I think it definitely should be considered, but not as anything more than a stopgap measure. It's a lot better than fossil fuels, for sure, but there's always the possibility that something bad will happen (I've been giving out about locating nuclear plants in earthquake zones for years), and there are the problems of nuclear proliferation and waste disposal. I mean, who is allowed have nuclear power? Obviously we can't trust clearly crazy people like the Taliban, and Kim Jong-Il, but any country can be taken over by a crazy person or group of people, and even if the reactors aren't able to produce weapons-grade material, the prospect of a "dirty bomb" using nuclear waste is still not a nice one.
We need to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible, but the ultimate goal should always be to power things using renewables. Europe, for example, could conceivably be powered by massive wave and wind farms up the coast from Portugal, Galicia, France, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Norway, and large solar installations in Spain, Greece, and sites on long-term lease in North Africa. With high-voltage DC technology developing at pace, problems with long-distance transmission of power will be greatly reduced. The problem of variability in renewable resources can be solved by stockpiles of biomass, like fast-growing elephant grass and willow trees, as well as with pumped storage hydroelectric power.
The oil is going to run out some time, and the countries with the knowledge and skills to cope are going to be leading the world into the post-oil age.
Bookmarks