Nuclear is the only technology we have that can serve as a reliable base energy source without producing greenhouse gasses. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric are also good supplements to this. Bioenergy technology is not viable yet, although this is a good option to invest in research for the future. See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080603102752.htm

It is hard to imagine that people who consider themselves progressive can be opposed to electricity – it would be difficult to find a single other product whose availability has improved more lives and freed more people from a life of drudgery. One of the most important and effective components of the New Deal was the Rural Electrification Agency – it delivered electricity to people that previously depended on candles, chopped wood, and kerosene.

In the developing world, there are billions of people who must depend on gathering firewood, have no lights by which to read and educate their children, and have no way to power refrigeration so they can preserve food or medicines.

In the developed world, power failures are headline events and there are often fatalities reported because of failed oxygen supplies, heat stroke, or CO intake from improperly vented alternatives like kerosene or candles.

Conservation is important, but so is reliable supply. Progressive people that care about the environment should understand that atomic fission is clean enough to run inside sealed submarines and reliable enough so that some very smart people willingly spend months at a time sealed up with a reactor as their immediate neighbor.

Please spare me from citations referring to the work of the Rocky Mountain Institute. It is a tool of the fossil fuel industry that pays most of its bills through consulting contracts and publication fees.

During the 30 plus years that Amory Lovins, RMI’s founder and two time college drop out, has claimed so many opportunities for energy savings, the world’s energy consumption has more than doubled. That is pretty logical – the world’s population has also more than doubled and the live saving benefits of electrical power have been spread to a larger portion of the population. That growth in electrical power supply should have been from well built, well operated nuclear fission reactors, but thanks to Lovins and others like him, the coal industry gained the lion’s share of the market.

I”m with you, see my umpteen posts on this subject. The root issue is a self-centered economic system that has bled into our culture and our relationships. Our endless wars, our endless growth mentality, our free market fundamentalism, the our poisoning of the air we breath and the spare nothing mentality to satisfy our greedy habits, whatever it takes to keep the capitalistic machine going, no cost is too much, whether it be the sanctity of the planet or the lives of innocent men, women and children. These are all expendable, because in the end we must have stuff to buy to keep the glutoneous economy on its path of pathological growth. We will chance nuclear annihilation to satify this demand…this beast knows no limits. Ideology, religions, fear are all pretexts for the god of greed. Wherever capitalism reigns, its fangs and torn bodies follow – all collateral waste.

Barak Obama seems almost incidental (or at least he should be).

Some may view “…wolves…..” as a pragmatic approach. That is sad. When decency and principle are compromised in the name of “pragmatism”, where does the line get drawn? Who gets to decide which “sacrifices of truth” are acceptable?

Watch out! “Newspeak” is upon us! The words of Edward R. Murrow, “All I can hope to teach my son is to tell the truth and fear no man” will fade into oblivion unless we have the collective courage to demand what all politicians owe us: the truth….the uncompromised truth.

Others – more learned than I – have hit the nail on the head. They warn that too many of us act as if it’s the other guy who has to provide solutions without disturbing our perceived freedoms. What is wrong with simply passing a law requiring automobiles, pick-ups, SUVs, etc. etc. etc., to get 50 miles per gallon as a condition being driven on our highways? I know auto makers will whine, and the oil cartel will whine, but that last time I looked “America the beautiful” is supposed to be a nation governed of, by, and for the people.

First, my “argument” is based on an understanding of the “problem”. The problem is not nuclear reactors, it is, instead, the consumption model the US has been taken to the nth degree (endless unsustainable growth). Patching that up with technology does NOT solve the problem. That’s fundamental (and I mean no insult) problem solving 101.

Second, if we are to take the assertion that we have better technology, i.e., science has brought us along from 25 years ago when we were all using an abacus, then I would ask: Under what conditions would such technology be appropriate?

I don’t think we’re looking at the problem in its entirety, nor asking the right (or any) questions. We are simply doing what we’ve always done: looking for easy ways (technological fixes) to have our cake and eat it to. There comes a time when there’s just no more cake and we need to rethink what this is all about…instead of running full throttle down the cliff. (Consider the “decision” to go down the fossile fuel route about a century ago. Who woulda thunk!)

When you size the problem – the great thrust of India and China for instance (or are they not allowed their cake?) not to mention our own energy “needs” the nuclear waste problem becomes enormous. The cost of security, enormous… Now, at least according to most writers on this topic (Lester Brown is one) the infrastructure cost alone is prohibitive. But let’s say he’s working to the old nuke model. We are not France (and they are the only one’s of any “size” who has gone in the nuclear direction (to the extent they have). But again, I’ve posted on France and tried to use reason to demonstrate that France in no way compares to the US regarding our consumption habits. If the world follows your suggestion and goes nuclear (and we need to think in those global terms) then we’ve shifted – as I’ve said – the issue to uranium and plutonium (one is better than the other don’t remember which). We’ll be scouring the globe for every last bit just to keep the baker making the cake that we keep eating at faster and faster rates.

There comes a time when you need to step back from the problem. (btw, I think the current solution (tho in its experimental stages is worth pursuing). Green solutions (non-nuke) create jobs, too. The word sustainability has to begin to resonate. It means something and it doesn’t mean just keep looking for new nonrenewable sources of energy – that aint sustainable!

I think you are quite mistaken about nuclear energy. I would assume you are basing efficiency numbers on the current reactors we are using in the US, which by mandate, are all over 25 years old. There is no reason why we couldn’t take a similar energy policy to Europe and switch to nuclear breeder reactors. A lot of nuclear plants would have to be built, yay jobs!, and our overall environmental impact would go down significantly seeing as the only real waste product is excess heat and, of course, nuclear waste. We have a temporary (1000 year) solution to the nuclear waste problem, in the form of Yucca Mountain, and hopefully somewhere in those thousand years we will have a more realistic solution to the problem of nuclear waste, just check out what these mushrooms in chernobyl can do!

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/677/

So, in my opinion, nuclear power is the most obvious solution for the near future; and heck, we may even be able to use that nuclear waste as an energy source in the next 50-100 years!

I am also a big proponent of taking advantage of undersea currents as a source of power, but the whole problem of international waters makes this a bureaucratic nightmare for now.

Nuclear energy, as we know it (promises aside) would not begin to touch the extent of the US consumption of energy.

You are mistaken on the CO2 impact of electricity. In the US, electricity generation is the single biggest source of CO2, followed by transportation in second place.

Also, Bill Reiswig asked for a source for the CO2 lifecycle emissions of nuclear. It can be found here:
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/05/crunching-numbers-on-nuclear.html
Follow the links for the source studies.

Let’s get real. To understand the problem in the US is to understand, as it stands, the enormity of the energy utilization we’ve become addicted to. This is not some tiny nation-state (France pop. 60 mil, 212,935 square miles), with mostly small fuel efficient vehicles, $11/gallon gas prices, where most inhabitants are within urban centers, walking is thus common, as are bicycles, and mass transit is in the form of highspeed rail.

This (US of A) is a 300 million people spotted over a 3,537,438.44 landscape for godsake! With massive interstates, no real mass transit, criss-crossing with 16 wheelers for goods transport (minimal rail), suburban sprawl up the ying-yang. (What’s worse, at least thus far, this is the model that’s been exported to China where the dimensions are 100 times worse!)

And we’re suggesting France as our model (not for mass-transit and the other sustainable energy measures, but for nukes)?