I drank my morning coffee and said a silent thank you to William
Thorsell, former publisher of the Globe and Mail, for his op-ed piece
entitled Burn, baby, burn: Why we're back to nuclear power. Loaded with money
quotes, Thorsell suveys the energy field in short order and arrives at
the conclusion held by many in the electrical and energy business. If
you want massive, scalable energy self-sufficiency you have to think
nuclear. Or newqyoular if you prefer.
The essay is short, to the point and full of honest to goodness truths,
rather than half-baked, highschool science class hopes. Thorsell is
unequivocal in voicing not just contempt; but also, complete
bewilderment regarding the public process behind the issue of nuclear
waste:
"The handling of nuclear waste is not a pressing technical issue, and
can be safely enmeshed in endless public hearings, where its
essentially political nature ensures harmless inaction."
can be safely enmeshed in endless public hearings, where its
essentially political nature ensures harmless inaction."
Regarding a continued reliance on fossil fuels for electricity
generation, he points out:
"The Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. military has been
spending $4 to $5 a barrel to protect oil exports by sea from the
Middle East since the early 1980s, a transaction cost growing higher as
the adventure in Iraq ignites Arab-on-Arab terrorism. New supplies
elsewhere do not promise to fill any void created by Middle East
internecine passions."
spending $4 to $5 a barrel to protect oil exports by sea from the
Middle East since the early 1980s, a transaction cost growing higher as
the adventure in Iraq ignites Arab-on-Arab terrorism. New supplies
elsewhere do not promise to fill any void created by Middle East
internecine passions."
Some point out that increasing our nuclear reliance increases the possibility
for terrorism and the proliferation of destructive nuke technologies;
but that genie is already out of the bottle and as Thorsell states:
"With nuclear back
in favour, prospects for supply brighten, but the dependability of distribution remains at issue, as we saw Aug. 14. Technical and terrorist threats to this centralized system remain significant, and contingency planning for long-term distribution interruptions appears inadequate."
in favour, prospects for supply brighten, but the dependability of distribution remains at issue, as we saw Aug. 14. Technical and terrorist threats to this centralized system remain significant, and contingency planning for long-term distribution interruptions appears inadequate."
What is the emergency
plan for 30 days without any home heating or water in Toronto in January if the power goes down because of a distribution failure? Maybe there just can't be one, given the certainty of chaos, so a dependable supply of electricity is the closest equation there is these days to peace, order and good government. Lose electricity and we lose the social
order."
Thorsell saves the best for last. No
politician would dare say it but his statement rings truer than any of
the rhetorical crap that has been spouted by any party in any election
of note lately:
"Medicare
gets all the political attention, while the much more
fundamental question of our energy supplies and systems percolates
off-stage. The first duty of the state is the security of the citizen,
not the care of the ill. We got a glimpse of that last August."
(c) copyright 2004,2005,2006,2007 by Bradford Gibson. Almost all rights reserved. Citation for journalistic, academic or weblog use is permitted with attribution.
Post new comment