Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
Comments
It's possible to be stupid about nuclear plants--let's not place them where earthquakes or tornadoes or hurricanes are likely. That still leaves wide swaths of the US that can safely generate electricity from fission. What are we waiting for, a written invitation?
Where many of us go wrong, though, is the assumption that the anti-nuclear crowd is genuinely afraid of another Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or even a China Syndrome. They're not; that's just what they hide behind. They don't like capitalism, and they don't like success. Nuclear power would solve too many problems, making socialism harder to instill as the economy hums along on relatively inexpensive and non-polluting electricity. That's why they're against it.
It's not a science issue, it's a political issue for them.