Energy Sprawl - Forum with Tennessee senator Lamar Alexander.

Attended a forum with Tennessee senator Lamar Alexander at Resources For the Future (RFF) today. The subject was "energy sprawl" (nice concise term), or how the growth of renewable energy is a risk to the Great American Outdoors. The senator, a good speaker, addressed (read the speech here) some 50 to 100 audience, warning those who used to fight for conservation of America's natural beauty for the perils of their advocating solar, wind and biomass to that same beauty. He might have a point there, but I guess that NGOs are very well aware of that dilemma. The senator's call on the NGOs to work on a common, constructive voice in the debate is a good advise. But my impression is that for the senator the energy sprawl - put on the agenda by a recent scientific paper of the Nature Conservancy - is a new foothold to champion nuclear power, which he mentioned as hist "last point," but on which he spent most of his talking time, clearly being his major point.

The senator had four recommendations: energy conservation is first, second is generating electricity on already developed sites (e.g. solar panels on rooftops as opposed to large scale CSP plants in nature), sufficiently flexible carbon regulation is third, allowing for coal plants that recapture carbon, nuclear plants of international offsets, and fourth is careful site selection. Energy conservation means "fuel efficiency standards," no word about life style and dietary changes. I didn't came to ask if "hands off of the American way of life" is the paradigm here. Wind power is 50 stories high bird shredders along the Appalachian Trail and too little scale to make a difference. Nuclear, however, to the senator is area-efficient, clean, affordable and secure power for the American people. America is lagging the rest of the World. Everywhere nuclear power plants are being built, except in the United States. Senator Alexanders calls for 100 new nuclear plants, and quotes energy secretary Chu, who has said he wouldn't mind living near a nuclear plant, leaning on his reputation, to say that the technology is safe. Senator Alexander concludes to suggest that nuclear is the inconvenient solution to his fellow Tennessean Al Gore's inconvenient truth.

In the question round someone form the audience mentioned that the support for new nuclear power plants is increasing in the United States. It seems like the debate about nuclear power in the US has many similarities to the debate in The Netherlands. The Netherlands, too, hasn't built any new power plants for decades and plans to build new ones are highly controversial, triggering fierce reactions from those who fought against it in the early eighties. However, support for nuclear energy seems to be growing slowly in The Netherlands, too. The next parliamentary elections in 2011 could well be the tipping point. To me nuclear is not a good choice at first sight, requiring storing the waste over unimaginably long times and endlessly controlling an ever-present risk. It doesn't feel fit in a free, sustainable world. However, when nuclear can help to fight climate change, what trade-off would I make? As there are many studies suggesting that global warming can be limited without nuclear, there must be more fundamental trade-offs, like for example do we prefer to make changes to our lifestyles or to accept the risks of nuclear power? I think that the fact that nuclear is on the agenda again could indicate that NGOs are struggling with the dilemma, too, and have trouble finding the arguments now climate change, energy security and - the new one - energy sprawl, together with improvements in reactor design, are weakening conclusions drawn over two decades ago. It also shows again that the single issue approach to environmental protection is not effective anymore and more complex, integrated thinking is required from both environmental and nuclear advocates.