"The true essence of humankind is kindness. There are other qualities which come from education or knowledge, but it is essential, if one wishes to be a genuine human being and impart satisfying meaning to one's existence, to have a good heart."- Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama
In the energy debate, clever quips and well placed personal barbs seem to prevail over kindness. I think that is one reason why we haven’t gotten farther along with our energy planning in the USA.
This stumbling block to reasoned discussion is especially vitriolic in the nuclear energy debate where both sides frequently resort to a combination of name calling and bewildering statistics. Doing this makes it hard for the consumer on the street to sort out the facts. It makes most of us reluctant to even enter the debate.
Energy Central is a website that has offered news and commentary on the Electric Utility industry for many years. I believe their aim is to provide as much objective information as possible about this industry and its issues. It’s a great way to hear all sides of the debate on many different utility topics.
One regular contributor, John K. Sutherland, seems to have a pretty good handle on issues relating to Nuclear Energy production in the USA. Sadly, he seems so angry about those opposed to nuclear energy that it is hard to read much of his material. His most recent piece on nuclear energy includes this:
“Nuclear waste, despite the ignorant half-truths and inventions of those who fear it, and despite the fact that we would rather not have it, is one of the best reasons for developing nuclear power relative to any other major reliable source of energy other than hydro. When you add its minimal pollution contributions; its much better safety record than any large energy source; and its improving cost advantages at this time, there should be no contest, yet the emotionally slanted nuclear mythologies keep rearing their heads.”
In his article he includes interesting and helpful numbers that show that nuclear energy wins hands down when it comes to its safety record, waste stream volume reduction and health impacts compared to coal and natural gas. The trouble is, I am usually so pissed off by the time I get to his numbers, I don’t really care if he’s right.
In contrast Amory Lovins has long been an opponent of nuclear energy, until recently Mr. Lovins has tried to gain converts by bludgeoning them with statistics, but a recent piece of his from the Rocky Mountain Institute entitled “Forget Nuclear” does offer a summary that leaves out the laborious numbers and footnote references long enough to let the average person on the street understand a little about what he has been getting at. Yet he too cannot resist that Saturday Night Live jab like, “Jane you ignorant slut” when he concludes his summary opposition with the following comments;
“So why do otherwise well-informed people still consider nuclear power a key element of a sound climate strategy? Not because that belief can withstand analytic scrutiny. Rather, it seems, because of a superficially attractive story, an immensely powerful and effective lobby, a new generation who forgot or never knew why nuclear power failed previously (almost nothing has changed), sympathetic leaders of nearly all main governments, deeply rooted habits and rules that favor giant power plants over distributed solutions and enlarged supply over efficient use, the market winners’ absence from many official databases (which often count only big plants owned by utilities), and lazy reporting by an unduly credulous press.”
It’s really a shame we can’t be more polite to each other when it comes to talking about energy issues. Yet we persist in making sure we spend more time attacking opposing views than trying to understand them.
"Insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result," said Werner Erhart.
And, in the debate about energy planning for the USA, I think both sides are pretty much insane if they think their approach to this complicated issue is the way to develop a sound energy policy.
© Mark Daily, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment