Sometimes I wonder. What if Al Gore is right? What if man made global warming is real and those poor polar bears are about to fall into the ocean and drown? Obviously, we should do something about it!
What we should obviously do is encourage forms of energy that don't produce as much carbon dioxide. We obviously should encourage more nuclear and hydroelectric power by removing the barriers that exist in their expansion. Yes, there are safety and environmental issues with both these types of energy, however, these risks can be mitigated through good engineering practices and proper risk analysis.
I believe the free market will push us towards these technologies. The cost per kilowatt hour for nuclear (4 cents/kwh) and hydroelectric(3 cents/kwh) is less then any other form of energy, except for coal (4 cents/kwh). Compare that with the cost of solar (22 cents/kwh), natural gas (10 cents/kwh) and wind (8cents.kwh). (see Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar by James Morgan) Of all these energy sources, they are a lot less carbon intensive. Nuclear and hydro-electric lead the way and are on the same level as solar and wind.
| Energy Source | Greenhous Gasses* |
| Coal | 900 |
| Oil | 850 |
| Gas combined-cycle | 400 |
| Biomass | 45 |
| Multi-crystaline silicon (solar) | 37 |
| Cadmium teruride (solar) | 18 |
| Nuclear | 24 |
| Wind | 11 |
| *(grams/kwh of Co2 equivalent) |
My view is that we should just allow nuclear and hydroelectric to be further developed. We don't even need to subsidize them. We just need to stay out of their way. We obviously should not remove any safety or environmental requirements, but we should remove those that are simply put in place to prevent their development.
I do realize that I am blaspheming against the Holy Order of Mother Earth Fanatics. Nuclear and hydro-electric (aka damn power) are cardinals sins. I know that now I must ask forgiveness of the high priest and prophet himself, Al Gore. But then again, I am just a global warming agnostic. I neither believe nor do I disbelieve. I am just saying, that if it's really as bad Al Gore says it is, we should move our energy production to ways that are less carbon intensive.
The technology for nuclear and hydro-electric is here now. We don't have to wait for someone to invent the perpetual motion machine, or for wind, solar, hydrogen, switch-grass or whatever else to become more commercially viable.
The technology for nuclear and hydro-electric is here now. We don't have to wait for someone to invent the perpetual motion machine, or for wind, solar, hydrogen, switch-grass or whatever else to become more commercially viable.
