[tt] Independent: Greener power to the people: the real energy alternative?

[Jef]

Allen Smith wrote:
> Is there some particular reason not to do _both_ solar cells _and_ nuclear
> reactors? ... we're going to need _all_ of
> solar, nuclear, and other sources.
>
> 	-Allen
>
> In message <Pine.NEB.4.64.0806011613470.4033 at panix2.panix.com> (on 1 June
> 2008 16:15:36 -0400), checker at panix.com (Premise Checker) wrote:
>   
>> Greener power to the people: the real energy alternative?
>> http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/greener-power-to-the-people-the-real-energy-alternative-837821.html 
>> 8.6.1
>>     

As Wired magazine points out in its most recent issue, it would be 
terribly irresponsible not to develop ALL forms of new energy. Whether 
the "green" alternatives will be all that people hope is still a matter 
for conjecture. There will no doubt be many places on the planet where 
nuclear is the only good choice. Third generation reactors hold great 
promise, and can be online as quickly as the "green" tech, with the 
political will being equal. A vote against nuclear is a vote for 
continuing to burn coal for much longer than is necessary. And it is 
arguable that the environmental footprint for nuclear is actually much 
lower than some "green" sources such as hydroelectric.

I also believe that human electrical generation requirements will 
continue to grow through the decades ahead and demand will once again 
outstrip our supply. We need to get over the cultish fear of nuclear 
energy in order to advance. China seems strongly committed to a diverse 
energy portfolio, and so should be the West.

Finally, let's not get too caught up over the ideologically driven 
optimism about green tech. Some of that is as much faerie dust as many 
other sought technological advances. Let's have many choices, not just a 
few.