Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
You know that in countries without nuclear, every MWh of wind power is less coal (or gas) being burned. I do not question your push for nuclear at all, but it would be nice if you could acknowledge that wind can be a significant part of the solution.

It will never be the sole solution, and I have never claimed it will be. But it is a real part of the solution. and in terms of PR, nuclear will probably be a lot more palatable if it is presented as being used to "a bare minimum" after renewables have been pushed as much as possible.

As you point out, that will still leave a major role for nuclear, but it's a much smarter position to take in public ("filling the gap" rather than "the only realistic solution"). Think about it!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 09:31:53 AM EST
Especially when you start looking at alternative financial solutions using renewables....

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 09:36:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
as well as uranium being a limited resource just like anything else we dig up out of the ground.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 02:09:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
20 % aint peanuts, and more importantly only Denmark is there yet. The potential for more wind power is vast.

The only problem is that over-the-top hallelujah about it make people believe that they don't need either nuclear or coal (or gas). And then it is always easier from a political point of view to go with gas instead of nuclear.

Not that I am saying that you are promoting wind over the top like it is the solution instead of a part of the solution.

But doing that is very usual within the "environmental" movement.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sat Mar 10th, 2007 at 04:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And, of course, that nuclear power is a relatively slow to augment option ... saying "go" now means that it will be a decade or so before new power is being produced.

Hansen/others clearly state that we don't have the decade to wait before changing our ways.

Need to pursue renewable/lower GHG options aggressively -- especially like wind, ocean that have potential for fast moving from conception to operation. Need to be pursuing (aggressively) negawatts.

Need a holistic strategy ... and can't be talking about specific silver bullets in isolation from that totality.

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!

by a siegel (siegeadATgmailIGNORETHISdotPLEASEcom) on Mon Mar 12th, 2007 at 09:55:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Energy crisis in 1973, "GO!" in 1974. At that time France almost completely lacked competence in the vital industrial fields of uranium enrichment and heavy boiler work needed for a massive rollout of PWR's. Considering all, it was pretty swift, and it could be done again.

What takes time is energy "reviews" and political bickering.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Mon Mar 12th, 2007 at 11:42:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series