Are Nukes the Answer?

Nuclear Energy polarizes people. There are two camps: Those who actually think of nuclear energy as a form of renewable energy that makes clean fuel fast (most of us would call this group France), and those who think the first camp is spouting evil propaganda for the Man and that nuclear power is a frightening, dirty, nasty tidbit of Cold War leftovers.

Doesn't seem to be a lot of gray area on the nuclear front.

::continue::

Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu blogged---yes, blogged---on Facebook about the need for a newly announced nuclear power loan guarantee program. He made all the rational arguments for the program: that no one single power source can be the solution, that renewables are not feasible enough to be a large power footprint right now, that nuclear energy does help reduce carbon and, therefore, would positively impact climate change. His arguments were reasonable and practical---just what you'd expect from a scientist who is also the Secretary of Energy.

The outsider comments on his blog entry were not so reasonable, nor so rational. There were a lot of angry diatribes from a lot of angry Facebookers about how to make renewables more feasible instead. Interestingly enough, they wanted the money being guaranteed for nukes to be promised, instead, to renewables. A lot of those discussions claimed that nukes wouldn't be feasible without this government financial assistance (which may be true, but, right now, there's a very solid similar argument for solar and wind, so it seems these guys are shooting themselves in the foot in order to take pot shots at the enemy).

I've always found it fascinating---all the walls built between renewable energy camps and traditional energy camps. The renewable peeps find traditional energy old, outdated and dangerous. The traditional energy peeps fine renewable energy a tad silly, ridiculously expensive and impractical. The hippies versus the squares, to put it all into 1960s war metaphor terminology.

But, there are good arguments on both sides. Renewables have great potential, but there are still issues (storage, intermittence, cost, maintenance, investment). Traditional energy is currently practical, but offers a future with severe imperfections (climate change, global warming, loss of fuel source, reliance on unstable economies for fuel). But, in the end, there is no direct way to dissolve traditional energy and transition entirely into renewables overnight. So, rather than stand on opposite sides of the digital wall and scream at each other, perhaps it's time for a little overlap.

I really think that's all Sec. Chu was driving at: The importance of all sorts of shades of gray in the energy equation. No one says you have to see nukes as the shining light of an energy future. But, perhaps we can see it as a way to transition, a "baby step" toward a different energy economy.