Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Good news, bad news on the nuclear (power) option

First the good news: I'm on board with Senator Lindsey Graham (and a lot of his Republican conservative brethren don't consider him a brother-in-arms on climate):

US should follow France, boost nuclear power: senator

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who is working with Democrat John Kerry on the bill, highlighted how France now derives 80 percent of its energy from nuclear power and is presently constructing a next-generation reactor, said to be the most advanced in the world.

"Surely we can be as bold as the French," Graham told reporters.


(Let's note that Graham is from a state with both the Savannah River Site / Savannah River National Laboratory, as well as a nuclear presence courtesy of Duke Power. So I'm not surprised Lindsay is pro-nuke.

Furthermore, Sens. Alexander (Lamar) and Webb (Jim) have put forth a bill also boosting nuclear.

Then the bad news:

Nuclear power: less effective than energy efficiency and renewable energy?

"The Environment California Research & Policy Center concluded that launching a nuclear power industry nearly from the ground up is too slow and expensive a process. Energy efficiency standards and renewable energy options are better solutions, researchers said.


Now, I totally agree with energy efficiency standards and conservation NOW. That can get us where we need to be in the next decade. But we will still need more power eventually, and as of yet (except possibly for the super-powered house battery I posted about a few months ago) the renewable power energy consortium hasn't figured out a good way around solar power problem #1: NIGHT, and wind power problem #1, WHEN THE WIND DON'T BLOW.

No comments: