nuclear options become less optional

In a realistic breakdown of energy source options, the tally puts nuclear power far in the lead. A true-to-their-roots assortment of environmental movements continue to speak out against shifting energy supply to nuclear power plants, refusing to budge. Greenpeace sent an emergency email requesting petitions in favor of Sen. McCain releasing the generous subsidies for nuclear technology from the bill on climate change. They and others view such actions as a surrender, whereby conservation and clean energy are dismissed. Since when is nuclear energy such a hero?

But the long and short of it is that, as Stewart Brand and others are beginning to admit, and hard-line no-nukes folk are beginning to concede, the need for carbon-free energy eclipses the risk from nuclear power. In the three decades since a reactor has been built, technology has improved considerably; managerial concerns (the ‘Human Factor’) may never be infallible, and are what draw the most criticism towards nuclear power.

Shortly after his article in Technology Review (accompanied by a pitcure of Stewart the saintly prophet), the New York Times kicks in with a comprehensive follow-up, chock-full of reactions from across the board. Perhaps nuclear energy will get its wings after all.

See previous post for all the environmental heresies.

Comments are closed.