Among the many incongruities found among global warming alarmists, there is perhaps none so stark as the opposition to nuclear power that many advocates for decarbonizing energy production embrace. On paper, nuclear power seems the ideal alternative to coal, oil and gas if we are to accept that the proper and necessary remedy to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is shifting to non-carbon energy production.
Nuclear power is clean, its safety record is miles ahead of coal, oil and gas, and, since it’s neither subject to the vagaries of weather and daylight nor in need of large swathes of real estate, is more reliable, useful and environmentally friendly than wind or solar. The much-ballyhooed nuclear waste “problem” is anything but, with both long-term storage and modification technologies figured out. New designs are “fail-safe” in that they cannot melt down the way old reactors were feared to. And, despite mass public hysteria and misinformation, the harm caused by accidents in Western reactor accidents has been minimal (I exclude Russian reactor accidents, because both their designs and officials’ actions were grossly reckless).
Why, then, are only a few voices in the AGW community advocating nuclear power? Why is it always “renewables” like solar and wind? Lets exclude the nakedly self-serving i.e. those who stand to profit from those renewables, and consider the wide-eyed idealists whose collective public opinion influences politicians and policies. What reasons might they have for categorically dismissing nuclear power?
The only logical conclusion is that their dismissal is born out of a combination of ignorance and fear. Ignorance, in that they are unaware that the usual concerns are unfounded, and fear, the way we all fear the unknown and the overhyped. Both of these can be overcome with a willingness to become informed, but it is a sad fact of humanity that people would rather hold onto invalid ideas born of ignorance than overcome their ignorance to embrace valid ideas. People would rather be consistent than correct.
These folks would rather insist the world change over to wind and solar power, despite the fact that, when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine, power must come from somewhere: usually natural gas, since gas-turbine generators can be brought on and off line quickly. Of course, natural gas (aka methane) produces carbon emissions, an inconvenient fact that is, I presume, ignored or dismissed.
Then again, perhaps they believe that the power that makes our lives better can be sourced from pixie dust and unicorn farts, that, given time and resources, some geniuses will figure it all out. This goes well with the tendency to hero worship that these embracers of fantasy often exhibit. As an example, consider Elon Musk, the wunderkind that has so many “forward-thinking” people aflutter. He made his fortune in technology, and deserves respect and admiration. Now, he sells electric cars, solar power, space travel and other big ideas. Were he to sell those in a free and competitive market, I’d laud him. But, instead of selling his ideas on their merits, he has chosen to seek government largesse to tilt the playing field in his favor (to the tune of nearly $5B). And, he has done so by trading on his reputation and cultivating the hero worship that he receives.
I’ve even born witness to libertarians supporting Musk’s cronyism, libertarians who espouse rationalizations like “the money’s going to be spent anyway, why not give it to someone who will spend it well?” This passes no rational libertarian sniff-test, of course. If Musk’s ideas are good enough to be viable, why does he embrace cronyist ways?
This is the stuff of pixie dust and unicorn farts. Since they don’t exist, they can be shaped into whatever the beholder wishes, and their creation can be presumed “if only the Best-and-Brightest” are given free rein.
Reality, however, won’t be denied. If climate change needs to be addressed, it must be addressed in realistic ways. Apart from the extreme naivete of thinking that developing nations will wreck their economies by ceasing to produce carbon energy, it is a gross detachment from reality to think that the world’s energy needs can be shifted onto “renewables” that are neither reliable nor economically competitive. Serious thinkers should insist that the bulk of “alternative energy” research be instead devoted to nuclear power and the development of even more modern nuclear generation technology. THAT is the real path forward from carbon energy (again, should it become necessary). After all, even unicorn farts have a carbon footprint.
Loading ...
Having operated nuclear reactors in a former life I have to agree with you. Nuclear, especially the latest reactor designs, are quite safe. And with the companies designing the reactors making them more modular they can be constructed more cheaply than the earlier designs which were not standardized (as opposed to the Navy’s reactors which have been very standardized). But, as you say, it is ignorance of most people and the “environmentalists” who oppose nukes playing on that ignorance to keep the nukes from being built.