We Need More Nuclear Power?

(Left is the Pickering Nuclear Plan)

We need ongoing and secure energy sources. Oil, at least from unstable foreign sources, is not secure and may not be ongoing.

There is little alternative to nuclear -- yes solar and wind power are helpful and may, eventually, be a major, or even the major, source for energy but for the immediate future we need to employ Canada's proven CANDU technology.

This view, albeit from a rather different perspective, is accepted by James Lovelock, probably the world's best known and most respected environmental scientist.

Lovelock is the inventor of the Gaia theory (that the earth behaves like a living organism and actively sustains its climate and chemistry to keep itself habitable). He argues that the Earth to have reached a dangerous condition. `Green lobbies,' he says, `are well-intentioned, but ... they recommend inappropriate remedies and action. Wind turbines and bio-fuels alone will not cure the Earth's sickness.'

Lovelock recommends that nuclear energy, as part of a portfolio of energy sources. . Lovelock, a strong believer in global warming, suggests that by the time Greenland's icy mountains have melted the sea will have risen seven metres, making low lying cities such as London, New York, Tokyo, Calcutta and Venice uninhabitable. A four degree rise in temperature will eliminate the vast Amazon forests which are a great global air conditioner. Extra heat from greenhouse gases, the disappearance of arctic ice, the changing structure of the oceans surface and the destruction of tropical forests will be amplified. Since Kyoto, little has happened. `Somewhere between 400 and 600 parts per million of carbon dioxide the Earth passes a threshold beyond which global warming becomes irreversible. We are now at 380 ppm and could reach 400 ppm by 2012.'

`We must stop gaining energy from fossil fuels in a way that emits greenhouse gases to the air,' says Lovelock. `And we must do it in the next decade.'

Green concepts of sustainable development and renewable energy are beguiling dreams that can lead only to failure. `I cannot see the US or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back,' he says. `To retain civilisation, our survivors will need Draconian energy saving, the self-restraint to stop burning fossil fuel, and a secure and reliable source of energy. There is no sensible alternative to nuclear energy. We need something much more effective than the green ideology of the Kyoto agreement.'

The unavoidable truth is that wind and solar energy are, at least until storage capacity is vastly improved, temporary sources of energy. They work when you have wind or sun. So only people who are happy to read, use their computer or watch TV only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining will be happy to rely on wind and solar energy for their electricity. For better or worse (and that's a matter of your views on development and energy use) we need nuclear power.

A very different view, from Richard Posner, who is a man worth listening to, is here:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/05/nuclear_powerpo.html