Previously, I talked a bit about energy production and speculated on the prospects for the future and where I think we should be headed as a nation.

Following my lead, the NYT has this article about nuclear power generation as a windfall for poor areas.

The article points out a 50% increase in energy demand in the next decade. Quite frankly, I find that number alarming. We are, in no way, going to be able to meet anything approximating that kind of demand in a decade. Even if we had a Manhattan Project for energy research. We simply won't be able to get anything to market that fast.

The article also states that the negative feelings associated with nuclear power are largely gone. I think people know things are serious and if we want to be independant in our energy supply, nuclear is our best option.

Also noted is the mulitbillion dollar cost of the reactors. Between $4 and $6 billion each. A staggering sum but not when compared to our expenditure in Iraq.

Imagine we were on course in the late 70's to build 11 new reactors (as noted in the article) instead of starting today. It takes about 6-8 years to bring those reactors on line and producing energy. We would have been able to build all 11 and probably more if we started in 1980 when Reagan took office. We could have reduced our oil expenditure and we would not be seeing the price spike we have today. India and China would have driven consumption upward but with even a modest reduction in our purchase of oil we would have seen a decompression of that cost.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

So....the autism thing

For Gerard