Nuclear Energy and Politics:

It's Complicated

For years, the mantra has been that the Republicans are in favor of nuclear energy and the Democrats are against it, so if you're a nuke, "Republicans good, Dems bad."  I have always felt the truth was not so simple.  A recent article in the New York Times reinforces my viewpoint.  Even more interestingly, the author, Eduardo Porter looks at the issue from the point of view of climate change concerns.  But his conclusion is the same.  Basically, the political parties focus often focus on other issues, and things like nuclear power and climate change end up being "collateral damage."

The article notes that the liberal viewpoint criticizes conservatives for "climate change denial."  But, he notes that the liberals have their own biases that perhaps raise equal challenges for climate change measures being proposed.  Namely, many liberals are "anti-nuclear" and perhaps "anti-fracking" as well. 

Likewise, it has been my observation over the years that many advocates of nuclear power are also "fiscal conservatives" and therefore, are traditional against appropriating Federal funding for technological development.  Thus, in years when we've had a pro-nuclear Administration and/or Congress, the budgetary treatment of nuclear development has not necessarily been generous.

All of these observations are, of course, generalizations.  I personally know many people from both of the political parties whose views do not match the stereotypes I've noted above.  Hence, my liberal use of quotation marks.  My point is really that these issues are all complicated and have many factors.  People have biases and blind spots that sometimes cause them to end up undermining a cause they profess to support.

Unfortunately, the diagnosis is easier than the cure.  It seems to be difficult to get people to change preconceived biases, or to abandon positions they previously espoused.  And yet, people do change, and many of us probably know people whose views have shifted over the years--possibly in both directions.  I am hopeful that, over time, people will learn to understand better how their views on one issue may sometimes undermine their interests on another issue, and may moderate their positions accordingly.

In the meantime, I think those of us who feel that liberal equals anti-nuclear and conservative equals pro-nuclear should look closely at our own biases about the two ends of the political spectrum.

***

Climate Change and Science:

The Case for Greater Logic

A recent article in the New York Times highlighted some of the inconsistencies many of us have long noted between the concerns over climate change and the actions being taken--or not being taken--and added a few.

Eduardo Porter starts his discussion by asking whether America's efforts to combat climate change are going off the rails.  He then continues by saying, "environmental experts are suggesting that some parts of the [U.S.] strategy are, at best, a waste of money and time. At worst, they are setting the United States in the wrong direction entirely."

The point that came as the greatest surprise to me was that allowing the burning of biomass in power plants to help reduce consumption of fossil fuels produces 50 percent more carbon dioxide than burning coal.  This seems contrary to all the discussions I have heard about the benefits of using biomass, and the article didn't provide enough detail to allow me to verify the statement independently, but at the very least, it suggests we may need to analyze the biomass option more thoroughly before we commit to it.   

The article also panned some energy conservation efforts, particularly weatherization programs, on economic grounds, saying that they cost more than twice as much as the energy savings they produce.  Furthermore, energy efficiency efforts worldwide are slowing, according to the article.

The concern is that a lot of the strategy for reducing carbon emissions relies on energy efficiency improvements and the use of biomass, so if these strategies are flawed, the U.S. and the world is unlikely to meet carbon-reduction goals.  The author doesn't mince words, saying that such strategies "are driven more by hope than science."  He bemoans the fact that ideological considerations are limiting the options, and are excluding potentially more viable options such as nuclear power.

While this article seems to focus perhaps a bit too much on concerns about biomass, the overall case it makes--that we need to be guided by science and not by unfounded phobias and unreasonable hopes--is a very important one.  As the U.S. and the world continue to make decisions on how to reduce carbon emissions, we cannot rely on preconceived biases or simplistic assumptions about the benefits or liabilities of any option. 

***