As I live in Germany, which is both a leader in climate policy and intensely against nuclear energy, I'm often asked my opinion on nuclear energy. I'm a rare nuclear agnostic, as I think that its climate balance is far better than coal or oil, but that its price tag and catastrophic risk make it less well-suited as a long-term solution than renewables. So herewith, my energy ranking, given with the caveat that I'm not an energy expert, but more of a hobbyist:
- Negawatt: The best energy is that which you don't use. This includes turning off lights when you leave a room, not buying things you don't need, and in general living with a lighter footprint.
- Energy efficiency: The energy that is used should be as efficient as possible. In this category would be reduced packaging, energy-efficient technology, and
- Small-scale renewables: Here I'm a big proponent of Amory Lovins's argument that we need to make energy production more local and democratic. If you generate your own electricity, you're taking advantage of local resources, reducing energy loss through the grid, and cutting down on infrastructure. Small-scale renewables also increase the resilience and security of the energy supply.
- Large-scale renewables: When small-scale can't do it alone, go for wind farms and solar campuses.
- Nuclear: Cost-benefit-wise, it doesn't make sense to build new plants. But keeping existing plants running during the transition isn't totally bad. I don't know the full costs of extraction, though.
- Natural gas: Burns cleaner than oil and coal, but has major extraction issues.
- Oil: Incredibly risky to extract, comes from an oligopoly that shuttles money to much of the world's worst terrorists and extremist regimes, and very, very dirty.
- Coal: Also risky to extract, especially to miners, and exacts a horrific toll on the environment, both at the mining site and where it is burned. Even if CCS technology became viable, the environmental costs are simply too high.
