Nuclear Energy Is a Renewable Energy
An EIA response to Senator Inhofe on the impact on energy use of a "25 by 25" renewable energy policy has a bothersome assumption - only biomass, wind, solar, etc. were treated as renewable energy. Nuclear was left out in the cold of a policy that insisted 25% of generation should be 'renewable'. Why? Nuclear energy has all environmental benefits that equal wind, solar, hydro and biomass; nuclear has a small footprint; it has zero emissions, zero CO2 generation, zero air pollution. Nuclear power is so efficient at extracting energy from the the atom that it could be used for millenia to come and we wouldn't run out of uranium and Thorium that could power them. Indeed, all 'nuclear waste' could be recycled back into fuel, extending the usefulness of nuclear fuel while eiminating one undesirable byproduct of nuclear power.
However, nuclear is feared not favored by the same environmentalists who want to cap CO2 generation and turn away from fossil fuels. Fears of accidents neglects fact of the U.S. nuclear power industry's 30 year record of safe operation. Fears of environmental damage neglects the fact that nuclear energy has eliminated more pollution (by displacing coal in electricity generation) than any other source of power. Nuclear energy in reality has been proven to be clean and safe. It's not perfect, but it's a form of energy that we can utilize significantly without damaging the enviornment.
Yet environmental shibboleths trumps reasoned decisions, and we pursue solar pipedreams and biomass boondoggles instead of a reliable and economical alternative that is even better. "25 X 25" without nuclear power is costly experiment in socialist engineering; with nuclear, it would be the nudge to take us down a path of less CO2 generation. Disregarding or discounting nuclear energy takes us down a path of higher energy prices and worse economic vs environmental tradeoffs. Let nuclear energy be labelled "Renewable Energy". Nuclear Energy is just as rewenable and just as good an energy source as wind, solar, biomass, etc. and should be treated as such by the policy-makers.
However, nuclear is feared not favored by the same environmentalists who want to cap CO2 generation and turn away from fossil fuels. Fears of accidents neglects fact of the U.S. nuclear power industry's 30 year record of safe operation. Fears of environmental damage neglects the fact that nuclear energy has eliminated more pollution (by displacing coal in electricity generation) than any other source of power. Nuclear energy in reality has been proven to be clean and safe. It's not perfect, but it's a form of energy that we can utilize significantly without damaging the enviornment.
Yet environmental shibboleths trumps reasoned decisions, and we pursue solar pipedreams and biomass boondoggles instead of a reliable and economical alternative that is even better. "25 X 25" without nuclear power is costly experiment in socialist engineering; with nuclear, it would be the nudge to take us down a path of less CO2 generation. Disregarding or discounting nuclear energy takes us down a path of higher energy prices and worse economic vs environmental tradeoffs. Let nuclear energy be labelled "Renewable Energy". Nuclear Energy is just as rewenable and just as good an energy source as wind, solar, biomass, etc. and should be treated as such by the policy-makers.
Chart - Texas sources of energy (1997):
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment