It is a bad situation, certainly, and we don't know how severe it may end up being--it could be very bad. But most of the experts I talk to believe it won't be as serious as Chernobyl for technical and social reasons. But you're right to pose questions of industry folks, certainly.
That said, I think you're right in arguing that fossil fuels are king for the moment. That is for technical, economic, and political reasons--there is a lot of money to be made in fossils and they are powerfully connected to policymakers.
Finally, I don't think we're going to decrease our dependence on nuclear, even after Fukushima. If anything, I think we'll see it increase. My hope is that renewables also increase, too. But we need some policy levers for that--as you've suggested in some other posts.
It is a bad situation, certainly, and we don't know how severe it may end up being--it could be very bad. But most of the experts I talk to believe it won't be as serious as Chernobyl for technical and social reasons. But you're right to pose questions of industry folks, certainly.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think you're right in arguing that fossil fuels are king for the moment. That is for technical, economic, and political reasons--there is a lot of money to be made in fossils and they are powerfully connected to policymakers.
Finally, I don't think we're going to decrease our dependence on nuclear, even after Fukushima. If anything, I think we'll see it increase. My hope is that renewables also increase, too. But we need some policy levers for that--as you've suggested in some other posts.