I just got done watching Eugene Jarecki's Why We Fight, a documentary on the American military-industrial complex (a term coined by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his extraordinary farewell address) and the enormous influence in exerts over our foreign policy. It's depressing, but still, I can't recommend it highly enough.
It got me thinking about the nuclear question again, and a post I wrote almost a year ago -- one of my favorites -- called "Renewable energy and the devolution of power." The idea was basically this: The kind of distributed-energy/smart-grid future greens envision would, if implemented, devolve political power outward from Washington. It would substantially increase regional self-sufficiency. This, as much as any technical debate, explains why the power elite has neglected to pursue it, and even fought against it.
It also, I think, explains Washington's love of nuclear energy. Nuclear is a familiar template for them: a large industry with one or two dominant corporations, with lobbyists that move in and out of government positions -- the usual chummy arrangement. It's something they can understand and control.
If regions create their own energy, they have much less need for, and are much less in thrall to, D.C. That has enormous implications. I'm not sure renewable-energy advocates have really thought it through.
Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy
Nuclear companies face reactor design problems, ethics questions
Will South Carolina become the nation’s new Yucca Mountain?
Comments
View as Flat
Atomicrod Posted 5:23 pm
16 Apr 2006
Though I have been a uniformed public servant for nearly 29 years with the last 5 of them being in the sausage factory known as Washington, I find myself in strange agreement with the gist of your post.
I am convinced that many politicians and bureaucrats love big industry and particularly love the coal, oil, gas and traditional nuclear industry. The flow of money is pretty incredible.
However, my professional experience let me into a rather silent world that provides a beacon of technical hope that is not apparent to most people.
I spent about 7 years of my career in training and serving as an engineering officer on board nuclear submarines. That experience made me realize that it is an historical accident that makes people believe that nuclear power plants have to be enormous and controlled by huge corporations.
You see, our plant was rather tiny - I could do a detailed tour in less than an hour and I knew almost every component by name and operating history. I also had the opportunity to meet some Army nuclear plant operators that had operated even smaller plants in places like Greenland, Antarctica, the Panama Canal Zone, and Alaska.
I have invested a good portion of my free time in the last 15 years working on designing small atomic engines that can be sized to supply power to ships, villages, islands, factories, commercial buildings, college campuses, shopping malls, and even neighborhoods. We are making good progress toward a project to build our first prototype.
Someday, we might even learn enough about the engineering - though experience - to make them small enough for individual homes.
Of course, our progress has been a little slow. There are plenty of people that have made a career out of telling you that only certain countries and certain companies should be trusted to safely operate atomic power plants. However, a man with a questioning attitude might wonder just what motivates those people to be so opposed to a reliable, inexpensive, emissions free, NON FOSSIL FUEL alternative that is safe enough to enclose inside a submarine full of people.
I have found bits of evidence during our struggle to emerge as an alternative power supplier that many of the financial supporters of the anti-nuclear industry obtain funding from fossil fuel energy interests.
Rod Adams
President and CEO, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
http://www.atomicengines.com
Permalink
crazypat Posted 3:59 am
17 Apr 2006
I HIGHLY recommend Hermann Scheer's book Solar Economy. In it, he discusses this idea in detail. There is a chart that compares the various forms of energy and how susceptible they are to corporate monopolies and centralized power. READ THIS BOOK!!! It is far and away the best out there on the subject of renewable energy and policy.
In case you haven't heard of him, Hermann Scheer is a member of the German parliment who has made Germany one of the best prepared nations on earth for the end of fossil fuels.
About Scheer:
President of EUROSOLAR;
General Chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy (WCRE);
President of the International Parliamentary Forum on Renewable Energies;
Member of the German Bundestag; Publicist and author;
Honoured with the Right Livelihood Award 1999, with the Solar World Prize 1998, the World Prize on Bioenergy 2000 and the World Wind Energy Award 2004
http://www.hermann-scheer.de/
Permalink
Steve Reuland Posted 7:32 am
18 Apr 2006
I agree. It's a shame all of our electricity from comes from Washington, DC. It should be produced regionally instead, perhaps by smallish plants producing no more than a couple thousand megawatts each.
Cutting things up into smaller pieces is always a good idea. Look at how well it worked with the transportation sector. We went from city-wide mass transit to individually owned cars, and that ended corporate lobbying completely. Problem solved.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:26 am
18 Apr 2006
Right now, most of people's electricity comes from a few large sources in their region. Those large sources tend to be owned by a single or small number of large, politically powerful companies. There aren't that many of those companies, and they can easily collude to insure friendly legislation and largess from the feds.
The alternative, as I see it, is an intelligent, agnostic energy grid that can accept power from any source and allocate based on need, price, time of day, whatever. Feeding that grid would be a multiplicity of micro (home solar panels, etc.) and mid-sized (wind turbines, wave farms, etc.) sources. How exactly ownership would play out I don't know, but I'm guessing at the very least there'd be fewer large concentrations of capital (and political power), with different sources and companies competing against each other, and against efficiency measures. The situation would be safer, more resilient, more efficient, and less subject to political manipulation. Or so the hope goes.
Thus the devolution. I'll have to leave it that sketchy for now -- trying to finish something.
www.grist.org
Permalink