Nukes in Our Future?

I can’t title this “Going Nuclear”, because the WaPo already did it. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace has experienced an epiphany about nuclear power, concluding now that it poses less of a risk than global climate change potentially resulting from greenhouse gas emissions from fossil power sources. He focuses on the health and safety considerations – it’s not as dangerous as we once thought – as the primary rationale. For my part, I’ve never been either strongly in support or opposition to nuclear power based on the safety grounds. It’s just one of many useful technologies that could cause human or ecological catastrophe if not managed sensibly. The idea is not to simply worry about them, because that’s a recipe for curling up into a little ball of despair, but to create the infrastructure, philosophy and commitment to manage their risks (including doing without that technology if there is a good substitution or it isn’t really needed).

I can’t wait to see the froth this creates in the blogosphere.

There isn’t any reason to get too excited, because it ain’t happening yet, and the devil’s in the details. I’d be interested in seeing what the lifecycle costs and impacts look like (fuel cycle, plant safety and security, environmental and waste management, plant decommissioning, etc.) before concluding how cost-effective it is. There are a lot of established commercial interests without nuclear portfolios or experience who will use their political and public relations clout to delay phase out of fossil fuels and reintroduction of nuclear energy, at least until they can be competitive in the nuclear field. Transitioning to nuclear power doesn’t reduce the need for energy conservation, replacing fossil-fuel transportation or agriculture, or making the other changes needed to move to a sustainable society. The closing message, which wasn’t something I saw in the editorial, is that increased reliance on nuclear power over fossil fuels isn’t a ready-made excuse to continue “business as usual”.

Postscript, Monday, April 17, 2006:

Steve Gilliard offers this reminder of potentially the largest impediment to the resurgence of nuclear energy in this country – the image of it ingrained in the collective subconscious from popular depictions over the past generation, including Them!, The China Syndrome, and Blinky, The Three-Eyed Fish.

A Daily Kos diarist also notes that using Moore’s credentials as a founder of Greenpeace as evidence that the tide has turned for nuclear power is a little thin, since he currently is a communications consultant for industries with environmental problems. I guess he’s also discovered that, while championing noble causes looks good on the resume, the pay really sucks.

Edited to correct a reference from "fission" to "fossil".