Going Nuclear--For the Greens?

In a recent article in the New York Times, "Old Foes Soften to New Reactors," several leading environmentalists are quoted as being newly interested in supporting nuclear power. They are interested, they say, because nuclear is a proven energy technology that does not emit greenhouse gases. Those of you that remember the nuclear power marches of the 1970's and 80's (the protests that helped to give birth to the environmental movement) may be a little surprised at this news. Shocked, surprised, appalled...whatever you want to call it. But you should have seen it coming.

Environmentalists and conservationists have had many successes both in the U.S. and abroad over the last 30 years. It is a growing movement with growing power, but our environmental problems are growing faster as our population continues to increase. Faced with huge challenges, conservationists are getting brutally pragmatic. They want to solve global problems, and that means they have to play, and win, in the dirty world of economic dealing and compromises.

Global warming is a juggernaut on the horizon. At stake is no less an issue than the shape of our coastlines, the survival of island nations, the location and acreage of deserts and farmland, and the destruction of thousands upon thousands of rare species. The poles are melting, and the sea is starting to rise--who knows where it will stop in the coming centuries?

This huge problem has been produced by a MASSIVE consumption of fossil fuels. and the MASSIVE release of CO2 into the atmosphere by deforestation. We are way in the warming hole already, and soon our CO2 will be in the Jurassic range (read: globally tropical). Global temperature over the past hundred million years ALWAYS follows the atmospheric CO2 level. Just give it a century or three, a geologic eyeblink, and North America will be a different place.

So what can we do? We need, as a global society, to stop burning fossil fuels before we run out, and to combat deforestation. Oil will be needed for plastic long after we stop using it for energy. And as the user of 25% of the world's energy, America, for the sake of global warming and for our own national security, needs to stop using so much fossil fuel.

To stop using fossil fuel without cutting our standard of living is going to be ENORMOUSLY difficult. We have to find a way to supply 80% of our energy needs without using oil, natural gas, or coal. Almost all electricity, and all of our car 'gasoline.' And let's remember folks, 'gasoline' has to be either mined (fossil fuels) or produced (biofuels, hydrogen). A hydrogen economy would just shift the energy problem to producing more electricty to make hydrogen--it would not generate more energy to satisfy our needs.

To answer this huge challenge, we are going to need to employ every trick, every technology, in the playbook. And yes, some environmentalists see it clearly--even nuclear power.

What of conservation, you ask? It could account for a quarter reduction, no more--and it might help to keep our energy use from increasing any more. Carbon recapture technologies? If employed on a global, high-density scale with a good bit of the world GDP, it could account for a fraction. Will that happen? Unlikely. Reforestation? It's complicated to fix, but is worth trying and could contribute to reducing another chunk of our CO2 emissions.

So maybe we are down to accounting for 50-60% of our energy demand. Remember, we are already getting 40 miles to the gallon and buying fancy AC units to keep the bills down. We need to generate a LOT of energy some alternate way. Our options: Fusion? It's still a few decades away. Hydrogen? In a couple decades it will power our cars, but remember it will just pass the buck for our energy needs. Solar, geothermal, wave action? All still too experimental in the short-term to rely upon.

So let's face it, folks. We need to solve our short-term energy thirst with the tools we have at hand. That means clean coal, nuclear power, biofuels, wind energy, and hydro. Cars will just have to get high miles per gallon on fossils and biofuels till hydrogen comes online. But here's the thing wise environmentalists see: no useful tool should be cast aside. Even nuclear.

France has generated 60% of its energy in a very safe manner for the last 40 years--using plutonium breeder reactors. We could take a page from them, and use new, safer technologies to build a new generation of terrorist- and meltdown-proof nuclear power plants. If we supply 40% of our energy from nuclear by 2050, the other 30-40% we need could be supplied by clean coal, wind energy, and biofuels. This would be a stop-gap measure, to be cast aside once solar and fusion come into their own in the 22nd century. I would bet hydrogen will be in wide use by mid-century.

If we allow industry to come up with the best solution by placing gradually increasing taxes on fossil fuels, they may go nuclear, they may go biofuels, they may go a whole new direction. But in short order, by mid-century I bet, the great engine of economics will have resolved the problem it created.

What a dream! The threat of massive global warming stopped in less than 45 years, reduced to a temporary warming trend in the early part of this millenium. It's time we stopped playing around and set to make this dream a reality. If we do not, we will wake up one day to a very hot nightmare. So nuclear energy--unless you have a better idea?