Site Content
Energy
Imagine you are flying on a small airplane and the plane begins to nose dive due to a catastrophic malfunction. A crash is imminent. Thankfully, each person has a parachute but one person refuses you use it. Their logic is that skydiving is dangerous and many people have died due to skydiving accidents. Thus the person won’t take the parachute and jump out of the diving airplane. Is that person using sound logic?
Tragically the same flawed logic is being applied to our nation’s energy policy.
Energy is the biggest challenge we face as a species. The negative impacts that result from obtaining and using energy are severe. Extracting and converting energy to usable forms is costly and is exacting a terrible toll on this spaceship called Earth and its inhabitants. The quest to meet energy demands has exacted a human toll due to pollution, conflict, and wars.
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 virtue signal driven solutions that are not based on reality. We are already seeing this debacle take place with the Ivanpah power plant. Billions of dollars spent and now it is being shut down after 11 years. Think what we can have done in California with all those billions of dollars (one thing that comes to mind is upgrading our energy infrastructure to lower the risk of wild fires).
The problem/challenge of energy is exponentially worse by the fact that we are forced to choose between extreme and diametrically opposed options. Are these the only options that exist? Of course not, but this allows them to divide us so that they can grab and hold onto power at the expense of sensible, realistic solutions (this approach played out to tragic consequences with Covid).
A “magic bullet” does not exist when it comes to energy (maybe it is cold fusion, but we are not there yet). Many of the current actions that are touted as “magic bullets” do not add up. They sound great but the hidden costs (both financially and in terms of pollution) are enormous and they will leave us with a huge energy shortfall. When faced with the reality an energy shortfall there only options are to generate energy or ration energy (blackouts). With history as our guide, we know who will not be affected by blackouts: the elites (the ruling class, the wealthy, the powerful, etc.). Just think French Laundry on a massive scale.
We are all paying the price for this lack of leadership.
Here is a crazy idea. Why don’t we develop a comprehensive, realistic plan to take on this challenge? 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. Then, have an open and honest discussion examining the benefits versus 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.
Ever notice that when politicians share a proposed policy/solution they never mention any downsides (except those that are equivalent to the answer we all give in a job interview when asked to share our biggest weakness!).
We are in dire need of true leadership like we saw during WW2.
Back to the lecture at hand, first and foremost we need a reality-based plan that transitions us to cleaner methods to obtain energy in usable forms.
There is 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.
Just like all solutions, nuclear fission 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.
The technology for nuclear energy has vastly improved in regards to safety and nuclear waste. Class 4 reactors would enable us generate energy to meet the demand in a very safe manner while reducing greenhouse case emissions and other pollutants release by traditional energy generating methods. In addition, it would allow us to be energy independent and provide clean electrical energy to help us as we transition to cleaner sources of energy.
That brings me to another important point. As we shift away from the internal combustion engine to electric vehicles we have to examine the benefits versus cost. Something that has not been done.
While electric cars are amazing because there is zero emissions coming from the car, there series consequences related to obtaining the raw materials needed to build the car and the issue of disposal after the car/battery is no longer operational (we are on the cusp of having to deal with this on a large scale). We are just shifting the pollution and environmental damage to another part of the world.
We are peeing in the deep end of a swimming pool, yet deceiving ourselves into thinking we can swim in the shallow end without any consequence of our actions. “Exporting” the pollution out of our “backyard” does not solve the global issue we face.
Is the nuclear option perfect, of course not. Unlike the plans we have been implementing, it actually solves the problem. Our world need 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 much safer nuclear power generation and also solve the challenging issue of the how to deal with the nuclear waste.
· Design and build modern nuclear plants (utilize class 4 technology, pebble bed, etc).
· Empower our leading educational institution and the private sector to develop methods to repurpose nuclear waste or to safely store it.
· Diversify our energy footprint (hydrogen fuel cells as well as electric battery)
· Hydrogen fuel generation (hydrolysis) as part of the nuclear power plant output.
Sadly, an honest discussion about nuclear power has been completely excluded from our energy policy discussions since the 1980s.
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 don’t pass this same issue on the subsequent generations.