Earlier this week, I pointed to a New York Times Magazine piece by the authors of Freakonomics that asked what effect Jane Fonda and the movie The China Syndrome had on the American nuclear energy industry and U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases.
Since then, plenty of others have weighed in on the piece, most recently, Geoffrey Styles over at Energy Outlook:
Since then, plenty of others have weighed in on the piece, most recently, Geoffrey Styles over at Energy Outlook:
When we assess nuclear power as an option for dealing with our energy security and emissions concerns, we ought to consider what a new fleet of reactors would enable, in terms of reducing our reliance on coal--with its implied dependence on future carbon sequestration--and providing large quantities of reliable off-peak power for the plug-in hybrids and all-electric cars that look like our lowest net-environmental-impact alternatives for displacing gasoline in the medium term. Are those benefits significant enough to warrant a more pragmatic approach to nuclear power and its byproducts? I believe so, and there are at least a few environmentalists who share that view. On balance, the risks of nuclear power look more manageable than the uncertainties of climate change or an unstable Middle East.As always, an interesting conclusion from Geoffrey. For more thoughts, click here.
Comments