Next Generation Nuclear Power

Right Democrat has this, from the University of Wisconsin's Daily Cardinal:

We are in the midst of an energy crisis, and though the urgency has lessened for an energy solution since last summer because of lower gas prices and an economic recession, the problem is no less real. Although the economy will be President Obama’s chief concern in the coming months, our energy policy affects the economy and foreign policy decisions as much as the environment and our pocketbooks. We in Wisconsin can take steps to improve our energy policy, and, working with national leadership on the issue, we can change the way America evaluates and uses energy.

A fossil fuel-orientated energy policy is fading much like our reliance on an industrial economy. As service sector and information technology jobs take over for the classic factory jobs, our energy policy needs to utilize smarter, cutting-edge technologies to compete in a world market. Gas-guzzling SUVs will not cut it environmentally, and as the struggling “big three” automakers continue to beg Congress for money while Japanese automakers rake in the dough, the economics of traditional energy are not going to work anymore either.

We must realize, however not any single fuel source will pull us out of this mess—not wind, not solar, not hydropower—as useful as they may be. We need a comprehensive policy that incorporates several different sources of energy, including nuclear power.

Whoa, what? The College Democrats are endorsing nuclear power? Not necessarily. Although I think it is an option we need to explore, and many fellow Democrats (including several Wisconsin state lawmakers) agree, there are many people, including Democrats, Republicans and Independents, who have deep reservations about nuclear power—and with good reason. The nuclear power industry still has several kinks to work out, especially with the issues of a high start-up cost and permanent storage for nuclear waste. However, roadblocks are not a good enough reason to give up trying to make nuclear energy work, especially when nuclear electricity generation emits practically zero carbon emissions, a huge upside.

Nuclear power has been successful in Europe, and we have working nuclear reactors in the United States, though new plants have not been built in decades. Wind, solar, hydropower, hydrogen and ethanol all show promise for solving the energy crisis. Alternative energies cannot generate electricity on a constant basis, though they can supplement a main energy source.

We need something to provide a base load of energy that can take over when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining. If scientists can develop a method to harness and store solar or wind energy, we could implement it. In the meantime, we need to work with the reality of our situation. We can either accept the effect fossil fuel has on our environment and foreign policy decisions, or we can develop a dynamic energy policy with the goal of becoming energy independent.

The United States has produced great inventions and technologies when the government and the people invested time, money and energy into solving a pressing problem. If we can use several fuel sources effectively—including nuclear power—we can stimulate the economy, help the environment and create “green” jobs, all while becoming more energy independent.

For additional background on nuclear power, check out this article link from Scientific American.

Across the West and beyond, the restoration of high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs for the working class in general and for working-class men in particular (not least so that they can once again exercise paternal authority in their families and communities) goes hand-in-hand with maintaining and improving our standard of living while securing our independence.

The ageing yuppies and the aged hippies who object are simply behind the times.