So, everyone remember that headline, "America is
Addicted to Oil", coming from President Bush's mouth during the state of the
union. Yeah, I fell asleep during it too, which is why I asked if you remembered
the
headline.
As with any politician, the question is... okay, you said it, now what will you
say in three weeks, and, what will actually happen? Well, here's what is
actually happening:
Bush proposed a number of
different things, including large amounts of money to develop hydrogen fuel cell
and other alternative energy sources. Like zero emission coal and nuclear. As
the cynical liberal I am, well, I knew all we would hear down the road is the
second sentence. Guess what? Looks like I might have been right. For the sake of
the world, I would much rather have to deal with George Bush actually turning
into an environmentalist and helping the world, but it is still a little
soothing that I am right about his essentially lying on this one, so far.
So you notice in the article they
mention the potential for terrorists to get ahold of plutonium separated out in
this process of recycling spent radioactive fuel, and Bush mentions how "safe"
the new plan would be, since it does not involve any output of plutonium that
would then have to be shipped and could potentially end up in the hands of
terrorists. And then he proposes the utopian idea of sending radioactive fuel to
"developing nations" in order for them to use it in nuclear reactors, and for
them to ship it back in order for us recycle it and send them
more.
Did I miss something here? I know
uranium isn't as dangerous as plutonium but... it's dangerous enough. Terrorists
could make dirty bombs, easily. Where do they live? Oh yeah, in developing
nations. And what was that he was just saying about being able to refine
plutonium from uranium? Haven't we been talking about North Korea and Iran
working on that? And furthermore where are these developing nations that have a
current need for nuclear
energy?
Suffice to say the plan doesn't
make sense. Is this the new plan? Knock over a nation we don't like, so as to
make them "developing", then hire Bechtel, GE and Halliburton to deck the place out with a brand
new power-plant or 30, sell them some recycled radioactive fuel, and call it a
day? With all these shipments of radioactive fuel going back and forth, it's
going to end up in someone's soup and salad special, if the terrorists have
anything to say. Unlike the United States, terrorists do not require that their
weapons be the newest, most accurate, and most expensive. Quite on the contrary,
they seem to prefer stolen, cheap, and as simplistic as possible.
So, the real question, in the end is,
why worry about this complex completely undeveloped technology in recycling
spent radioactive fuel when the number of nuclear reactors in the nation has
gone
down
not up, and there are other forms of renewable energy that don't involve the
possibility of a catastrophic loss of life, or need 13 billion dollars per year
in investments to get off the ground? Nuclear energy is not safe. If all goes
well, it is, but let us not forget 3 mile island and Chernobyl, and again, the
potential of dirty bombs and everything else. Holy crap, let's just get $13
billion per year in solar panels and wind generators! What would Bush be backing
if we managed to talk the oil-industry fueling technology firms to start putting
their R&D heart in non-nuclear renewables? Are we just going to have to wait
until this generation of white-haired texas-drawling CEO's croaks for the
"wonderful" age of destroying the environment in the name of power
ends?
Here we go again...