One of the major criticisms of John McCain's recent Financial Times op-ed that's been flying around has been his call to "reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources" with nuclear energy. "Foreign energy sources", of course, is just another way of saying oil, and only about 2% of our electricity is generated by oil. So more nuclear doesn't really help us replace oil. Right?

Well, maybe not. There is a kernel of unintentional truth here. While there are definitely problems with nuclear (cost, storage, and the difficulty of convincing communities to allow a power plant nearby), electricity can and probably will replace oil for transportation, especially once electric cars and plug-in electrics are widespread. At that point it doesn't matter if the energy source is coal or nuclear or wind. In the best case scenario, electric cars could be charged without increasing demand for electricity, and in the worst case, we could still recharge them using electricity generated without CO2. With biofuels losing favor and every car manufacturer picking up renewed interest in electrics and plug-in electrics, replacing gasoline with electricity seems like a safe bet. (And certainly much more feasible than a sci-fi hydrogen economy.)

The caveat here is "once electric cars and plug-in electrics are widespread", and the key to getting there will be for government to mandate electric and plug-in electric cars. John McCain isn't going to do that. But in the meantime, it's probably a good idea to rethink how we look at energy replacements. Energy is energy, whether it comes from coal or nuclear or wind or oil.

Tags: Global warming, Nuclear, Cars.

Email it Permalink 2 comments Add a comment

It's looking more and more like Obama will be the first president committed to taking decisive environmental action. Today is the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, and in his speech today on foreign policy, he included global warming as a critical national security issue that will be addressed by his administration. From the full transcript:

Here are just five ways in which a shift in strategy away from Iraq will help us address the critical challenges of the 21st century.

...

Fourth, the catastrophic consequences of the global climate crisis are matched by the promise of collective action. Now is the time for America to lead, because if we take action, others will act as well. Through our own cap and trade system and investments in new sources of energy, we can end our dependence on foreign oil and gas, and free ourselves from the tyranny of oil-rich states from Saudi Arabia to Russia to Venezuela. We can create millions of new jobs here in America. And we can secure our planet for our children and grandchildren.

He is, of course, 100% right, and action on climate change as national security isn't an entirely new idea. Thomas Friedman proposed a "geo-green" strategy for using renewable energy to tear down totalitarian regimes in the Middle East, and even those dirty hippies at the Pentagon have been preparing contingencies for a world wracked by boiled earth chaos.

But other than the usual chorus of "we must sign Kyoto so other countries will like us again", this could be the first major opportunity for global warming to break out as a serious foreign policy issue, a new kind of "commander-in-chief threshold". If a presidential candidate is unable to tackle global warming in a substantial way, how can he or she possibly be considered anything other than weak on national security?

Tags: Global warming, Foreign policy.

Email it Permalink 0 comments Add a comment