The Case for Uranium
The sun only shines for part of the day, and wind only blows when a stock promoter is near or on windy days. Hydro power is limited to natural rivers and rainfall, and thus far no source of renewable energy is base power.
Base power is the power you use at 2:00 a.m. when you turn on the TV because you cannot fall back asleep. Base power is why you can work a full day and not expect to lose data when the computers crash. I have spent time in India, and the assumption of clean base power is non-existent. It is amazing to sit in an office building, lose power, and have no one panic.
Western civilization today is based on having utilities delivered on a stable, when-you-need-it basis. The economies of the UK, US, and even Greece would blow up even more if the grid shut down every time wind did not blow. We would go back to using candlelight at night, sleeping more in the winter, and getting up early in the summer to take advantage of sunlight.
Uranium is toxic, leaves a mess behind, and if used in an old plant in an earthquake zone, it can really mess things up. However, we have a choice: coal or uranium.
Gas is cleaner than coal, but gas still generates significant carbon at roughly 60% of coal. If we want a zero-carbon environment, gas is a dead end.
If you believe in global warming, coal and gas usage must end. By default, that means uranium usage must go up. Nothing else can replace coal as a base power source. Renewables like solar, wind, and hydro are capped at a small percentage of the total grid. New energy sources like thorium (we love thorium) may solve the problem in the future, but at the rate consensus feels global warming is occurring, governments thinking about banning uranium should think twice.
Nuclear power plants should be receiving tens of billions of dollars of government funding for building and proper maintenance, and put towards research and development so new generations can be designed. Currently we have no other viable option.
Comments