I think you are missing the mark on you concern over electricity generation. Here are the statistics on the sources of electric generation in the US:

eia.doe.gov

As you can see, Petroleum is a small fraction. Even though the problems caused by Peak Oil will be numerous and severe, I believe the impact on electricity generation will be minimal based on these numbers.

On other words, you are misleading when you confuse the issues of Peak Oil with the future of electricity generation in the US. Even though it does not fit in with the traditional green activist positions, I believe the Nuclear power is an extremely viable answer to this problem. I grew up in Carlsbad, New Mexico where there is a Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility for low-level nuclear waste. It is fine. A complete non-issue, other than the local people employed there for going on two decades, and related economic stimulus to the town (which is otherwise dependent on the dying tourism and potash industries).

Since my Peak Oil awareness moment, I've been thinking a lot about what the future of energy could look like, and discussing the topic with people.

One of my best friends works for a power company in New Mexico, and he claimed that nuclear energy was the most viable short and long-term option, if fuel recycling is allowed as an option. Why don't more people talk about nuclear fuel recycling? It makes nuclear much closer to a 'renewable' energy source.

Small Reactors - "Nuclear Batteries":
* slashdot.org

In Defense of Nuclear Energy:
* ecolo.org

Solar Panel Toxic Waste:
* washingtonpost.com

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant:
* westgov.org

Recycling links:
* alsos.wlu.edu

* chemcases.com

Bottom line, when I look at the downsides of Nuclear, they are miniscule compared to the alternatives, and for quickly ramping up, the practical logistics of nuclear are much better than building billions of dollars of solar panels and windmills which will have their own environmental impact.

I am not afraid of nuclear waste. I AM afraid of the the long term effects of coal mining/burning, acid rain, etc; as well as the devastating effect of dams on the nation's waterways; as well as the risk that we simply won't be able to meet our short-term electrical generation needs with solar, wind - and that these deployments would cause their own problems. Nuclear is here, it works, and we have already overcome the majority of the logistical and technological hurdles, as you mention in this article.

The only opposition is political, ironically from the green movement and other like-minded activists, as well as the coal/construction lobby. Greens and activists due to knee-jerk reactions (Three Mile Island was a non-event!) and the coal/construction lobby due to blatant financial interests.

We really need to think outside the box, and for electrical generation, I think nuclear is clearly the best short-term solution. Also, if it enables us to move more quickly and cleanly (than solar/wind) to an electric-based rather than fossil-fuel-based society, it is a long-term benefit as well.





For more on a wide array of other topics, please visit the oftwominds.com weblog.