Energy

---

One day a group of people were flying in a small airplane when the plane experienced a catastrophic malfunction. Miraculously, each person had a parachute under their seat, but one person refused to use it. Their logic was that skydiving is dangerous and they could die if they jump out of the airplane with a parachute. Thus they remained in the aircraft as it plummeted to the ground.

Was that person’s decision based on sound logic and reasoning? 

Tragically the same flawed logic is been applied to our nation’s energy policy. Energy is one of biggest challenges we face in the modern world. Extracting and converting energy to usable forms is costly and is levying a terrible toll on this spaceship called Earth and its inhabitants. The quest to meet energy demands is imposing high costs in the forms of pollution, environmental damage, exploitation, wars, etc. 

Unfortunately, instead of facing this challenge with realistic, workable solutions, the clowns we have for leaders (no offense to any actual clowns) have chosen either to ignore the problem or come up pixie dust, virtue signal driven solutions that have little basis in reality. Neither of these solve the problem and the latter insidiously creates the illusion that the problem is being solved. 

The challenges we face are compounded by the fact that we often only told one side of the story. What is touted as a “game changer” solution has negative impacts that are dismissed, ignored, and/or covered up. 

A solution with no downsides does not exist when it comes to energy. Many of the current “green solutions” that are touted as “magic bullets” do not add up. They sound great but the hidden costs (both financially and in terms of environmental impacts) are enormous and they will leave us with a huge energy shortfall. 

Unfortunately, politicians are attracted to bright and shiny things, literally and figuratively.  After spending more than 2.2 billion dollars, the Ivanpah power plant is a failure and is being shut down after 11 years. It didn’t come close to fulfilling the promises that were made. We keep throwing billions around and pretty soon we will be talking about real money!

Side Note: Maybe that 2.2 billions of dollars could have been used to upgrade our energy infrastructure to lower the risk of wild fires. Then again, it’s not as sexy and fun as trying to be “cutting edge” and holding a self-aggrandizing press conference, but it might have saved lives and property.

When we examine the entire picture when it comes to electric cars (I am a fan of electric cars) we see that there are tradeoffs. The mining for the raw materials exacts a huge toll on our planet, electric cars are often charged with electricity that comes from sources that are detrimental to the environment, and we have to deal with the hazardous wastes at the end of the car’s life cycle. These problems still exist even if they not directly impact the part of earth we inhabit.

This kind of thinking is the equivalent of peeing in the shallow end of the pool and then thinking it is fine to swim in the deep end. 

When it comes to energy or any other situation, eventually, reality is always going to end up being victorious.

Another strategy utilized by both sides is to limit us into two extreme and diametrically opposite options. Then we are forced to pick one. The nuanced, middle ground is eliminated from the discussion. The divisiveness that results creates a situation where it is impossible to find the best (not perfect) solution.

This strategy is applied to a broad ranges of issues and serves to keep the current political parties in power at our expense. We are all paying the price for this lack of leadership. 

Here is a radical idea: Why don’t we develop a comprehensive, reality-based plan to take on the challenge energy in the modern world? 

Realistic in the sense that it can actually meet the modern world’s demand for energy. Comprehensive in that the policy has a diverse array of energy sources. We need a reality-based plan that will transition us to cleaner methods of obtaining and using energy. 

Then, have an open and honest discussion examining the merits of said solutions by analyzing benefits and the costs (not just monetary) of each component of the plan. After that, some informed decisions must be made to address this issue so that it doesn’t continue to plague subsequent generations.

This is how mature, rational adults solve problems. If any idea is valid and rational, then it can withstand robust examination and can be justified by those who advocate for it. It doesn’t have to be sheltered by the equivalent of temper tantrum by a 3 year old (yelling, screaming, name calling, etc.). 

Just as important, an idea’s validity is not tied to the person or a group of people (political parties) proposing it. We all (especially our elected officials) have to care more about the idea itself then who is proposing it. 

It is time to put everything on the table, including one option that has been completely ignored, dismissed, and excluded from the energy conversation in the past few decades.  An option that can both meet the modern world’s energy needs and greatly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted. 

It is the “nuclear option” literally and figuratively. It is the “parachute” that many refuse to discuss, while at the same time screaming that we face an existential crisis (the plane crash). 

The pros of the nuclear option are that we can meet the energy needs of modern civilization while at the same time greatly reducing the negative impact on our planet that comes from using fossil fuels. In addition, we have a clean energy source to support the shift to electric vehicles, appliances, etc. This solves one of the major hidden issues of going electric.

Just like all solutions, nuclear fission also has its costs and downsides. It is expensive and we have to deal with the nuclear waste. But it would save us from the climate and other pollution issues that are adversely effecting human health and the environment. According to the World Health Organization, air pollution from energy kills an estimated 6.7 to 8.1 million people a year. This is a tragedy that could be greatly mitigated by incorporating nuclear energy. 

Is the nuclear option perfect, of course not, but differs from many “green solutions” in that it actually meets the energy needs of the modern world. 

Our Modest Proposal

Our country and our world needs action now. Our leaders need to lead. An initiative like our Space Program needs to be enacted by our President to tackle this issue and develop plans that unleash the creativity and innovation that could lead to comprehensive and diverse energy policy, including nuclear power generation.

• Develop a comprehensive energy portfolio that includes traditional, green, and nuclear energy options. 
• Design and build modern nuclear power plants (Generation 4) 
• Empower our leading educational institution and the private sector to develop methods to repurpose nuclear waste and/or to safely store it.
• Diversify our energy footprint (fossil fuels, solar, geothermal, hydrogen fuel cells, and electric)
• Hydrogen fuel generation (hydrolysis) as part of the nuclear power plant output.
• Improve on existing home energy generation (solar panels, geothermal, etc.)
• Develop in geothermal heating/cooling technologies for homes and cities.
• Unleash the private sector to re-engineer the internal combustion engine (including the diesel engine) so that it is cleaner and more efficient.

Examining and debating multiple facets of a comprehension of plan is how we can find solutions that align with reality and actually mitigate the negative impacts of obtaining and using energy. We are in dire need of the best (not perfect) solution and must keep revisiting this issue to allow for changing realities and technological advances.

If we are truly facing an existential crisis, nothing should be off the table. We need to make the necessary sacrifices now so that we cause irreparable damage to our planet that plagues subsequent generations.