Check this out:
http://www.energybulletin.net/7383.html
That makes a lot of sense. When I read the section of The Long Emergency dealing with US relations with the Middle East and the war in Iraq, I was pretty surprised at Kunstler's stance, which seemed neutral at best.
This does not make a lot of sense. You can criticize Schoen for a failure to recognize that plug-in cars are a transition away from oil, while simultaneously failing to acknowledge that the buildup of nuclear power in the US was the transition away from oil power plants in the 70s. Further, to successfully convert to a plug-in transportation economy, you will have to support new baseload energy power stations - something with a reliable, predictable capacity factor that is less toxic to the air than burning oil and less expensive to the economy than natural gas. And in the same breath you accuse nuclear of being a dirty industry - the industry that sequesters all the waste it produces, includes the expense for that effort in its lower-than-average production expense, and could recycle up to 95% of its used fuel for more energy, continuing the environmental benefits.
Since Kelly chose not to, let me note that she's also a contributor at NEI Nuclear Notes, the blog of the Nuclear Energy Institute...
I'll mention right off the bat that I'm a contributor to NEI Nuclear Notes as well as Kelly.
You need to note the distinction that renewables, coal and nuclear are primarily used for electricity production. Oil is not. Oil is mainly consumed in the industrial and transportation sectors.
In 1973, oil contributed about 17% of the electricity generation but in 2004 contributed only 3%. It would appear that oil has been replaced by other available sources. In 1973, nuclear contributed only 5% and now contributes 20% of the electricity generation.
Nuclear power will have even a greater contribution than just producing electricity. In the energy bill that just passed Congress, Section 803 includes provisions for nuclear energy as one of the sources of hydrogen production for use in transportation applications. Like Kelly said above, you need baseload electricity such as nuclear to be able to do this.
As for "dirty industries", the used fuel from nuclear are contained in rods which are contained in fuel assemblies which are kept in dry casks which a person can stand right next to and not at all be harmed. Doesn't sound too dirty to me.
However, it should be noted that several processes of creating solar cells includes the use of toxic materials. One for instance is using cadmium telluride in the manufacturing stages. Cadmium is a highly toxic material which could cause cancer and have critical effects on the kidneys.
From my post:
Schoen is certainly correct in pointing out that oil generally serves our transportation needs while the alternatives above power electrical generation,...
On cadmium telluride in solar cells (which is a bit of a straw man), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has an interesting factsheet.
Thanks for the pointer! This is interesting info. I find this claim amusing, however, "PV [photovoltaic] modules use natural elements and compounds to generate clean, emissions-free energy." Just like a pressurized water reactor uses natural elements and compounds to generate clean, emissions-free energy? Somehow it'll take some work to convince me that cadmium telluride is a natural compound. But that's just for amusement value - it does not necessarily detract from the rest of the information at the link. Thanks again!
"Natural" is one of those words that immediately raises my suspicions when used as an adjective... They should've left the word out, as it adds nothing to the argument, and does raise red flags...
Commenting by HaloScan
