Lately there seems to be a lot of talk about using nuclear energy to reduce our petrolium and coal consumption. The arguement usually involves a comparison of the volume of nuclear waste per unit of energy produced compared to coal, coupled with an assertion that neither solar nor wind can provide baseline power.
There are flaws in the arguement, though. One thing that is often overlooked is that currently, nuclear energy is not viable without subsidies. A 2005 article from EarthTrack describes the dependancy nuclear energy has on government funds:
"Federal subsidies comprise 60-90% of the generation cost for new nuclear plants."
- Doug Koplow, Nuclear Power in the US: Still Not Viable Without Subsidy.
Additionally, nuclear fuel is not easy to come by; it is a limited resource, just like oil and coal, and is often difficult to come by.
In the short term, petroleum, coal and natural gas remain the "big three" of energy, and we will have to utilize them as our electrical energy needs increase. However, we must not be foolish about moving our nation's electrical generation technology forward using the best possible candidates. A Stanford study concluded that it was not nuclear, but Wind, Water and Solar energy generation as the best choices for future energy research and development. The American Meteorological Society believes that wind could supply baseline electrical power if wind farms throughout a geographic area were connected with transmission lines. Solar power output is being stored for around-the-clock use via a number of emerging technologies such as molten salt batteries.
Long term, renewable energy is the clear winner compared to traditional power generation using finite, polluting resources. We would be better off if we reduced nuclear subsidies and focused more on renewable energy resource.
- Log in to post comments