Looking For Replacements: Electricity Vs Oil
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.
