While nuclear power should never be a
first choice, due to the many dangers (in operation, the costs involved,
and the waste material produced) it can be a viable alternative. That is, nuclear power is not
something to 'direct away from' a priori, but an option. Another topic of
discussion in producing the energy that more than seven billion fellow
travelers on this planet require now and will require in the future.
Take for example France, the largest
exporter of power derived from nuclear sources. The country has some 58
nuclear power plants, which produce about 70-80% of the electrical power
in that country, or put in another way, about 40% or so of its total power
consumption, versus about 10% in the United States.
The population density in France is
more than 300% of that in the US (2004, that was 110 people versus 31 people, per square
kilometer) so France's solutions would not be the solutions for the United States, especially
given the existing natural resources in each respective country based upon the area of the nation. But still,
dismissing one particular solution over another out of hand (without
a through investigation of the pros and cons, costs and benefits, and
risks and rewards) is not necessarily a logical manner of determining the best
choices overall. Life is full of dangers regardless of their source, either way. Even if not planning on using such, one must understand all the factors relating to the issues
in specific circumstances, so as to come to a reasonable conclusion
based upon those specific factors.
As far as conventional fuel sources go,
there are a number of issues involved, bypassing even the question of nuclear energy. With conventional sources, hopefully (perhaps expectedly) research and development
(as well as economic pressures and the like) will result in cleaner
coal-fired power plants, although that still does leave the question
of mining the coal, and its availability. Sources of methane give
the impression that there is basically a limitless supply, although
some debate still exists on the subject. New discoveries of oil, and
the quantities of it available from shale (and the economic pressures
and advances in technology) make it also a resource that should far
exceed the expectations of its continued availability. So on
multiple fronts, the use of conventional fuels does not seem to be
going away any time soon, regardless of what using them means on an environmental
front one way or the other. We must deal with what is, not what we
want it to be.
So to get to the "alternative
renewable sources" other than nuclear.
Hydro-based power is currently
responsible for much of both the base and peak contribution to
non-fossil fuel energy sources, but there is a limit to how much
energy water can produce, which depends upon the location and the
systems to produce it more so than we can directly control the water
itself upon demand.
Wind-based power may contribute more
and more, but there is a limit to both the efficiency and costs of
wind turbines, as well as a limit to where we can put them and how
many we can put there. There are also other ramifications such as
aesthetic and wildlife concerns.
Solar-based power is also promising,
with recent thin film and clear cell technologies that will spread
out emplacement and efficiency. After taking into consideration life
cycle and maintenance considerations of course. This seems the
most promising of the alternative fuels.
Hydrogen-based power can also be an
answer. Creating hydrogen fuel and stations in various areas with the
population density or pollution concerns to make it practically or
economically viable can be part of the answer.
Biofuels are also a possibility, but
they have their own trip-wires, such as over the cycle, it seems that
adding and removing the vegetation would lower the amount of
greenhouse gases they can sink far more than the benefits of
replacing petroleum provide. Although there is some indication that
food sources may be impacted by using agriculture to produced fuel
instead, this is probably a red-herring, perhaps; the source versus
sink issue is a far larger concern.
In most of the above cases, the issue
is also of storage. What battery technologies are here now, and what
are on the horizon, to store the created energy that can't be fed
back into the grid?
This all leads to the question. In the
face of scarce resources, how do we best manage them for both the
planet and humanity? What possible unintended consequences do we
face now and in the future? Is humanity actually able to control
what the weather and climate do? Are the same technological advances
that allowed over seven billion of us to be alive able to reduce or
remove whatever affect we have upon the planet, given the
uncertainties that exist?
Regardless, when it comes down to the
end of the trail on this subject, humans and their actions producing
energy by the use of fuels and the way we shape the surface of our
habitat is an issue that needs to be wisely managed and planned for
in the future, and only by an honest assessment of all possibilities
and their consequences can we reach a reasonable answer that will not
cause other problems that we didn't expect.
