Are they so afraid of alternatives that they will do anything to stamp them out before they have even had a chance to prove themselves? (yes, I am still bitter about what happened to the electric car of the 1970’s)
But the truth is, alternative energy has proven itself to be a viable source of not only energy, but also a great economic stimulus (Just not here in the United States). Pro-nukers are quick to site France as their poster child for a nuclear energy success story. But alternative energy advocates are able to site Germany and Spain as their success story.
My question is, “Why isn’t anyone citing the United States when it comes to a success story?”
Right now in Florida there is a battle going on, not only within the state, but also amongst our legislators about renewable energy and how it will play an important part in Florida’s future. The energy lobbyists are working hard at asking that new nuclear plants be included under the umbrella of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and change the name to be “Clean Energy Standard”. This is in response to Governor Crist and the goal that he has set to have 20% of Florida’s energy come from renewable energy sources by 2020.
Does it seem reasonable to include nuclear in the RPS? Sure, if you want to play politician and make everyone happy. But does that make it right? Nuclear energy already has plenty of funding. Floridians are currently paying for new nuclear reactors that won’t come on-line for years. In fact, we are paying for the possibility of cost increases and we haven’t received a single watt of energy from a new plant.
A lot of nuclear supporters are saying that nuclear power has no carbon footprint and will immediately help solve the problems of global warming. They will also tell you that there is a bottomless supply of plutonium and that we won’t have to worry about the disposal of nuclear waste for another 600 years. They will also say that it creates jobs, will take up less land, and is more dependable than renewables.
Renewable energy supporters will point out that nuclear energy is not “clean” because it creates a hazardous waste that no one has figured out what to do with. And no one is really comfortable with dumping our problems onto future generations for them to figure out.
Renewable advocates will also tell you that the jobs created for new nuclear plants are not near as many jobs that are created for the industry of renewable energy (solar, wind, water, etc.). Renewable energy can create industries and promote entrepreneurism. They will go on to tell you that some 240,000 people in Germany were employed in the renewable energy sector in 2006, especially in small and medium sized companies. Over half of these jobs are attributed to the Renewable Energy Sources Act.
Renewables can also export products and services to many countries that do not have the capability to do for themselves. The job growth is immediate and requires very little federal regulation to move a project along…unlike nuclear.
But the reason this issue is important is truly because of a few things. One, there is money coming to the RPS and nuclear wants to be included. Two: there is also the issue of control. Right now energy suppliers have a monopoly on the market. None of us have a choice as to who we get our energy from. The energy suppliers want to keep it that way.
Truthfully, I would like a choice. I like having the chance to shop around for a new phone service when I get the feeling that I am being uncared for by my current supplier. I also like the thought of being able to be a part of a new industry and have more of a say in how it all works. Already, alternative energy suppliers are starting to make a mark on my city and have introduced great new products that I never would have dreamed about.
As for my state, Florida exports very little. Produce is the main export and it is affected every time the weather takes a turn for the worse. Then there’s tourism. And we all know what happens to tourism when a hurricane hits or the economy tanks.
So, besides the fact that renewable energy has a proven track record, can be developed to be efficient and compact if we support it financially, can create industries and promote entrepreneurism, it also does good for the world we live in.
I’m just biding my time! I’m not really one for protesting. I’m sure in some cases it is effective, but to me it just feels like waving my arms about and making noise with no results.Besides, I’m British; we don’t complain!
but as I’m only 21 and in University…Sounds like a cop out. Did you see the age of all of the people who protested the coal plant this month in Wash. DC. They were your age. What are you waiting for?http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/the941/2009/03/04/closing-down-the-capitol-power-plant-in-washington-dc/
When I said "your country", I wasn't intending to imply we're doing any better over here.I'll be doing as much as I can, but as I'm only 21 and in University, I'm not in such a position.I understand that the reasons we are in the position we're in now are based on historical context. That said, I simply cannot deny that, purely given the numbers, nuclear is the only viable source of energy to provide for our needs. Even the most intense R&D into the alternatives, without development of a real alternative, will cripple economies and leave people in energy poverty.
“I’d actually rather see heaver investment into fast neutron nuclear reactors than more research into making wind turbines or solar panels slightly more efficient.”Of course you would; I would expect that. But branch out and look through history. See how the horse and buggy became the automobile…through economic development. All those nay-sayers of progress would never have dreamed to be riding in around in a car powered by a battery.”A vast amount of your country’s clean energy comes from nuclear power, and the amount coming from the non “fuel using”? Negligible.”You need to study a little more on my country’s history. There are reasons that our sources of energy are so lop-sided. I’ll be in Tallahassee next week to try and change that. What are you going to do about Global Warming in your country?
“I believe I stated that my fear would be that adding nuclear power to RPS would overshadow the progress of alternative energy.”If I may go out on a limb here…. perhaps it should? Solar, wind, hydro, etc etc are all great and wonderful things, but in a particularly long term time frame. I’d actually rather see heaver investment into fast neutron nuclear reactors than more research into making wind turbines or solar panels slightly more efficient. A vast amount of your country’s clean energy comes from nuclear power, and the amount coming from the non “fuel using”? Negligible.
I could have sworn I have listed the many upsides to renewable alternatives. In fact, isn’t that what the article is about? Solar, wind, hydro, and bio-waste promotes economic growth and job stimulus through developing industry and exports; less government; it does not create radioactive waste; and can be used in third world countries without becoming a threat to our national security. It also has a very good track record in other countries. Marcel, you’ve said :”As I’ve said before, I strongly support small hydro and bio-waste power. And I also support solar where its economically competitive and doesn’t carpet hundreds or thousands of kilometers of pristine lands. I also support any community that wants to put wind in their own community– but not in mine.”We seem to agree and yet we seem to argue? I could also do with a little less land taken up by solar and wind fields, but we are never going to get there unless we give it the support that it needs.
