the nuclear option

For many environmentalists the most dreaded side-effect from all the attention paid to global warming is the re-emergence of nuclear power. The longer the debate goes on the more inevitable the nuclear option will become. Nuclear is our only option if we want to maintain our "standard of living." An MIT website states it as follows:" An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group decided to study the future of nuclear power because of a belief that this technology is an important option for the United States and the world to meet future energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants."

It is interesting to me how people always talk about our energy "needs" as if we could not possibly survive by using less. And I have to admit that there is some immediate truth to it. Like a stock market bubble, deflating our over-consumption of energy would cause much hardship and pain, and a prolonged recovery period. But in the end we would be better off. However, the longer we wait the less effective it will be and the more painful too. Immediate is where it ends though, as we can certainly survive and thrive using a lot less energy than we do now. And it would make our chances of survival much better.

Realistically speaking I do not count on voluntary reductions. The only way to reduce energy consumption is to regulate and tax it. Much as I hate taxes, I believe that the only sane thing to do would be to raise the price of gas to at least $5 a gallon and go up from there. The tax money could be used to fund alternative energy research. Or better still, universal health care. A much more modest proposal along those lines was recently defeated in California elections. Five dollars a gallon is a very small price to pay for wasting energy. Given the true cost, $5 is a real bargain.

Many countries in Europe have more expensive gas than that and their standard of living is not that different from ours. Standard of living is a bit deceptive as it measures how much money one can spend. But spending money does not always make people happier, and much spending is driven by addictive behavior. There is little doubt that in many European countries the quality of life is much better for the average citizen. It is true that these citizens do not have as many gadgets as we do, but gadgets tend to make people lazy and fat. Gadgets also alienate people from one another.

But once again, I don't see Americans going for higher gas prices. Not at a time when so many are becoming insanely rich pushing our energy addiction. Why worry about heroin if you have gasoline? It appears to be a much better drug. And so we are ultimately left with the nuclear option.

Contrary to what you may think I am not opposed to nuclear. I believe it works very well. France derives nearly 75% of its electricity from nuclear power and there are few, if any, real problems. In many ways nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuels. And it has extra flexibility. We could power ships with it for example and remove a very dirty source of emissions in the process. As for safety, it seems clear that nuclear is as safe, if not safer than many other technologies. No doubt accidents will happen, and the scale of these accidents may be bigger, but with a lower frequency of incidents, the end results would be similar.

Ironically enough, the US set back nuclear power by dropping bombs on Japan at the end of World War II. Escalating the cold war did not help either. And so nobody should be very surprised that nuclear has become a synonym for scary. It was designed to be that way from the very start.

If you are strongly opposed to nuclear power there is something you can do. Pay $5 per gallon for your gas. Just put away the difference between what you pay and $5 and donate it to alternative energy sources. Convince all your neighbors and friends to do the same. Turn off your lights and drive less. Because that is the only way to stop "it" from happening. Demonstrations and other civil disobedience won't do it.