“Forget Nuclear” Why McCain AND Obama are wrong
Listening to politicians rant about nuclear energy chaps my hide in a big way. Did you hear the debate last night? McCain had the gall to mock Obama for wanting nuclear energy to be safe! I could not believe my ears.
The problem with nuclear debates, is there is a secret code that politicians have to abide. “I’m against nuclear” really means “I’m a peace loving pot smoking long hair hippie who believes in free love and working against THE MAN cause that nuclear stuff, it’s just not right.”
So even if nuclear is a horrible idea (it is, see below) a politician can’t SAY that it is horrible for fear of being tarred with the brush used to mock politicians like Kucinich.
I have enough of a background in this stuff to know that their positions on nuclear are full of baloney, disguised rhetoric, and just plain wrong, but I don’t know enough to lay it all out there and convince you. Fortunately, I don’t have to.
I got an email today form the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). It is copied in full below, with links intact. Anyone fearless enough to abandon left right mythos can read on their own and see why nuclear is a bad idea left right center up down and all around.
The issues of renewable energy and energy independence have taken center stage in both media and political conversations lately, but the means of achieving various energy goals have proven to be rather controversial. Proposed options dominating news headlines include clean coal, nuclear energy, and offshore drilling. Is there an energy path that we can all agree upon?
The answer is yes, and this morning Rocky Mountain Institute and Chief Scientist Amory Lovins were featured in a New York Times blog in response to last night’s Presidential Debate. Energy efficiency, a solution at the core of RMI’s work, was discussed as a viable and economically profitable resolution to both energy and economy issues. New York Times writer Kate Galbraith points out that RMI and Amory Lovins have consistently advocated the benefits of a soft-path approach to energy, with efficiency at it’s core. You can read the article here.
When it comes to nuclear power specifically, every dollar invested in new US nuclear electricity will save approximately 2-11 times less carbon, and will do so roughly 20-40 times slower, than investing in the same dollar in energy efficiency and “micropower” (cogeneration plus renewables minus big hydro dams). Buying new nuclear capacity instead of efficiency causes more carbon to be released than spending the same money on new coal plants!
These conclusions and the empirical evidence supporting them are summarized in “Forget Nuclear,” and fully documented in “The Nuclear Illusion,” available for download here, which is to be published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ journal Ambio.
Hopefully our vision will help put these widely publicized issues into perspective and move us all toward a better understanding that takes us beyond politically divisive issues to collective and viable solutions.
