Quarter Life Crisis

The world according to Sven-S. Porst

« IgnoreMainSmartassing »

Nuclear Power

495 words

With those talks about renewable energies on their way in Bonn, I have hear people asking for atomic energy again. Now, theoretically, we’re done with that topic in Germany as our government has made laws to fade out atomic energy in the decades to come (they did it in a way making sure they don’t hurt the poor industry too much).

But with people aiming to reduce CO2 output these days, atomic energy gets mentioned again as a ‘clean’ option that doesn’t pollute or warm the atmosphere too much. Of course that’s right – as long as nothing bad happens. And you can hear Mr Burns smirk and rub his hands at the thought of suggesting this option to those pesky environmentalists.

Of course the whole argument is as clever as the people who make it. To begin with the whole atomic energy ‘business model’ is said to be a rather poor business model as the people earning the money won’t pay for the consequences of what they’re doing. In particular, if a nuclear power plant breaks the damage will be so many billions that it is unlikely any company will have the money around to pay for it. And even just paying insurance sums to cover for the potential damage will make the whole thing a lot less profitable.

But even ignoring that. Let’s just suppose we were willing to do atomic energy. And we were willing to actually pay its real price as well as for all the extra security money can buy for sake of the atmosphere? Shouldn’t that make the whole thing attractive? I doubt it. Given the way the world is run these days the whole thing will be outsourced to some companies. Those companies will in turn find ways to take as much of the money as they can and run. Because that’s good business. At the end of the day we’ll have spent even more money for the same security at best. So that’s bad.

And that’s just the ‘business’ side of the whole thing. The other point usually made is that of nuclear waste and how having nuclear waste around means leaving quite a long-term legacy for the generations to come. A potentially dangerous legacy for which issues such as safe storage aren’t sorted – if only for the extremely long times involved.

Concerning the nuclear waste we can of course also involve terrorism these days. I usually consider this a bogus argument, used as an excuse to restrict people’s rights further – but as anybody in power buys it, it may as well be used for a just cause for a change. Of course the storage of nuclear waste is even more dangerous as we’re living in a world full of terrorists these days. Producing more and more of it will make sure those pesky terrorists get their dirty hands on it at some stage. And then of course here come the ‘proper’ or ‘dirty’ atomic bombs…

June 2, 2004, 20:53

Add your comment

« IgnoreMainSmartassing »

Comments on

Photos

Categories

Me

This page

Out & About

pinboard Links

People

Ego-Linking