Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Another Debate Over Nuclear Energy

Today, the debate has moved to Shakesville:

In the eagerness not to be called any names, people try to convince themselves nukes are worth trying. Again. But that's not cost-free comfort. The money spent on nukes can't be spent on energy efficiency, which, by itself, could achieve the majority, not some piddling fraction, of the carbon reductions we need (see, e.g, pdf, American Solar Energy Society summary of studies, 2007, p. 32.)

That bears repeating. Energy efficiency in transportation, buildings, and industry could reduce energy needs by over 50%. Energy efficiency does not involve a reduction in living standards. One could argue that the reduced pollution is actually an improvement. Nukes, with all their costs and radiation, assuming pie-in-the-sky building schedules, could provide barely a fifth of that, and then only for a few decades. So, between industry executives and stroller-pushing greenies, who, exactly, is the cloth-headed idealist who is avoiding the facts?
If you have the chance, please stop by and jump into the debate. As always, please be respectful.

1 comment:

Sovietologist said...

The promised follow-up post is finally here:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/less-heat-more-light-solving-energy.html

Just thought you might like to know.