Today, I'd like to address the issue of nuclear energy and its possibilities. "Possibilities" is a key-word because, although the actual dangers of nuclear power are dwarfed by their public image, they are real enough.
However, that simply means they have to be soundly managed with sound systems that already exist in places like France. It also simply means there can't be any nonsense: nuclear waste shouldn't be transported far. It should be stored near where it's created, and it should all be done with the direction of experts who've done it best in other parts of the world. Many will say we should play it safe, and stick with natural gas. Or they might believe that we can make it on "green" energy: solar, wind, and geo-thermal. Otherwise, they might talk about the developing green miracle of algae, or hemp, or some other wonder-technology that's been repressed by a conspiracy of government and big oil.
These views make great commercials but they're incorrect. The first view was probably sound once, but the world has changed a few times since and nuclear technology has changed with it.
As for the other views, it's time the public faced reality all around. Global warming is not a myth, and the rational minority's known this for decades; It is true that freakish thawing on a global scale can cause freakish snow storms in places like Washington D.C.. As for Green energy, it's small potatoes and it's not even green: wind-power slices up migratory birds.
The only major green source of power is nuclear, and it's a miraculous resource a handful of nations are lucky enough to have. It's the future of American energy and I believe the Oregon desert would be a good place to start building.
(the above letter was submitted as a letter to the editor to my local Herald and News, Klamath Falls, Oregon)
Comments
Mangone | April 8, 2010 - 21:33
I have to admit that there is a lot of sense in your approach, even if I feel that it may not be the right one. At least you see the growing need to do something and offer a way forward.
I don’t know if you have the saying “A stitch in time saves nine”?
Obviously it stems from bursting seams where a quick stitch or two can save a rip.
I feel that science and government have the ’let it rip we’ll fix it later’ approach.
I think we need the ‘stitch in time’ because there is no telling how bad the rip might get and we don’t have the choice of a replacement planet!
Of course it might help if we knew for sure what is causing the stress on the seams.
I can’t believe that CO2 is the villain that causes not only floods and fires but also earthquakes… a magnitude 7.7 ’quake’ in Sumatra on Tuesday!
Rising CO2 might be part of the symptoms but what is the disease?
Still, sometimes you just have to get through and if that means Nuclear power then we will have to accept it as the lesser of two evils.
However, there are a lot of emerging technologies that could blossom fairly quickly and Nuclear Power stations take a long time to build.
seannelson | April 8, 2010 - 23:41
Mangone, I suppose I ought to explain that we probably agree about the best course: a drastic reduction in energy use facilitated by a more disciplined, philosophically-run society. Then we could wait until nuclear fusion was perfected, and get all the benefits without the nuclear waste. In the mean-time, we could create a more rational, community-based civilization(necessity is the mother of invention.)
But most people in most countries, including the U.S.A., just aren't going to do this. They're going to have their energy one way or the other, and I believe this is how it should be created as quickly as possible.
seannelson | April 8, 2010 - 23:44
My experiences in rural Thailand helped me see just how possible the first course is(not to say Phetchaburi Province was a utopia.) But in the years since I've come to realize that possible and practical are two very different things.
Mangone | April 9, 2010 - 09:48
Yes, we do agree about what would probably be the 'best course', Sean!
As I've said many times, I believe that the money and brainpower expended on the LHC and other non-essential science projects could be far better spent.
Instead, increased research into 'Fusion' and other hopes for a large-scale, 'green', alternative, power source to replace coal and gas fired power stations is surely essential.
In the meantime the reality is that people will have to change - and they will not do it readily.
Lovelock predicts that Democracy will have to be suspended to force this change and I think that is why govenments are allowing things to deteriorate... so that even the terminally stupid will be forced to agree that something drastic must be done.
It's a dangerous gamble!
Yet, it is very difficult to take back 'freedoms' once given and there is no shortage of examples of this currently playing on the world stage.
Mangone | April 11, 2010 - 16:46
Another earthquake...
http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=152985853