If you truly want to do something about global warming and you have already cut your own personal energy consumption to the core, please take a fresh, unbiased look at nuclear energy. Get over the emotional baggage attached to nuclear and take an objective, cold, hard look at an energy source that produces zero greenhouse gasses.
Not a single worker has suffered an injury in any of America’s 104 nuclear power plants during the last 40 years. That’s an incredible record. Obviously the post Chernobyl and Three Mile Island safety programs have had their intended effect. Nuclear power produces no greenhouse gas emissions. 100% of all Nuclear energy waste is contained on site. Click here There is a big debate about moving the waste to a central location, either Yucca Mountain, Nevada and/or Aiken SC. I will not get into that here because either waste storage alternative renders Nuclear a better choice than coal.
What are the alternatives? Coal produces about half of our electricity. Is "clean coal" possible? Al Gore thinks clean coal is a fantasy and I agree. Burning coal produces millions of tons of CO2 and NOx and SOx. These gasses warm our planet and kill our trees and lakes. Clean coal technology is in its infancy and appears to be headed toward oblivion. Along with the intrinsic air pollution of coal burning you must add the environmental effects of strip mining and deep mining. Coal is obviously an unsustainable energy source. The cost to humans is huge, from mine disasters to lives shortened by air pollution. It is clear that replacement of coal fired electrical plants should be a national priority. Click here
Wind produces no greenhouse gas emissions but poses a mortality threat to birds and people in the surrounding area. The risk to birds is real and will likely go unabated. The mortality rate for birds is 0.3 – 0.4 / Gigawatt hour from turbines v 5.2/GWH for fossil fuels. So even though birds will die from turbines, replacing fossil fuel plants lowers the mortality rate. Click here 70,000 birds die from wind turbines every year. To put this in context, 80,000 die from airplanes and 10 million die from cars. I became aware of the high bird death rate myself when I started doing a lot of bike riding. Click here The amount of roadside carnage on roads is enormous. The Audubon society supports wind turbine expansion because the benefits of global warming abatement exceed the known risk of birds being killed by the turbine blades. Carefully locating the turbines can minimize these fatalities. Human injuries and fatalities associated with wind turbines are mostly from installation. This is one of my criticisms of the treehugger article. The article compares the operational safety record of nuclear to the construction safety record of wind turbines and solar panels. Kind of apples and oranges IMHO. But anyway, application of stringent safety measures will eliminate these mishaps very quickly.
Solar is not the answer by itself but can obviously play an important role. It has drawbacks. Among these are expense – the payback is dubious. For homeowners it is more of an environmental statement or status symbol than a prudent financial decision. But it produces zero greenhouse gasses so I like it. How do we make it cheaper? Well China is now the number one exporter of solar panels to the US. (Why can’t we make them here? I don’t understand.) In 2005,to protect their beloved coal industry, Repubs limited the Fed tax credit on solar panel systems to cover only the first $2000 of purchase. That’s a drop in the bucket. President Obama deserves major kudos for removing the cap completely. Believe me, this is changing things dramatically. President Obama made an environmental and economic statement and no one seems to be aware of it. The stimulating effect on our lungs and wallets will be enormous.
What about Hydrogen? It’s a great fuel source for cars and possibly homes but it cannot be a primary energy source. We would need a combination of Nuclear, Wind and Solar to produce the power needed to produce Hydrogen by electrolysis of seawater, if that’s how we decide to do it. Today, most hydrogen is produced during processing of various hydrocarbons. When we find the will to do without these hydrocarbons, electrolysis will probably be the best alternative. Hydrogen offers a high density energy system that may have advantages over batteries in cars computers and handheld devices.
Nuclear, wind and solar offer huge advantages to the environment, our economy and our quality of life. On Feb 16, 2010 President Obama approved $8 billion in loan guarantees for a our nation’s first nuclear power plant in 40 years. I say hooray. He has quietly and bravely removed the cap on solar panel tax credits. The cost to taxpayers for these measures is small when compared to the $880 billion we will spend "defense". I use the quotes because we spend this so we can defend our right to pump oil in Middle East or wherever else we want. Our certain path to a better future would be to divert as much of this $880 billion as we can toward pursuit of responsible energy sources that are clearly in our best interests.