I’m conflicted when it comes to nuclear power. On the one hand, it would offer us at least the possibility of maintaining most of the status quo — easy, reliable access to electric power — here in the States and in Europe. On the other, the management of nuclear power plants is a good deal more complex than that of conventional plants, and the possibility of a major disaster much greater as well. There is also the problem of safely disposing the nuclear waste.

You’re right about the politics of energy here in the States. There are too many who automatically apply the equality nukes = bad to the discussion of nuclear power. Their proffered alternatives — solar, geothermal, etc. — while green and all, will simply not provide the US with the electrical power it currently uses. Their solutions require a radical change in energy consumption in the US. We do need to drastically reduce our energy use, but it’s too optimistic to expect people will do it voluntarily or that the government will impose such reductions. We are just too spoiled.

So, once oil runs out, the US will probably switch to coal. Air quality will slide, and the ecologists will cry bloody murder (as they should). Then what? Fission reactors will be all that we’ll have left. That, or everyone switches to 12V DC solar.

Fusion is the way to go, but the technology is still in its infancy, and Washington does not seem to be terribly forthcoming with R&D funds.

What we need to do is to discuss these options logically and calmly. Unfortunately, the general public is too set in its ways, and too ignorant of the options and, more importantly, their consequences. Politicians, with the possible exception of Al Gore, look only as far as the next election, and are unlikely to provide the kind of leadership needed. Only a crisis, I fear, will wake people up to the problems our children and grandchildren will face.

I’m not dissing the protesters, nor their right to bring up issues, only the dramatization with less-than-sound scary science. I understand the concerns about the power generation method, but don’t think that the politics and the conclusions about it are necessarily connected. After all, lefty old France is crawling with reactors.

But here, the politics seems to determine whether you thing Nuke power is the devil or the saviour. Not a hopeful prospect in the face of climate change, nuclear power derived waste, the advances in reactor design, and the lingering difficulties with the technology. Our hunger for electricity will be sated. How, and at what trade-off between current and future generations, remains to be seen. Somebody, somewhere has to be scientific, dispassionate, and economically literate all at the same time to make policy recommendations that make sense in all the relevant dimensions.

Excellent post, as always, Mr. Dogg