Dumbing Down is Dumb


In the energy / climate discourse there is a lot of dumbing down being done and this is either plain dumb or even worse, arrogant.

I am an unpaid nuclear energy promoter but it annoys me no end when other promoters label it as a "zero emissions" energy source. It is not. Dumbing down energy / climate conversations is disrespectful for your audience plus, we do NOT want to sound like Greenpeacers (all feelings and no facts). So, even nuclear promoters should probably clearly underline the following:

  1. There will be more nuclear power plant accidents. This is inevitable. The airline industry will NEVER state that there will not be more airplane disasters; we shouldn't either. Yes, in spite of past and future nuclear accidents nuclear energy will almost certainly continue to be the safest energy we have; bar none. This is equivalent to air travel: even though airplane accidents are more newsworthy, planes are by far safer than automobiles per mile travelled. Actually, the most dangerous thing concerning nuclear energy is when governments overreact to nuclear accidents and order unnecessary (or unnecessarily long) evacuations. 
  2. Nuclear is a low CO2 emission technology. Actually, of the current non-marginal energy sources nuclear is the best in this respect, clocking at 12 grams per kWh (hydro measures in at 24 grams). Nuclear usually replaces coal with emissions of 820 grams per kWh. 
  3. Nuclear waste is still an issue even though the amount generated is minute compared to say coal. Some countries, like France, have pretty much solved the problem plus there are better nuclear designs in the pipeline that should produce much less waste. Also, nuclear waste can be turned into valuable material. 
  4. There is a psychological fear factor respecting nuclear. Thus, lots of (not dumbed down) education for the public will be required.
However, once we state the above points we should underline that nuclear is low pollution, low CO2, safer than any other energy we have, scalable, dense, reliable, affordable, constant, produces high paying jobs, is proven, even better designs are in the pipeline and the fuel (uranium and/or thorium) will last for at least hundreds of years. 

Once all facts are considered, it is hard to find a better energy source than nuclear.


Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram

Notes:
Relative safety of nuclear energy:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

CO2 emissions per kWh:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Example of new nuclear designs in the pipeline:
http://www.transatomicpower.com/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Starved for CO2

Image
This article is speculation, and yet, it is something to ponder about. During millions of years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been dropping. Actually the drop had been quite dramatic between the late Jurassic (more than 2,000 ppm) to recent times (less than 400 ppm). This is no fine tuning, the difference is in the range of five to one. Important reserves of carbon in the form of ancient life remains had been trapped "forever" inside the Earth. These reserves were in the form of coal, oil and natural gas. No natural mechanism could pump back to the atmosphere those "forever" sequestered amounts of carbon. No natural mechanism...  but could the Earth naturally create unnatural occurrences to return to the biosphere that long lost carbon or, would the Earth itself slowly starve due to insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere? It was inconceivable for any plant or animal species of the time to actually extract billions of tons of ca...
Read more

550.org

Image
We are launching an alternate organization to 350.org because we believe that just wishing for something to happen (in other words for the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to go back to 350 ppm) is absurd in the light that we break a new CO2 emissions record every year. So, it makes no sense to invest time, effort and money in pursuing an impossible objective.  Let's state here in what we firmly believe: nobody alive today will ever see again 350 ppm. So, if not 350, where are we headed?  We are "easily" headed for 550 ppm, thus the name of our non-profit. Before we proceed further, let us state why we believe our non-profit will be more attractive than 350.org: We will not, ever, under any circumstances ask for donations. Hell, we won't even accept them even if somebody volunteers some money. We won't be dogmatic. We won't believe blindly in models, organizations (e.g. IPCC) or the Pope. We will strive to actually list...
Read more

Going Solar

Image
Some people insist that solar PV has achieved "grid parity" but to claim this they obviously have to consider grid connected PV. The real cost of solar PV is masked when grid connected. In order to better understand the real cost of solar PV, let's make a simplified exercise here. What would be needed to go off grid? The following: Obviously, the solar PV panels. Storage batteries A gasoline electric generator (unless you plan to store heroic amounts of electricity, you would need the backup generator). We'll consider the following parameters in our installation (feel free to substitute your own numbers): Annual solar capacity factor: 18%. Cost of the PV installation (including inverters, installation, etc.): $3 per Watt. We'll use Tesla storage batteries (the 7kW version) at a cost of $6,000 including installation. Solar panel useful life: 20 years. Batteries useful life: 10 years. Annual electricity usage: 8,400 kWh. So, this ho...
Read more