I've got the power!

There's little doubt that within my lifetime, the use of fossil fuels as our primary source of energy will become a notion that is simply untenable.

One of my major projects in my Master of Strategic Studies analysed the relationship between energy and environmental sustainability. At the risk of sounding like an elitist wanker, the results are beyond the scope of this simple blog.

However, we must start thinking about realistic alternatives to fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. While there are many idealistic notions of environmentaliy friendly forms of power generation the fact is that a lot more research and development needs to take place before the yield of sources such as solar and wind power become efficient.

Conspiracy theorists believe that viable options exist but are being suppressed by various governments and oil companies but due to a lack of credible evidence I will not entertain that notion any more than I have just done.

A balance between energy and environment is an important one. There is no definitive answer as the balance is a matter of opinion and preference. Furthermore, I hypothesise that there exists no 'absolute' clean energy source and that such a value can only be measured in 'relative' terms.

There are many different ways of measuring 'cleanliness' and most perspectives have valid points. Coal, gas and oil are dirtier than solar and wind power when measuring pollution. However, when considering other externalities such as aesthetics some might argue that acres of wind farms produces a greater eyesore than a stand alone fossil fuel power plant.

So lets cut the crap and get onto the real point of this post: Nuclear power. There, I said it! Don't pretend to be shocked because everybody who started reading this post knew this was where it was going... and if you didn't then i'm surprised you managed to read this far.

When it comes to Nuclear power I am neither for nor against. Don't get me wrong, there are factors that I have strong opinions about but overall I would have to say that i am unsure.

I live in New Zealand, a nuclear free nation that has educated its citizens against the option of nuclear power. Nuclear power is a dirty word and in government circles is a proposal that is not even allowed to be discussed.

There are many disadvantages to nuclear power primarily that of the lasting effects of nuclear waste and the catastrophic results of reactor accidents. However, there is another side of the story that warrants investigation. I'm not saying that it justifies nuclear energy but it does form the basis of a good discussion.

If you are of the opinion that no matter what arguments are put forward you are simply unwilling to consider logical alternatives then this blog isn't for you as I don't like closed minded illogical hippie fucks (and don't bother coming back because this will never be a forum suitable for you)!

[By the way, I don't believe in being passive aggressive. I believe in aggressive aggressive... why hide it?]

The arguments for nuclear energy are numerous. First of all nuclear power plants produce essentially no greenhouse gas emissions or air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides or particulates. What's more, the quantity of waste produced by nuclear plants is small and this figure shrinks exponentially when compared with the large yield of energy, ease of transport and storage. While there currently exist relatively low production costs it is also proposed that future designs may be small and modular and therefore more accessible to the public. [Not a good idea in my opinion]

Proponents also cite the fact that there have existed a small number of accidents in power plants. However we must not and cannot forget the disastrous consequences when such accidents do occur.

Would it not be beneficial to society to be able to develop methods of safer storage and refinement of nuclear fuel and waste? Do the benefits not warrant at least a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing the nuclear path and the exploration of safer measures?

Like it or not, nuclear power is a viable alternative. The only questions are 'Are we able to significantly reduce the risks' and 'Are we willing to live with the consequences of failure'?

I don't have the answers yet, and will only be able to decide once logical arguments are made in the appropriate forum.