Peter W. Huber and Mark P. Mills have an excellent article in City Journal about "Why the U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power". They explain the history of American power generation and consumption, how we've switched from fuel to fuel over the decades, and why the best solution for the future is nuclear power. It's far cheaper than coal or oil, safer for the environment, and carries far fewer political costs than Middle Eastern oil.
Many Greens think that they have a good grip on the likely trajectory of the planet’s climate over the next 100 years. If we keep burning fossil fuels at current rates, their climate models tell them, we’ll face a meltdown on a much larger scale than Chernobyl’s, beginning with the polar ice caps. Saving an extra 400 million tons of coal here and there—roughly the amount of carbon that the United States would have to stop burning to comply with the Kyoto Protocol today—would make quite a difference, we’re told.But serious Greens must face reality. Short of some convulsion that drastically shrinks the economy, demand for electricity will go on rising. Total U.S. electricity consumption will increase another 20 to 30 percent, at least, over the next ten years. Neither Democrats nor Republicans, moreover, will let the grid go cold—not even if that means burning yet another 400 million more tons of coal. Not even if that means melting the ice caps and putting much of Bangladesh under water. No governor or president wants to be the next Gray Davis, recalled from office when the lights go out.
The power has to come from somewhere. Sun and wind will never come close to supplying it. Earnest though they are, the people who argue otherwise are the folks who brought us 400 million extra tons of coal a year. The one practical technology that could decisively shift U.S. carbon emissions in the near term would displace coal with uranium, since uranium burns emission-free. It’s time even for Greens to embrace the atom.
It must surely be clear by now, too, that the political costs of depending so heavily on oil from the Middle East are just too great. We need to find a way to stop funneling $25 billion a year (or so) of our energy dollars into churning cauldrons of hate and violence. By sharply curtailing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, we would greatly expand the range of feasible political and military options in dealing with the countries that breed the terrorists.
It's a great read, and a must for anyone interested in energy policy.
(HT: GeekPress.)
My only concern with nuclear power is what to do with the waste it generates.
I also think we'll see efficient, affordable, and clean fusion power... one day.
The Gosiute reservation in Utah has expressed a willingness to accept some nuclear waste, and there is always Yucca Mountain. There is a large amount of controversy in Utah about accepting N-waste, though. A lot of people are concerned that Utah (or Nevada in the case of Yucca Mountain) will be seen as a cheap dumping ground for the nation's N-waste ("Send it to those $@^! Mormons, we don't care about them and their benighted little desert state!"). But in reality, it's one of the safest places in the nation to store N-waste. If we Utahns are afraid we'd get dumped on and made to pay for the consequences, to me that's an indication that we should be charging the dumpers more, not preventing them from dumping.
Mark: Nuclear waste can be buried deep in the ground, and it's pretty harmless, at least relative to the waste from burning coal and oil.
MW: Like anything else, it's subject to the NIMBY problem.... or the NIMS problem (Not In My State).
How many areas exist that won't get local residents (or the residents of an entire state) in an uproar, pose any significant risk of seeping into the water table, and can provide a permanent solution to the problem? My guess is not very many.
Mark: People need to be better educated about modern nuclear plants. And yes, they shouldn't be located within 20 miles or so of large cities, but that still leaves plenty of space.
Within 20 miles of large cities? What about smaller cities; is it okay for the waste burial site to be closer to them?
I'm not a big supporter of burying nuclear waste wherever we can. I don't think burying any kind of waste is a permanent solution. Not so much for environmental reasons, but because of the problems it could create for us in the future. One of the immediate problems is transportation; getting the nuclear waste to authorized burying sites.
Methods have been proposed (that still require a lot of research) that could allow for the waste to be transformed into less-toxic material and could be done at the nuclear power plants. While it is not a catch-all solution, if there is an efficient way to reduce the toxicity of nuclear waste, it should be implemented.
I also think we should reprocess Pu-239, a major component of nuclear waste.
Just to point out -- when we burn fossil fuel, we 'bury' the waste in the atmosphere. My opinion about the issue is that we should invest heavily and quickly in every energy producing process that does not involve burning oil or coal. I can live with natural gas for the next 30 years, but it, too, must be replaced with various forms of solar power (wind, photovotaic cells, waves, tides, etc.) and, nuclear.
I think wide acceptance of this initiative could be gained if we plan to build fossil fuel replacement power generators in proper balance...equal amounts of nuclear/fusion and solar (wind, photovoltaic, etc.) Proponents of every system would get a portion of what they support.
It occurs to me that I didn't give proper, or any, attention to conservation. Raising mileage standards, SEER ratings, subsidies for insulation projects, etc., could hold our total energy consumption growth rate well below our population growth rate.