Ever had a late lunch on a fine day with a foremost authority on energy — to discuss the nuclear industry and how nuke power plants might help mitigate climate change?
… And gone away dumbfounded, with a sinking sense of despair?
Well, I have, and I'll share some stuff worth sharing. Caution: You may not like how this ends.
Spend time with Dr. Dean Abrahamson, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute and ex-energy adviser to Sweden's prime minister, and you learn a lot about nuclear power — and a lot more about how alarming global warming has become.
For those who think nuclear power is among the top-tier responses to climate change, here's an invitation to think a bit deeper.
While there's innate fear of nuclear power, the technology that generates 20% of our nation's electricity has a pretty good safety record. Accidents do happen, of course, and we all know of three famous nuclear power disasters in the U.S., the former Soviet Union and Japan.
But to my mind, more immediate problems include where nukes are located and the storage of "spent fuel rods" (no longer useful in making steam to spin turbines).
Some plants, including Xcel's Monticello units and New York's Indian Point, are only a few miles upstream from major cities. The nation's largest nuke, Palo Verde, is upwind from metro Phoenix. Diablo Canyon sits atop a California earthquake zone.