Really sustainable power for our world

© 2008 by Michael Swickard, Ph.D.

“I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait ‘til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” – Thomas Edison, 1931

Edison recognized that oil and coal were not sustainable energy solutions in the long run. They would work for many decades, but their utility was finite. At some point the stockpile of oil resources must dwindle while the competition for it increases. Though it was 1931, Edison could see that another energy source must be found.

At that time, oil and coal were the only viable solutions. There is no way to know what Edison would have thought of nuclear power, but it is reasonable to think he would have embraced it for its simplicity and sustainability.

By sustainable I mean that the technology can operate without serious problems for the foreseeable future. A new technology might come along some day, but the investment in the infrastructure that lasts centuries is essential.

I am not kicking oil as an energy source. Oil was a huge improvement over other forms of energy around the time of the Civil War. In fact, kerosene saved the whales from extinction since they had been hunted from the 1840s almost to that point. Then came kerosene for illumination and the market for whale oil lamps suddenly stopped, as did the killing of whales.

Some people wave a hysterical flag of fear about nuclear power. But the deaths from the nuclear industry compared to the deaths on whalers might be a million to one. Death was a constant companion on a whaling boat, not to mention that the whales had to die.

Likewise, in the oil and natural gas industry there are daily deaths, while the nuclear industry is quite safe in comparison. Any energy generation is fraught with danger, but nuclear power generation is by far the safest.

Some people like the idea of sun and wind generation, but there are two things keeping them from being a main source of energy. Both have to be backed up with other, instant-on sources of energy for when the wind stops or the sun goes down. In the cost of these technologies is the fact that another whole power generator must always be kept idling in the background.

The second issue is how much power you can get from a location. Hydroelectric and alternative forms of energy generation cannot provide the same scale of power as nuclear.

Building new nuclear plants

If I could influence public policy, I would build a couple hundred more nuclear power plants with these provisos: First, they would all be of the same design so that the technical design opposition to them could be dealt with in the first battle.

Next, I would deal with the very real problem of waste disposal from the nuclear plants. It is a political rather than a technical problem, but for sustainability it must be addressed. With proper encasement and storage there is no danger. End of argument, unless someone is just fear-mongering, and then I cannot help because the discussion is not rational.

Nuclear energy can injure people. I was injured by the first atomic explosion, which was here in New Mexico. Our family ranch is in the Carrizozo area downwind of the explosion site. Like many Chernobyl survivors I developed cancer of the thyroid. And then I had nuclear medicine to help me survive. I am not afraid of living next to a nuclear power plant.

The Japanese, who also were very much injured by radiation, fully embrace nuclear generation and the inherent problems of possible radiation and waste. If the Japanese can embrace nuclear energy, why are we unable to do so? Because to us is a political issue.

Other benefits of nuclear

Why would I build several hundred new nuclear power plants? Besides a dependable and sustainable low-cost power source, two other tasks are possible. Fossil fuel generation would stop causing a glut of that fuel in other markets, and those prices would drop.

The excess generation capacity could then be turned to the generation of hydrogen fuels. This would spur the change from fossil fuel to hydrogen fuel, which is produced on our shores, and the subsequent cleaning of our air. Ending our dependence on foreign oil is important. Finally, nuclear power plants could enable large-scale desalinization of ocean water and transportation of clean water to the U. S. interior.

There are three sustainable actions that would accompany the building of excess nuclear power generation plants: dependable electric power for our homes and industry, the replacement of petrochemicals for transportation to something made on-shore, and a dependable and sustainable supply of water to regions of the United States that are water fragile.

We cannot conserve our way to plenty. The only way to address our ever-increasing population and our increasing need for energy is to increase our production capacity. Nuclear power is the wave of the future if we have the political will to use it. Otherwise we will be trapped by our dependence on foreign oil. All it takes is the political will.

Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.