Snilon, I think you should name the upside of the various renewable systems that you advocate. I advocate bio-waste power plants and small hydro. What systems do you think would help the environment and improve our quality of life without impoverishing the country?
Actually, the only thing I think I’ve been campaigning on was to keep nuclear power out of the RPS. I believe my argument was that they didn’t need to be included.I believe I stated that my fear would be that adding nuclear power to RPS would overshadow the progress of alternative energy. And I believe no one so far has given me a good reason of why they need to be included.There are a lot of upsides to alternative energy that you pro-nukers conveniently ignore. We all agree on Global Warming and we all agree on getting rid of fossil fuels and coal. And yet… We’ll I said it in the article. Tell me something I haven’t heard.
“It is almost like there is a club of nuclear energy supporters that sit around all day and wait for the first opportunity to pounce the suggestion of alternatives to our energy/climate crisis.”Woah! Hang on there just a minute…It seems to me that it’s the other way around, actually. You don’t find nuclear proponents shouting about how terrible it would be if wind and solar power had a larger market share, do you?I wouldn’t call myself “green” or an “environmentalist” but I am strongly in support of any alternative to fossil fuels – nuclear power included. When one argues that climate change is really bad, oh my god we have to act now to save the world and then do the same thing against the very means we have to deal with the problems, it really does send a rather mixed message.Nuclear power is not an ideal source of power, by any means, but given that wind/solar etc can’t provide a baseload or even anywhere near enough energy to power a country, campaigning against nuclear, concentrated and developed source of power, will only defeat the purpose of campaigning against inaction regarding climate change. You simply cannot hope to remove fossil fuels from the equation without nuclear power.
As I’ve said before, I strongly support small hydro and bio-waste power. And I also support solar where its economically competitive and doesn’t carpet hundreds or thousands of kilometers of pristine lands. I also support any community that wants to put wind in their own community– but not in mine. These things are absolutely horrible, IMO. Actually, the nuclear loan guarantees are to ensure that if a company, or even you, invest in a nuclear power plant and suddenly some court says you can’t open it, then you can get your money back. But that’s only if the plant is never allowed to open. But its not a subsidy like the renewable energy industry is getting. Personally, I’d prefer that the Federal government totally finance nuclear power plants and turn the profits over to the people. Each nuclear reactor makes about a million dollars in profit every day. With over 100 reactors in the US, that’s over 100 million dollars a day, and over 36 billion dollars a year. I’d like to see at least 1000 to 2000 nuclear reactors built in the US over the next 20 or 30 years. And that would translate into over 360 to 720 billion dollars in annual profits for US citizens in addition to up to a million permanent and high pay jobs and millions more in jobs associated with the industry. And every reactor last at least 60 to 80 years, so these reactors would be making money for a lifetime. So in theory, if you turned those profits over to the people, every individual in the US would receive $1000 to $2000 dollars every year from a Federal Nuplex Corporation. Sort of like what the oil companies have to give to the people of Alaska every year. That could be up to $8000 given to a family of four every year– unless we built even more reactors to supply synfuels to other regions of the planet, then each family would get even more money. My view is simple. Since the US government really invented this technology, why shouldn’t US citizens reap the profits:-) http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
Ahh, Marcel. I knew you would be on top of things. I’m sorry if I sounded like an idiot. I meant uranium. It must be my headache. But I digress…Are you saying that renewable energy has not had a positive impact on Germany and Spain? Because I never discounted any efforts that are being made to help reduce greenhouse gas…even individuals conserving more by turning off the lights when not in use and driving less should also be given credit. But the point I was making is that renewables should be given credit where credit is due. Why should they not receive the same financial support that nuclear has been getting all of these years? Why does nuclear needed to be included in the RPS?You are quick to throw in numbers, but you are able to answer my questions and then tell me that the only energy you support is nuclear?
In our current fossil fuel dominated economy, on average:coal cost 2.4 cents per kwhnatural gas cost 6.8 cents per kwhoil cost 9.6 cents per kwhAmongst non-carbon dioxide polluting energy technologies:hydroelectric cost 0.85 cents per kWhnuclear cost 1.68 cents per kWhgarbage incineration (non-subsidized) cost 4.0 cents per kWhwind (non-subsidized) cost 4.35 to 6.56 cents per kWhsolar thermal (Sunny climate) cost 6 cents per kWhhome photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 37.78 cents per kWhhome photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 83.13 cents per kWhcommercial photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 27.49 cents per kWhcommercial photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 60.47 cents per kWhindustrial photovoltaic (Sunny climate) cost 21.41 cents per kWhindustrial photovoltaic (Cloudy climate) cost 47.11 cents per kWhWind and solar, of course, requires greenhouse gas polluting natural gas as a back up energy source when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. There hasn’t been a new nuclear power plant built in the US in decades. And Friends of the Earth recently pressured Democrats to remove an increase in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. So it looks like its the renewable advocates that are attacking the expansion of nuclear power, not nuclear power advocates trying to stop renewables. In fact, the top nuclear power company in the world, Areva, is also building renewable biomass power plants. Both Germany and Spain have substantially larger carbon footprints than France. And their carbon footprints would be even higher if France wasn’t exporting their surplus nuclear energy to both Spain and Germany. There’s no such thing as plutonium mining. Plutonium comes from spent nuclear fuel. But I guess if we end up burring this fuel, future civilizations on Earth could mine both the burried plutonium and the uranium content of the spent fuel for clean energy:-) The Cost of Non-Carbon Dioxide Polluting Technologieshttp://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/10/cost-of-non-carbon-dioxide-polluting.html