comes up with will eventually be available to us.
3 Comments:
Let me ask you a question, Al. I'm not huge on nuclear power. It carries some rather negative connotations. We think of nuclear bombs and we remember 3 Mile Island and Chernobel.
But if it is done right, it is relatively safe (everything carries risks). It seems like it is infinite in capacity. That is to say, if we were wired in to it and if plants were created with the highest safety standards and the understanding that they would be used for a maximum of, say, 30 years before shut-down and rebuilding, then it would seem like we could have power "for ever" with little or no need for fossil fuels.
The nuclear genie is long out of the bottle. I believe the issues of "weapons" must be treated completely seperately from "energy". I can even envision a "Marshall Plan of Energy", where the U.S. could build plants free of charge around the world that would serve to power 3rd world countries (the only "catch" would be that the U.S. government would have complete security control over the plants. What do you think?
I think that nuclear has to be a big part of our energy future. In 50 years, there have been 2 accidents, Three Mile Island anc Chernobyl. As bad as these are with the radiation leaks and cancers down the road, nuclear's safety track record as compared with coal with miner deaths, black lung disease, and the pollution the coal fired power plants spew in the air.
We probably still have a narrow window where we can pick and choose what energy we want for the future. If we wait until we are past peak to address this, then out of panic I expect to see drilling everywhere, clean air standards disregarded, and coal plants popping up everywhere with relaxed standards on pollutants. Given that alternative, I'd much rather go nuclear.
Bob, I agree with that as well. With the increase in the abilities of lithium batteries to deliver, we should be going hard in this direction. Even the military has been making a big push here, and whatever the military comes up with will eventually be available to us.
Post a Comment
<< Home