As we know from repetition, many people like to pretend that renewable energy is sufficient to replace fossil fuels, at least until someone says that
realistic word "exajoule."
Some people try to extend the renewable fantasy to include a capability to replace
not only fossil fuels, but also the much safer, cleaner, more reliable and
cheaper nuclear option.
To disprove these second, more dubious, claim, again all one needs to say is "exajoule."
Nuclear energy now produces almost 30 exajoules of primary (thermal energy) and 9 exajoules of pure electrical energy.
Once we dispose of the renewable fantasy - which is a form of doing
nothing about global climate change through the agency of
denial - the argument is reduced to the old tried and true logical fallacy of "Guilt by Association." Chanting "Dick Cheney" often and loud does
nothing to make nuclear power as dangerous as its alternatives - alternatives that I note are also promoted by Dick Cheney. As a technical issue, the distinctions are clear. Nuclear power
works on an exajoule scale and has a low external cost.
The nature of the "Guilt by Association" fallacy is easily dismissed (as are
all anti-nuclear arguments) by noting that the rejection of the misleading and poorly thought out anti-nuclear position is
international, and is independent worldwide from the contents of any scheme by Dick Cheney. As I recently pointed out in another thread, the nuclear power plant that came on line last week in
Japan, for reference sake, can easily produce 5 times as much
energy as the entire United States produced from solar power in 2004. In any case, even if it worked on a
significant exajoule scale, which it doesn't, solar power is
not a constant power base load source in any case.
The base load energy case comes down increasingly to a choice between coal and nuclear, disregarding whatever gas and oil are left. In the face of the global climate change crisis that faces all humanity, I would personally advocate our government
purchasing many hundreds of nuclear reactors. The investment of
trillions of dollars in this cause would give us a fighting chance at a safe future - a chance that is rapidly disappearing. On a risk managed basis, this would be money that would give us the best shot at surviving a very difficult situation. Unfortunately our government - ruled by weak minded frauds - has chose instead to invest in fossil fuel wars, an egregious mistake.
The Department of Energy budget of the United States is on the order twenty to thirty billion dollars, and much of that is actually for nuclear
weapons, fossil fuels, renewable energy etc.
http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/05budget/content/highlite/highlite.pdfGiven the scale of the international emergency and its direct consequences for Americans, this is a disgrace. For my money, given the history of return on investment, nuclear
power gets a share of the budget that is way too
small. I personally would be all in favor of reducing the expenditure on the Department of Defense to rump status and sinking all that money into
energy, because as things are developing, there is right now little
defense from the consequences and implications of the matter of energy and the environment. Nuclear funding should be
expanded. Since it is the only
new form of energy invented in the last 100 years that has produced on an exajoule scale, any rational person can easily recognize it really demands more investment than it has enjoyed.
I recognize the tendency of the anti-nuclear movement to
distort issues of money spent - just as it relies on the distortion of all other issues to make an increasingly desperate and frankly, silly, case. The annualized cost of nuclear energy is the equivalent of a few days of oil imports or, a few days of the cost of environmental destruction wrought by coal operations.
The anti-nuclear case is now widely recognized to be without merit and has been rejected. One hopes that it is not too late.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
