Sometimes the environmental lobby really does make it sound like they want us all to go live in caves. Natural caves, of course, since man-made caves would create impacts.
What amuses me is when environmentalism implodes under the weight of its own moral absolutism. This story points out that perhaps building large solar thermal plants in the arid southwest might not be such a good idea, since such plants are highly water-consumptive. Then this op-ed tells us nuclear energy is not an option, even with reprocessing, because it will create too much liquid waste. Okay, I guess California will keep on burning coal, then. And all the coal lobby has to do is sit back and watch the enviros try to reach a position of absolute principled consistency!
My $.02: Nuclear energy is the answer, or at least a large part of it. I grew up a few miles downstream from the leaky storage tanks and the contaminated groundwater at Hanford, well aware of the billions of dollars in cleanup costs just down the road. Setting aside the (obvious) question of distinguishing energy-related waste from weapons production-related waste, let’s point out that the problem with Mr. Endreson’s post is that he seems to think we’re stuck with 1950′s era technology. I guess he has not heard of vitrification? You know, one of the central features of the DOE’s clean-up project?
Enviros use fear-based propaganda to discourage any discussion of nuclear energy as an option. Which is odd, since the waste volume of nuclear plants is negligible and the impacts to land and air almost non-existent (pdf). Nuclear energy generates less waste per unit of energy than any other energy source even without putting reprocessing on the table for discussion. Some thoughtful evaluations of the anti-nuclear myths that greens love to propound can be found here and here.
Once the vast majority of reasonable citizens agree that we’re not about to go back to living in caves, and that there are limits on the liberties we are willing to sacrifice to our government to limit impacts on the environment, then finding the “answer” is little more than weighing the costs and benefits of the various options available to continue meeting our social and economic needs. Nuclear energy absolutely belongs on the table for discussion. And fortunately, even the enviros are beginning to recognize it.
0 Responses to “Go Green! No Solar! No Nuclear!”