One additional point, in that article (
‘Greenpeace should now go pro-nuke’), the following statement was made:
Quote:
Environmental groups advocate investing in wind and solar power as an alternative to nuclear power. But Moore dismissed these alternatives as unreliable and expensive. “Germany has spent billions on wind farms, without replacing a single coal-fired power station,” he said.
While it is very true that (at the moment), renewable/sustainable energy sources like solar and wind are expensive and unreliable compared to non-renewable (oil, gas, coal, uranium, etc) is that the only criteria on which they are to be judged?
While research by various institutions and agencies is ongoing, to address the “efficiency” limitations of solar energy (especially photovoltaics), are the renewable sources required to be as efficient to be seen as competitive (or desirable), as targets towards the goal of reducing/eliminating our dependence on geological sources (e.g., fossil fuels and radioactive materials)?
Solar and wind energy are also obviously “unreliable”, compared to the conventional sources – wind turbines require a certain wind speed to be effective / functional, and solar devices in particular can obviously be used only during the day-time for power conversion (and would clearly be less effective on overcast days, etc). So, at least at the present time, these “carbon neutral” or “climate friendly” or “ecologically compatible” options cannot fully replace the more environmentally damaging energy sources / infrastructure. But is that the only intention of investing in them? Further, does that mean that they should be abandoned in favour of nuclear energy?
All things considered, I was under the impression that “sustainability” had three main aspects for consideration:
• Economic
• Social
• Ecological
From this perspective, in selecting a method to replace or reduce dependence on fossil fuels, the technology should ideally be economically viable and socially acceptable, while avoiding environmental degradation. Strangely enough, however, Moore’s endorsement of nuclear energy and derisiveness towards solar energy, seems to be premised upon economic factors only (depending furthermore on which definition of “economics” is used). While solar energy may be less efficient, of lower cost-effectiveness and unreliable (intermittent output), in relation to nuclear energy, can it seriously be said, all things considered, that it is superior from the perspective of being socially acceptable or environmentally benign?