The British government has given the go-ahead for new nuclear power stations but the question that will be on many minds is to whether nuclear really is the option for our energy need, or should one better say, energy greed.
While even the eminent scientist who coined the very idea of “Gaia” and created the “Gaia Hypothesis” is now advocating the “nuclear option”, much to the chagrin of groups like “Friends of the Earth” and “Greenpeace”, the question is and remains: is nuclear truly a viable environmental option and especially a sustainable one.
First of all we must look at our energy consumption, especially in this instance that of electricity, and reduce the use of it, and here, mostly by using more energy efficient lights and devices, but also , and maybe more importantly so, by turning things off.
There is no need to have the entire house illuminated when you are only, at that time, and that is most of the time, spending the evening in the den/family room in front of the TV or the PC.
Councils too must learn to reduce. What good is it to have an abandoned school with all the lights turned on just in case someone breaks in and might hurt himself in the dark. I always thought any self-respecting burglar would carry a decent flashlight. Come on! They don't even have to worry about batteries for them anymore with all the cheap wind-up torches around now. The thing is that those self-same councils will forever admonish the residents not to waste energy, and even penalize them if they do, but what do they do. “Oh”, they say, “but it is just so we cannot be sued by someone breaking into that building and hurting themselves in the dark.” Sorry, but he or she should not have been breaking in in the first place. But, sorry, I digressed a little.
As said, we must, first and foremost, reduce our energy consumption by use of the right appliances and also, and especially, by turning things off. Not only will it be financially rewarding for those that do that, because of the monies saves, but it will reduce the impact on the environment.
Secondly we have to take a much closer look, in the UK (and some other countries, whether in Europe or abroad), at micro-generating stations; that is to say wind, solar and furnace powered electricity generation for individual homes, farms, city blocks.
In addition to that we need to look at other options, aside, I mean, from wave, hydro, solar and wind; namely the generating of electrical power from waste incinerators, as it is done in other countries such as, as I understand, in Sweden, for example, and in Germany.
Before “Friends of the Earth” and such like begin screaming again about we must recycle rather than incinerate I am talking here about incineration of that waste that cannot be recycled or composted and would end up, yet again, in the landfills. Yes, there is and always will be some left that cannot be reused or recycled, how ever much we might like and try.
Another is to use the gas generated by those landfills and other such places, such as sewerage works, namely methane gas, as source for power stations. It can be done for it has been done, though on a rather small experimental stage at present only in the UK.
In Germany, for example, also micro-generating is very much in and the reward for those that do are great. It would appear that in those countries rather than hitting people over the head that do not and cannot recycle, generate their own power, etc., they reward those that do handsomely. Time, maybe, the UK (and others with the wrong attitude) learned a lesson from that. Then again, we know, that we will be told in the UK that while those things all may work very well in countries such as Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and others, it could not work in Britain as Britain is different.
However, we must make such things work and if that means changing the governments and the attitudes of business and industry, etc. then so be it.
None of the alternatives, so often held up as the be all by many of the environmental movement, e.g. wind, wave, hydro, and solar, will be able to provide for our energy greed in the UK (and elsewhere). Yes, I did say greed. We must use simply less, and this, obviously, not only in terms of electrical energy. While me must use all the alternatives to coal and oil and even natural gas, all of which are non-renewable, we also must look at options other than wind, solar, and water. Fast growing tree crops are also not the option. However, there are the waste products of various industries, especially forestry and timber, that could well fire some power stations.
Dr. Jame Lovelock, the inventor, so to speak, of the Gaia Hypothesis, says that we must embrace the nuclear power route for electrical energy production, also as far as CO2 reduction is concerned. And if Dr. Lovelock has gone so far as to say thins then the truth is that the alternatives cannot and will not meet our current and increasing energy consumption.
Aside from accidents, enter Chernobyl – an event that will hardly ever be forgotten – and possible terrorist attacks on nuclear power station, what concerns most people, I am sure, and I would see myself included here, is the safe disposal of the spent fuel from the fission reactors. If nuclear fusion would be the means of generating energy then the story, so I understand, would be different.
This then, brings to mind the question as to why has no one developed fusion further? Some years ago, apparently, a fully functioning small station was created in the then still USSR. Is it simply because there is no reprocessable fuel to be had from fusion for to make into weapon grate plutonium?
Some rather searching questions need to be asked here, methinks. Food for thought...
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), January 2008