The key to making this point is to stress the incredible volume of biofuels required. Coal currently ties up the lion’s share of our transportation capacity. And biofuels are just VERY low-grade coal (as a fuel). “American Scientist” and “Science” both ran articles on this point in the current issue. But they didn’t mention nuclear.
I don’t think we’ve pushed that point hard enough. The fact that ANY non-nuclear plant requires many millions of times more material than any nuclear plant. That fact alone gives nuclear a huge ecological advantage. When you see the big trucks full of sugar-cane and realize how many trucks it takes to equal one rail car full of coal—and we know how many rail cars it takes to keep a single power plant going.



Comments