ENERGY: Go Nukes
The energy proposal released by congressional Republicans the other day doesn't have a snowball's chance of passage. But that very fact has liberated the GOP from having to muddy the waters with compromise and horse-trading.
Unlike the ridiculously complex and regulation-heavy Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, or the pie-in-the-sky fantasies of the Obama administration, the GOP proposal contains realistic, practical ideas for improving the nation's production of energy. It would increase oil and gas production offshore, where vast reserves may lie. It would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling that would do no more harm than drilling has done in Prudhoe Bay. And -- most important -- it would spur the construction of a hundred new nuclear power plants over the next two decades.
Renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal certainly should play a larger role than they do now. But even under the most optimistic scenarios they cannot begin to compete with nuclear power in the displacement of carbon-based energy sources. Barring a miraculous scientific breakthrough, only nuclear reactors can provide energy on a scale sufficient to meet rising demand.
A Lynchburg company, Babcock & Wilcox, might make nuclear power even more practicable. Large reactors cost billions to construct. Babcock & Wilcox is developing a smaller, scalable, modular design one-tenth the size of existing reactors, which would encourage the use of nukes by smaller utilities. As energy demands rose, companies could add more of the prefab units as needed.
It's an intriguing concept. And though it won't move the Republican energy proposal forward, it might ease Americans' irrational fears about nuclear energy. The U.S. will never become France, which gets more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. But if Americans want to reduce their carbon footprint, go nukes should replace no nukes as an environmental rallying cry.
Reader Reactions
I belive HRH LA BHO’s own word for what will happen to home energy costs under his plan was “skyrocket.“ His qualifier “necessarily,“ as in “necessarily skyrocket” seeks to mask the consequent crippling pain this will inflict on citizens under the guise of objectivity.
If the United States had a national mandate to replace coal generation with natural gas and nuclear energy, plus if we replaced our commuter cars with battery-powered electric cars, we would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and also reduce CO2 emissions beyond the cap and trade targets.
The cap and trade bill is too complicated with too many moving parts. But that should be of no surprise since 880 lobbyists are registered to lobby on climate change. Cap and trade will enrich a new class of financial speculator, and cost American consumers billions, possibly trillions of dollars. It will drive drive out manufacturing of every description. Even non-polluting Microsoft says cap and trade will force it to move jobs overseas because “cap and trade makes U.S. jobs more expensive.”
Cap and trade is worse than a tax because only 15% of the proceeds from auctioned permits go into our national treasury. And the kicker? We’ll never even know if cap and trade worked.
-Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com
Eye yam sew we todd ed. Need coffee. ugh.
Memo to VAgentleman: Your blind dissent towards all things occurring under the Obama administration is noted. However, you might do well to remember the phrase “Axis of Evil”.
(hint: it didn’t come from Obama)
Memo to Editorial Staff: Only rogue regimes such as Iran and DPRK are legitimate developers of nuclear power, per HRH LA BHO.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement