I have been an advocate of nuclear power, but it is not the panacea we imagine it to be, even putting aside the current Japan crisis.
I demand intellectual honesty from those I argue with, but I also demand it from myself and the ideas and philosophies I adopt and espouse. I've been reading about nuclear power, and while I am far from the No Nukes crowd, I now see it is not all it's cracked up to be.
It’s Not Cheap
Affordable nuclear power, says Taylor, is a Republican fantasy. Promoting it makes no more sense than Nancy Pelosi's promotion of wind and solar power. "Take a Republican speech about nuclear power, cross out the phrase 'nuclear,' and put in 'solar' — you've got a Democratic speech about energy." (Stossel)Environmental Impacts?
Water usage is another issue. Nuclear power advocates speak in eye-droppers, while opponents invoke billions and billions of gallons, so I don’t know what the facts are. I have heard credible sources say that nuclear power requires a lot of water. We had a plant in Northern Colorado, Fort St. Vrain, that was build specifically to save water, and it ended up a failure and was converted to a conventional natural gas plant.
Construction costs aside, here is what each form of energy is projected to cost in 2016:
 |
| Reason: Veronique de Rugy |
Nuclear beat Bio, Fossils beat Nuclear
This doesn't take nuclear power off the table, it just puts it in perspective. It is a cheaper, more reliable alternative to wind and solar. Still, natural gas beats it hands down, and the US has been described as the Saudi Arabia of natural gas, notwithstanding extraction problems.
Nuclear only really makes sense from an environmental standpoint as a replacement for coal-fired plants, which are being replaced anyway by natural gas. Only around 1% of our energy is produced by petroleum, so nuclear does little to break our addiction to dictator-provided oil.
So nuclear stands between cheap efficient fossil fuels and green pipe dreams.
The Economic Solution? Keep using coal and natural gas to power the nation. Drill for oil for our cars. As the supply diminishes, the price will go up and other forms of energy become economically viable. Not because government apparatchiks manipulated price schedules, but because of the law of supply and demand.
Once people start using these new technologies, the market, as it always does, will become a contest to see who can provide energy to the consumer for the cheapest price.
Such a strategy will not put us at a global economic disadvantage since other nations will be facing the same fossil fuel shortages and forced to go through the same conversions to alternatives.
The Environmental Solution says clean coal, nuclear, wind and solar. Costs be damned. As the technology advances, prices will go down, as is always the case in a free market. But here's the wrinkle: Prices cuts will only occur if government can refrain from worming its tentacles into every aspect of the green energy industry while simultaneously fending off the crony crapitalist rent-seekers. Fat chance of that happening.
Wind, Solar and Nuclear can cut petroleum use only by the US embracing electric and natural gas powered vehicles. And this saves us nothing, because these replacement energies are not free.
It's true, there really is no free lunch. As Dr Thomas Sowell is fond of saying, there are not magic bullets, only trade-offs.
Further Reading:
Stossel – What We Know that Just Aint So
Reason – The Truth about Nuclear Power
