Resource Pages

Jan 5, 2009

Corn, Coal or Chernobyl?

At what price does America equate the importance of nuclear power with perceived global power and its continual waging of war?

Simpsonz Image of Nuclear Power AdvocateSuch energy policy makers argue that one is naive to think that we could supplant a substantial portion of traditional power sources with renewable energy sources. For example, Triple Pundit opines that “only a fool would believe we could transition our energy infrastructure over the course of one presidential term.”

Yet, Triple Pundit further states:

And only a bigger fool would seek to stall progress by arguing this transition will be too difficult to integrate, and is therefore not worth doing. Especially when you consider the fact that almost all of our power needs can be generated from renewable energy resources.

And, it is an even more important clarification, since 8 years of Bush have left us desperately fighting to save the planet from catastrophic 5-7°C warming by 2100. With much higher global emissions than 8 years ago, and a lost decade of inefficient, polluting infrastructure built at a cost of many trillions of dollars, we now have much less time.

After a lost decade of inefficient, polluting infrastructure built at a cost of many trillions of dollars, we now have much less time or money.

Furthermore, nuclear power plants have a long lead time from planning to power production and are capital intensive (at a time when capital funding is dwindling). OTOH, true renewable energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal can be brought on line in less time and less capital.

Read full via - After Gutenberg