If we want to get away from Oil based energy, the only answer is nuclear. It's not just the only answer, it's the ONLY answer. Problem is, the same numbskulls that are trying to kill the oil indeustry (oh yes, they are) hate nuclear energy.
The world is a complex place. There are no black and whites. Everything is on a spectrum. There is no "only answer" to
anything. That sort of simplistic thinking doesn't help anyone, and doesn't solve anything.
The mix of fuel sources that power the grid will always be just that — a mix. Each fuel has its own advantages and disadvantages. How society weights those advantages and disadvantages changes over time, so what might have seemed bad it the past might be seen as good now and bad again in the future. One thing that can be said
for sure is that
change is guaranteed, and that the fuel mix will continually evolve.
I agree that Nuclear should play a larger role in the grids of most countries (with perhaps the exceptions of Japan and France). Whilst safety and waste disposal are valid issues that need to be well-managed, the amount of irrational fear and loathing people have for nuclear is simply not justified based on actual data.
Like solar farms, there are good places, and bad places, to build nuclear power stations. Competent governments only permit them to be built in appropriate places and transmit the power to more vulnerable parts of the grid.
In hurricane- and bushfire-prone areas I would like to see transmission lines go underground. Costs more but is much, much more resilient to adverse weather. Once again, competent governments interested in the well-being of their citizens would legislate this.
It is possible —
and apparently oh-so-easy — for incompetent and/or corrupt governments to 'screw up' otherwise beneficial energy sources. Care should be taken to lay the blame squarely on the legislators, and not the technology itself.
www.forbes.com
