you make a really good case about nuclear energy with this blog, and pretty much address every aspect of safety concern people have about it.
However, I think its important you address whether you see nuclear energy as a short or long term energy source.
A lot of nuclear energy advocates do simply suggest it as a stepping stone to renewable energy, but you seem simply to suggest it as our main source. something to consider is that both renewable and nuclear energy are inefficiency (sub 50%) at converting gathered energy into usable electricity, but are both constantly improving. Now I remember hearing a Bill Gates ted talk about how close we were to being able to profitably recycle nuclear waste to provide additional energy, and I think that instead of trying to expand the current nuclear programs a lot we should do so only moderately but invest heavily on developing "nuclear recycling" (there's a real term for it out there somewhere, I just don't know it.
I'm not saying this tangentially, I just think that resources spent advocating the growth of nuclear energy would be better spent advocating its technological advancement. Ultimately the threat of overrunning the world with nuclear waste is going to have to be addressed with the same urgency that Co2 emissions are today, So instead of finding ourselves in a similar situation from today in 100 years I think we should try to juse used a more refined nuclear program as a stepping stone to practical global renewable energy.
Great blog though, I like your rhetoric and the flow of your arguments
No comments:
Post a Comment