Nuclear power

We definitely live in interesting times; the president of Greenpeace just testified to Congress that nuclear power is the best environmental option for now - and the Hydrogen option is finally being debunked. The big lie in the Hydrogen debate is that it reduces greenhouse emissions. Like all straw-man arguments, it is true that Hydrogen does not contribute to warming, and a Hydrogen-fuel-cell approach to delivering power (for example into cars) is very clean. What this misses is that Hydrogen itself is not a great source of energy - but does a fine job of storing it. You still have the charge the things - which requires a large quantity of electricity. In effect, a Hydrogen economy moves the polution burden up the chain to the power producers rather than the consumers. A good start, but far from a silver bullet given how much pollution comes from coal/oil/gas burning power stations. This is where nuclear power comes in; modern designs are safe, efficient, and non-polluting. A significant increase in nuclear power generation would make a lot of the emissions problems from fossil fuel plants a thing of the past.

There are two large downsides. The first is that nuclear power plants require a finite resource, Uranium (enriched to a certain degree). Recycling (such as Selafield) can extend the life of Uranium, but not indefinitely. In other words, if we don't continue to look for future options we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The second is that it is relatively easy to convert a nuclear power program into a weapons program (both depleted Uranium and nuclear bombs, depending upon what you do). This tends to be a thorny issue when it comes to non-members of the IAEA Nuclear Club. Nuclear weapon proliferation is already a problem, and is likely to get worse as nuclear power is ramped up. This may or may not be a bad thing (compare and contrast Gray's contention that a nuclear armed world is a polite world with almost any non-proliferation text!), although a nuclear attack on a major conurbation would be a high price to pay for being wrong.

Overall, however, I think that nuclear power is the way to go for now. We need to continue to pursue fusion (probably more energetically, and both lunar and terrestrial), extra-terrestrial solar, and anything else (hamsters?) that might work. We already live in interesting times, and I'm inclined to think that small countries with a few short-range nuclear weapons would be a good deterrent to rabid imperialism from the major powers. There is always the risk of something horrible happening, but if India and Pakistan can behave responsibly, I tend to have some hope for humanity. In many ways, non-use of nuclear weapons is our best hope for this: when word gets out that they aren't even very effective weapons of war (let alone terror, compared with readily available biological compounds), nuclear use may lose some of the stigma that has prevented it.

I'm rambling. :-)

Mood: happy
Music: Nefilim - 24th Moment