Wind power doesn't pass the laugh test as a serious competitor to nuclear energy, in that if it were actually a cost-efficient means of generating significant power, it'd spread on its own without needing anyone to 'advocate' for the technology. Clinging to wind power as 'the answer' requires a conspiratorial frame of mind, one that holds that 'powerful forces' don't want wind power to succeed to protect their oil money, or something -- as if multinational energy companies couldn't profitably exploit wind power themselves if the underlying technology were there.
I recently blogged about my perceived solution to climate change and my criticism of nuclear and coal solutions. Some people replied aggressively saying that Nuclear is 'safe and cheap' and calling me shortsighted.
I would like to share a couple of articles about nuclear energy that I read recently.
The BBC talked about the true carbon cost of nuclear. One of my main points against atom splitting is that it is an extremely energy intensive process that does not have significant carbon dioxide reducing potential.
The Nation takes a broader view at cost issues with nuke power. This was my second point in opposing nuclear. Whereas Bush and McCain blame energy costs on Congress' repudiation of nukes, adding nuclear capacity would drastically increase energy costs and wouldn't provide energy for another couple of decades.
If you think smashing uranium is safe, think again. Mother Jones has a great and neutral article about issues with Nuclear Power. I couldn't understand if the author supported or opposed nuclear energy, but he brought up strong points about the real safety issues. Most interesting was that even though there are relatively safe nuke technologies, they are more expensive and produced in France (and we don't want to be dependent on those freedom haters). More importantly, because of the steep cost, few of the new proposed nuclear plant project applications use this safe technology, preferring the old, cheaper alternative.
Nuclear technology has absolutely become safer since the 70es and Three Mile Island, but if this safe technology is not implemented, it makes very little difference (just like 'clean coal' means nothing if the technology isn't deployed... actually it doesn't mean anything anyways because of mountaintop removal).
We currently have alternatives like efficiency, solar, wind, geothermal and small-scale hydro. In addition to these sure technologies that we have to readily deploy, we need to push for a cultural shift based on conservation values, where the health of communities and society is valued more than profit margins.
This is my solution. What is yours?
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
