Allegan County News & Union Enterprise Clare County Review & Marion Press Commercial Record Courier-Leader & Flashes LaFayette Sun

Mike’s Musings: Forget fossil fuels, solar power-nuclear energy is best

In attempting to break through the logjam between clean air advocates and those who think our reliance on fossil fuels will not go away any time soon, we have forgotten what I think could be an important alternative- nuclear energy.
Green New Deal proponents always talk about carbon footprints. Nuclear energy has virtually no carbon footprint. It is widely known as one of the cleanest forms of energy ever produced. It is extremely reliable and probably more cost effective than any other form of energy.
So why isn’t it being considered as the best alternative to fossil fuels? Or for that matter, windmills?
Rather than consideration as a viable alternative, nuclear sites all over the country are being decommissioned. In other words, we are shutting them down, instead of updating them. The same can be said for refineries that produce the gas and oil we now use. No one is investing money in refineries, which is understandable, but nuclear facilities- we should be all over them.
I would hope a Green New Deal advocate could explain to me why we should favor windmills and solar over nuclear. The materials we use for windmills and solar are mostly made in China, a country that could care less about carbon emissions. In addition, windmills, placed in clumps all over a particular area are unsightly and disturbing to birds. I’m not sure I would consider them environmentally friendly.
I can point to two nuclear plants, one in Covert, Michigan called Palisades and another in California that are being decommissioned as we speak, despite pleas from both liberal governors to keep them operating. Those plants provide a heckuva lot of energy for the areas they serve, and without them costs of energy for homeowners will likely escalate.
The naysayers would point to the cost of constructing a nuclear plant and the accidents that have occurred- Three Mile Island and Chernoybl to name a couple. I can’t argue the cost to construct but experts say the rate of nuclear energy fatalities compared to other energy sources is extremely low. For instance Chernoybl was responsible for the death of 60 people. It is estimated that coal as an energy source is responsible for the death of 30,000 people per year. Three Mile Island was big news but overall, nuclear energy facilities are considered very safe.
So where do we go from here? We can continue producing fossil fuels. In fact, I think that is quite necessary. To end as Green New Deal advocates demand by 2030, is unrealistic. Solar and wind only produce ten percent of the world’s energy nw. We won’t be able to provide energy to everyone through solar and wind technology in eight years. No way, no how.
My suggestion is we move towards nuclear as quick and safely as possible. By doing so we are appeasing both sides of the energy equation, but more importantly we are producing cost efficient energy that won’t break our pocketbooks, as solar and windmills might.

Leave a Reply