Bottom line: yes, nuclear needs a much bigger voice in US energy mix. Why it doesn’t, as I’m sure we all can tell, is because there isn’t any money in externalities of nuclear power. It’s not related to military conquest or geostrategic squabbles – at least not in the same way that hydrocarbon caches are. Nuclear energy would rather lend towards self reliance and, comparatively, isolationist foreign policy — rather than dominant neoconservative trends in recent administrations.
17 NOV 2012 | Rod Adams brings up the topic of nuclear energy in the United States again, in “Time for rational risk evaluation of energy sources – natural gas versus nuclear“. Chief Editor Jesse Parent (@_JesseParent) agrees with Adams view that nuclear power needs a much more robust platform, and offers insights as to how that could be achieved:
I say this often, but, in my opinion it is particularly true for nuclear power: the problem isn’t the science; the real challenge is the vast implications for politics, money flows, and the inertia of Big Oil/(&Gas) in terms of their influence over policy.
So yes, to that end, I agree that nuclear supporters must be much more vocal. I continue to see the United States as being particualrly not conducive towards any sort of innovation or development in nuclear power – especially, unfortunately, something like Thorium. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t hope for such. I would suppose a place such as India, or perhaps even Australia (and Germany, or Japan), would be much more inclined and ‘properly motivated’ for inspired nuclear innovation.
Again, I present those ‘obstacles’ not to deter nuclear hopes, but simply to point out that for nuclear advocates to successfully gain substance, particularly within the USA, the ‘affiliated’ implications of current hydrocarbon dominance must be addressed.
Nuclear advocates must show how nuclear power can benefit the country in non-energy ways, particularly at a time like this, where the longest war in US history is leaving the public weary. Combine this with fiscal conservatism, reducing the debt, and real “energy security” by moving away from hydrocarbons – that would be a powerful approach.
- – -