Natural Gas and Nuclear: The Bridge to the Future

Ask any environmentalist and they'll tell you the less carbon dioxide, the better. That being case, it would be prudent to ask that person if they consider themselves sensible. By definition, sensible means "having, using, or showing good sense  or sound judgment." Al Gore's goal of "producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and other clean sources within 10 years" is far from sensible. Given that it took more than two hundred years to go from wood, to coal, to oil, to natural gas, to nuclear. Given all their huge advantages, it is, by definition, insensible, to expect to dismantle America's entire conventional energy industry to replace it with alternative energy alone, given their plethora of disadvantages. One conclusion can be drawn with absolute certainty: Energy transitions take time..lots of time. An excellent article by energy journalist Robert Bryce supports this assertion with a factual breath of fresh air. If there were ever a 100% renewable America, or world, for that matter, I see it happening only one way. It's not closed mindedness that's part of my judgement, in fact, it's the opposite. The fact of the matter is that like any project that requires a massive undertaking, such as revamping America's energy economy, it will, as was stated earlier, take lots of time. What then, could accomplish this low emissions goal in the short term, while allowing for the 100% renewable goal to make its decadal, perhaps centennial,  transition? It's no secret that natural gas is cleaner than coal: According to the EPA, "Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant." As such, a sensible person would find natural gas an attractive alternative to coal, while keeping their eye on the prize, given the time necessary to make the transition. If you are a committed environmentalist still not convinced, don't worry, your intellectual independence is very important and I do not plan on compromising that. Realize, however, that had coal production been replaced by natural gas in 2009, according to the EIA, carbon dioxide emissions would have been cut from 1,876.8 million metric tons to 938.4. This seems to be something that is consistent with all environmentalist's values. As such, it becomes obvious that this is not only the fastest, but the most environmentally and economically efficient way to reduce emissions. From there, nuclear appears to be even more attractive: It produces zero emissions and due to its enormous energy density, takes up the smallest amount of land space of energy source. Concerned about its American safety record? Don't be. Nuclear, out of all the energy industries, despite what you might hear on television, has a perfect safety record of zero deaths.  On the contrary, 41 people in the Wind Energy industry died in 2008 alone. In fact, candles kill more people than nuclear energy. Instead of deviating further to try to win any unconvinced hearts and minds over on the issue of nuclear energy, I encourage you to watch this excellent debate where lifelong environmentalist Stewart Brand, author of the Whole Earth Discipline (one of my personal favorites), explains why the planet desperately needs nuclear power better than I ever could. Imagine what the United States, perhaps the world, would look like if nuclear energy had been embraced fully when the technology was developed in the mid-twentieth century. We would be much further down the line in nuclear technology, exploring fusion and institutionalizing thorium as a substitute for uranium would be a common reality. Coal? Oil? Natural Gas? It's likely that they would exist, albeit in much smaller function, as nuclear is superior in every way from energy density to emissions. Electric cars today are likely to get their energy from some source of fossil fuel. If nuclear energy was the frontrunner, they wold be legitimately zero emissions. What about renewable energy? While transitioning from a nuclear dominated energy society, I doubt if we made it that far that many would want to trade it for hundreds of acres of wind turbines and solar panels. Keep in mind, however, that that option remains there. If I am in France, where 70% of its power comes from zero emissions nuclear power, I would prefer to spend my time trying to finalize the final 30% to nuclear, rather than the entire 100% to renewable. Keep in mind though, that to get there would require no less than transitioning from coal to natural gas and nuclear. Only from there is the 100% renewable energy utopia plausible. Now it becomes more evident that simply dismantling our conventional energy structure is not simple, and achieving it will take decades and decades. It may hurt, but its the truth. This Faustian bargain of sorts is consistent with the political process and represents bipartisanship, not lack of principle. If you are reading this, I encourage you to consider my position as I have certainly and liberally considered yours.