The Case for Terrestrial (a.k.a. Nuclear) Energy
By William Tucker
From Imprimis (February 2008)
There have been a host of debates this year between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. Many of these candidates believe that among our top priorities is to address global warming by reducing carbon emissions. All or most seem to agree that decreasing America’s energy dependence is another. Yet few if any of the candidates have mentioned that nuclear energy—or, as I prefer, terrestrial energy—could serve both these ends.
Right now there are 103 operating nuclear reactors in America, but most are owned by utilities (which also own coal plants). The few spin-offs that concentrate mainly on nuclear—Entergy, of Jackson, Mississippi, and Exelon, of Chicago—are relatively small players. As for a nuclear infrastructure, it hardly exists. There is only one steel company in the world today that can cast the reactor vessels (the 42-foot, egg-shaped containers at the core of a reactor): Japan Steel Works. As countries around the world begin to build new reactors, the company is now back-ordered for four years. Unless some enterprising American steel company takes an interest, any new reactor built in America will be cast in Japan.
This is an extraordinary fate for what was once regarded as an American technology. France, China, Russia, Finland, and Japan all perceive the enormous opportunity that nuclear energy promises for reducing carbon emissions and relieving the world’s energy problems as reflected in recent soaring oil prices. Yet in America, we remain trapped in a Three Mile Island mentality, without even a public discussion of the issue. As folk singer Ani Di-Franco puts it, the structure of the atom is so perfect that it is “blasphemy / To use it to make bombs / Or electricity.”
It is time to step back and question whether this prejudice makes sense.
Read the entire essay.
Update: Schwarzenegger denounces "outrageous" homeschooling ruling.
2 comments:
Jeff,
Thanks for the link.
One problem we face is that (almost as though the whole country were Presbyterian!) we are likely to do nothing while position papers get exchanged and committees meet for the next 10 years.
One way to jump start this process is to have the Federal governemnt, specifically the Navy, actually do it. This may send tremors of fear through all libertarians, but their are practical reasons for this:
1. The Federal government has extensive experience safely running nuclear power plants in the Navy.
2. A persistent objection to building more nuclear power plants will be the threat of terrorist attacks. O.k., so the Navy will use Marines to protect their nuclear power plants.
3. The Navy has a problem retaining Nuclear engineers because of the lack of shore rotations. Rotating officers between sub duty and shore based power plants addresses this problem.
4. The Federal government can cut through the legal red tape and State control issues regarding where these plants are located.
O.k., I know there are problems with the Federal government running power plants. Maybe they could partially or fully privatize them over time. But it won't do us any good if we don't rapidly start building more plants.
David
Well, It's taken any fear out of my mind about nuclear (terrestrial) energy. Thanks for the link Jeff.
Post a Comment