I have already made my decision who to vote for, but neither candidate focused on my choice for energy—SOLAR and WIND.
Solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hybrid and electric cars, and aggressive energy efficiency are climate solutions that are safer, cheaper, faster, more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear power. Our country needs a massive influx of investment in these solutions if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Thankfully, no new nuclear plants have been built in the US for over 30 years. That means that a whole new generation of concerned citizens grew up without knowing the facts about nuclear power – or remembering the terrible disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. So it is time to remind everyone that nuclear is not the answer.
Currently we draw electric power from about 400 nuclear plants worldwide. Nuclear proponents say we would have to scale up to around 17,000 nuclear plants to offset enough fossil fuels to begin making a dent in climate change. This isn’t possible – neither are 2,500 or 3,000 more nuclear plants that many people frightened about climate change suggest. Here’s why: Nuclear waste, Nuclear proliferation, National Security and Accidents. Don't forget Cancer—nuclear power plants produce numerous dangerous, carcinogenic elements.
Central station generation is the application that needs to be compared to present generation methods - burning coal, oil or natural gas or nuclear energy.
Solar energy does not put CO2 into the atmosphere, and so needs to be considered if global warming has to be avoided. It has lots of supporters, especially among those who oppose nuclear energy.
My opinion is that except for special applications, solar energy is a resource and not a reserve, to use economic jargon. This means that our civilization would survive if we were dependent on solar energy, e.g. could not use nuclear energy. However, solar energy would be expensive enough to put nations that decided to depend on it alone at a serious economic disadvantage compared to nations that were not constrained to rely on it. Their citizens would be poorer.
Wind is a clean, inexhaustible, indigenous energy resource that can generate enough electricity to power millions of homes and businesses. Wind energy is one of the fastest-growing forms of electricity generation in the world. The United States can currently generate more than 10,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the wind, which is enough to power 2.5 million average American homes. Industry experts predict that, with proper development, wind energy could provide 20% of this nation's energy needs.
Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren’t enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclear’s coffin is time. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isn’t possible to build 17,000 – or 2,500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years.
With so many strikes against nuclear power, it should be off the table as a climate solution, and we need to turn our energies toward the technologies and strategies that can truly make a difference: solar power, wind power, and energy conservation.