Is the environment really the issue?
If the environment is the real issue, then the various environmental organizations should be promoting real solutions as opposed to just saying NO to any proposal that is offered.
Case in point.
There is a supposed environmental group opposed to every type of power generation you can name. Don’t believe me? Do a Google search on: “Environmental groups opposed to “fill in the blank” power.
Taken as a whole, you can only come to one logical conclusion, environmental activists do not want any new construction of any type of power generation facility in the United States. The consequences of not building any new power generation plants in the United States would ultimately lead to the downfall of the US. So, taken as a whole, one must question the motives of such environmental groups.
I take the position that it is irresponsible for any group or person to oppose the construction of a power plant without offering a viable alternative. You don’t want a nuclear power plant? Fine. You must offer a VIABLE alternative. You don’t want a coal-fired plant? Fine then offer a Viable alternative.
When it comes to real, economical, high density, power generation solutions, you have just a few choices, coal, oil, natural gas, hydro-electric, and nuclear. Wind is not a VIABLE solution. It is, however, a great supplement. I must say right here that, as impressed as I am with the sight of a huge wind farm, I am also disappointed in how a huge wind farm detracts from the scenery. The same can be said of the other lesser known alternatives.
There is, however, one technology that is very new, very close, and very exciting. It has the promise of solving all the power generation needs for this country, with almost no environmental impact, FOREVER!
It has none of the pitfalls of the other types of power generation. There are no radiation leaks to worry about, no spent fuel rods to deal with, and tons of toxic gases are not spewed into the air every day.
Some would say, “It’s not working. It won’t be ready for another thirty years,” and so on. The fact of the matter is, a Russian-Italian research group has produced a sustained fusion reaction for four seconds. The project is called ‘IGNITER’. Apparently, they are having a problem keeping it cool.
There is the project at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Labs in California (lasers.llnl.gov). A 500 trillion watt laser is producing fusion energy, one pellet at a time.
Then there is the ITER project in France. It is a consortium of countries including the US, China, Russia, and others. These countries are building a facility to do hard actual research into fusion power generation. Go to ITER.org for further information. This only goes to prove that a lot of people and counties believe in fusion power enough to invest many billions of dollars to make it work.
A couple of questions. First of all, why isn’t the production of fusion energy a national goal for the United States, much like going to the moon was back in the 1960’s? We are the technological leader of the world. I submit that we could have a working model in ten years if we applied the same intellectual and engineering resources to the production of fusion energy as we did to getting a man to the moon and back.
Secondly, which of the main line environmental groups is promoting fusion power? Why isn’t it ever mentioned in the news that “Blue Skies Forever Environmental PAC” believes that fusion power is the right thing to do? Why aren’t the environmental groups screaming bloody murder at the politicians to make this happen? With the environmental benefits so overwhelming, you’d think that fusion energy would be on the cover of every environmental magazine and lead story on the evening news at night.
I submit that an honest assessment of the true answers are too scary to contemplate.