Why all the emphasis on nuclear power?

One simple reason:  for civilization to continue as it is, or to advance our civilization to a higher level, nuclear power is the only way.

Environmentalists like to talk about renewable energy.  Actually, there's no such thing.  Energy cannot be renewed.  Once it's spent, it's gone forever.  In the long run, we are all dead, as Mr. Keynes once famously said.  That includes the sun, the earth, the universe.  Nothing is forever.

But, I'm not here to depress anyone.  For if I really wanted to do that, I'd take up the environmentalist notions of renewables.  No, we have a certain amount of time that is going to be available to us.  What we do with that time is our choice.  If we are to make intelligent choices, we need to be informed about our options.

We can choose to go back to nature.  But that will have consequences.  For to go back to nature must mean what it meant before.  That is to say, what existed before the Industrial Revolution and the invention of agriculture.  A hunter-gatherer type existence can only support a few people.  If you go back to that existence, you will have to give up your conveniences and probably for most people, even their own lives.  There's just not enough for everybody to live like a caveman.

But wait.  What about a super advanced society?  I would agree that a super advanced society could actually support people going back to rough it for awhile.  You already have something like that.  This "back to nature" stuff is a lot like that.  But it isn't for real.  We can only do this back to nature stuff because we have an advanced society.  If we give up our advanced society, these things will not become diversions, but necessities.

A lot of this "back to nature" stuff comes from the notion that we can go back permanently.  Yes, that could be arranged, but I can almost guarantee that the people advocating it won't like it if it means that they will most likely die because of it.

I mean, look here folks.  The die is already cast.  Because we have prospered and multiplied on the face of this planet, we are pretty much stuck with things as they are.  Going back is not a viable option.  We can't give up fossil fuels and nuclear power.  We could give up fossil fuels in favor of nuclear power, but we can't give it all up.  For if we do, we will soon encounter an inconvenient truth about our situation.

Our situation is that we are totally dependent upon this fossil fuel as an energy source.  Without it, we don't have modern agriculture.  Without modern agriculture, how do you feed 300 million people?  That's not even counting the rest of the people on this planet.  Sure, you could try to go back to farming.  But people have forgotten how to farm.  Even if they knew how, there aren't enough farm animals to support them.  For if you don't have machines and the fossil fuels that run them, you will have to use farm animals.

Even if you had the farm animals, you don't have enough land.  For it would take as much as 1/3 of the land to feed the farm animals.  And 300 million people are a lot of mouths to feed.  Going back to the 19th century isn't feasible unless there's a massive die off.

Okay, that may be a good enough case to convince you that we need fossil fuels.  But fossil fuels aren't going to be enough either.  We are using up our fossil fuels faster than it can be replaced.  The "renewables" crowd will say that I've just made their point.  Wrong.  My point is not in defense of fossil fuels, which are too limited for our circumstances.  We are going to need nuclear energy.

Don't get started on wind and solar.  Not only can they not compete with fossil energy, they will never compete.  They will have to be several times cheaper than fossil in order to make up for their intermittent quality.  Wind and solar are illusions masquerading as solutions.  The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine, but you always need energy.

In the long run, not even fossil is good enough.  It cannot be replaced.  That leaves nuclear by process of elimination.

You may not like nuclear.  It may scare you.  The radiation can kill you.  It can cause cancers or so forth.

Yes it can.  But a fire can kill you too.  Electricity can kill you.  Any energy source can kill you.  You can fall from a high place, and the kinetic energy of your fall will kill you.  Energy must be respected, like all forms of power.  But it need not be feared beyond all proportions of reason and good sense.

But that's what we have today.  Radiation is feared beyond all proportion to its actual risk.  But this is not to diminish or play down the real risks.  But keep in mind that fossil fuels are necessary for our very survival and are going to run out someday.  That day may not be near, but it will happen someday.

Eventually, we have to accept nuclear.

One last thing.  And advanced society needs kinetic energy.  After all, where does electricity come from?  You spin a device in magnetic field and that make electricity.  It is by no means the only way, but it is the most common way.  Note that to spin the device requires kinetic energy:  that is to say, it needs to move, and likely move pretty fast.  Without the kinetic energy driving the generators, we have no electricity.  In general, without kinetic energy, we are dead in the water.  As I've indicated, we are also dead ducks.

It takes energy to move a car.  Or a machine.  Kinetic energy for the most part is what is being generated.

Kinetic energy is proportional to the velocity squared.  When you square a number, it gets big fast.  Move something twice as fast and you need four times as much energy.  Ten times as fast means 100 times as much energy and so forth.  The numbers get big fast.  The energy requirements get big pretty fast.  Chemical energy cannot supply that kind of energy for long.  But it is supplying it for the moment because there was a lot of it.  It is getting more and more scarce all the time.

We could slow down of course.  But that would mean consequences that I've just described above.  Conservation doesn't make energy.  We need energy and a lot of it.

Einstein's famous equation E=mc squared looks a lot like the equation for kinetic energy.  That's because it is, in a sense.  You've got a speed limit for the universe which is the speed of light.  The velocity of light is a velocity.  A slower number just means less energy.

Chemical energy is measured in electon volts.  Nuclear energy is measured in millions of electron volts.  No one needs too much explanation that nuclear energy is more powerful.  What may not be clear is that we need it.  When you look at the dependence upon kinetic energy in a modern society, then maybe it will become more clear.  It did for me.  I hope anyone reading this can see the point.  I don't know if I made it well enough.

At least I tried.

Nuclear energy really isn't an option.  At some point, it is going to become a matter of survival.