Opinion
NukSS, cont. p. 5
One terrorist attack, successful or not, also
negates the whole base load argument for
nuclear power plants.
For years we’ve heard opposition to
the Nantucket Sound Wind Project in
Massachusetts which was motivated by
a few rich people who did not want their
view obstructed by wind turbines. When
I was in Connecticut a few weeks ago, I
was surprised to see that now that the big-
name, rich (and liberal) who opposed the
project are gone, namely Walter Cronkite
and Ted Kennedy, opposition to the project
is waning fast because the visual impact
is far outweighed by the environmental
benefit. Most offshore proposals, such as
Delaware’s, place the turbines over the
horizon, out of sight. If we placed 1 turbine/
hectare on the Atlantic continental shelf,
we could provide enough electrical power
for the entire world. I’m not proposing that
we do that. I just want to point out that the
potential is enormous and a lot cheaper than
nuclear power
Two years after the 1988 Chernobyl
nuclear disaster, Denmark passed a law
forbidding the construction of nuclear
power plants. The country has very large
offshore wind resources. There have been
no major problems from wind variability.
This wise move propelled Vestas, the
Danish wind turbine manufacturer, into the
lead in this field.
Green energy is not free but wind power
is economic. Even in its unsubsidized
status, it costs the same (~ 5-10 cents/Kwh)
as heavily subsidized nuclear and fossil
fuel power plants. Solar water heating is
also economic. Solar electricity is also, in
some desert areas. Wind power generating
capacity in the US is increasing at 9%/year
This isn’t happening because the power
companies are trying to lose money.
Consensus is building that we can
transition away from a nuclear/fossil fuel
power base. This scares the hell out of the
people adhering to the current paradigms.
They are spending millions to convince
our legislators that we need to maintain the
status quo. They are running scared because
there is little to back up their claims that
we need more nukes and fossil fuel plants.
The status quo is not sustainable! Once that
inertia is overcome, we will see a rapid shift
to green energy. I predict it will be well
underway within 10 years.
I’ve suggested that money invested in
coal or nuclear is money down the tubes
as far as sustainability goes. We find
ourselves in a profound moral dilemma.
The environmental havoc caused by coal
and nuclear is unacceptable to leave for
future generations. If we had to pay for the
environmental destruction and pollution/
long-term storage of the waste materials
as a part of our electrical bill, the cost of
both would be out of sight. It’s for just
that reason that both industries have had
Congress cleverly hide these costs in your
taxes. Adherents to conventional energy
claim that $1 invested in coal or nuclear
goes farther than $1 invested in renewable
eneigy. If a coal/nuclear dollar goes farther,
then why is only one new nuclear plant
receiving a loan guarantee and why have
>110 coal-fired power plants been cancelled
in the US during the last two years (100 in
TX alone!)? Make no doubt about it; the
paradigm shift is in full gear.
Another favorite crutch of the pro-
nuclear lobby is the French nuclear industry.
Now that most of the of the French nukes
built in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s are nearing
retirement, there is little enthusiasm
for building more. The French have an
enormous stockpile of spent nuclear fuel
that they don’t know what to do with.
They are turning to wind, solar, and other
renewables now to replace the nukes as they
are decommissioned in the near future.
I’m not totally against nukes. There
is one potentially viable nuclear option.
Preliminary tests of small-scale nuclear
fusion were successfully completed in
California in January. If this eventually
can be brought to production, which
actually seems likely, it could redirect
our energy future, perhaps in as little as
10 years. Unlike lethally dirty fission, the
only waste product from fusion is helium.
There are other problems with creating
a miniature sun, of course, but I am
cautiously optimistic.
We are in a transitional period, no doubt.
When society made the transition from
horse and buggy to automobiles, investors
in buggy whip companies disappeared. The
same is happening today with coal/nuclear.
There is no enthusiasm for either on Wall
Street. The major difference is that the
government never subsidized buggy whip
production. Who wants to be stuck with an
inventory of expensive buggy whips?
The Clarion
Senior Staff
Editor in Chief:
Travis Wirebacit
Managing Editor:
John Climer
News Editor:
Business Editor:
Opinion Editor:
Arts & Life Editor:
Sports Editor:
Open
Open
Travis Taylor
Will Byers
Open
Copy Editor:
Layout & Design:
Photo Editor:
Business Manager:
Faculty Advisor:
Open
Travis Wireback
Marc Newton
Emily Clark
John B. Padgett
Other Staff
Karam Boeshaar
Dabney Farmer
David Alexander
Megan Street
Dimitri McCloghry
Michael Eleazer
Unsigned editorials represent the collective opinion of the staff of The Clarion. Other opinions expressed on this page are
those of respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the faculty, staff or administration of Brevard
College.
E] Letters Policy
The Clarion welcomes letters to the editor. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and content. All letters
intended for publication must be signed.
All correspondence should be mailed to:
The Clarion, Brevard College, One Brevard College Drive, Brevard, NC 28712