Japan’s Nuclear Meltdown, John Boehner, and Solar
Here we go again, another disaster caused by nature’s wrath and the limitations of doing things the old way. What now?
Aside from the human tragedy caused not only by the Japanese tsunami, but the aftermath of it’s effect on their nuclear power plant (40+ years old mind you) the implications for what should be learned, and the financial limitations of this are of the utmost importance, yet… of course, widely unaddressed. And the wheel goes around and around as usual. Pissed off yet? I am.
Our lives depend on the widespread availability of energy, and we are willing to pay for this lest we start living the way we were in the caveman days. Of course this means that we need very large scale energy production resources, which are best served by coal, nuclear, and natural gas right now (there, I said it).
Still, when is Washington going to start looking at the real costs of sustaining these proven yet antiquated technologies? Moreover, when is the business community going to start understanding the value of safety and predictability that make the case for a sooner-than-later shift to solar and other renewables a much more compelling option from the financial side? It’s disheartening to see what data is being used to evaluate different energy sources. What’s more, there’s no accounting for the highly unlikely and absurdely unpredictable events such as the one we’re experiencing now in Japan. Events that cost money… real money. It’s estimated that the damage caused by the Japanese tsunami on Japan’s nuclear power plant is upwards of $25 billion dollars. This, mind you could be close or not close to the real number, but if we look at the overall cost of rebuilding nuclear on that site in light of the inevitable heightened security, backup, and safety regulations, then consider the current cost of the basic materials necessary to build such a plant – just the concrete and steel required, take away the uranium, we get a pretty stark picture. It’s important to understand the accounting used in the energy sector, and how it effects the viability of new technology vs old. While the costs of building nuclear power plants can do nothing but rise as both direct costs such as the materials mentioned above, and indirect ones relating to time delays, permitting, legal, environmental, and other factors continue to move in an aggressively upward trajectory, there remains one technology who’s costs have maintained a steady decline for the past 40 years. It’s called solar. Look at the numbers and consider that during the lifespan of an average nuclear power plant (estimated at 50 years) the odds of a major event forcing a shutdown or hazard are 50-50, and the costs of these range in the billions, and you see a picture that favors a more modular, radiation-free, non polluting source of energy which gets cheaper with each new factory that gets built around the world, and the case is simple. We need not try to convince people of the implications of air pollution, contaminating ground water, or hazardous waste anymore. The humbling fact is that the people who have made the largest investments in these technologies and thus have the most to lose, are not willing to hear this. They speak one language, the language of money, and when major events like the one that is ruining the lives of thousands of people as I write this occur there needs to be a new economic analysis considered. Insurance premiums on these facilities is bound to skyrocket in response to this event – after all, the insurance companies have to recoup these losses somehow, and the reinsurance premiums are already spiking based on the reality that these nuclear plants are aging around the world, and there is a severe shortage of people with the necessary skills to keep them safe. Add to that the nearly impossible prospect of building plants on new pieces of land where nuclear power is not already being produced and we start to see a grim financial picture. Yes, nuclear produces an awful lot of power in relatively little space, with almost no CO2 emmissions, but if this were to consider this anything near the whole story we would simply be dreaming. For now, we offer our thoughts and support to the latest group of thousands of people who have fallen victim to their dependence on antiquated energy solutions. We wish them as little pain as possible, and with any luck, and a renewed interest in logic, maybe we can even use this to take a step forward to truly producing abundant safe, secure energy. Sooner than later. What are your thoughts on this topic? -Joe
No related posts.
Solar Visionaries Career Center
