Here's an interesting story about one of my favorite topics, nuclear power. The US--land of cheap coal and natural gas--has fallen way behind in our nuclear infrastructure. The spectacular startup costs are at least partially to blame, with a significant portion of that cost coming from the protests and lawsuits that are sure to attend new construction.
Hopefully that tide is turning. There are presently 22 reactors before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and many in the Obama Administration are seeking to stoke additional interest with federal loan guarantees--something of which I am very much in favor.
And from the Rahm Emmanuel school of never waste the opportunity created by a crisis--I'll turn a deaf ear to the anguished cries of the global warming crowd, as it is their frenzied kvetching that is causing the environmental movement to become less opposed to new nuclear--citing its abiding carbon neutrality.
We should move forward with nuclear energy for one reason and one reason only--diversifying our energy supply. We cannot ever hope to mitigate the control exercised over us by oil producing nations if we do not move to some kind of alternate energy for the movement of vehicles on our roads. To me, electricity is the natural path. To respond to an exploding demand for electricity (in a carbon neutral way, dearies), we must invest in nuclear power.
I was wondering why the MSM was uncharacteristically subdued in their reporting of a "minor radiation leak" at 3 Mile Island yesterday. Carbon neutral. How about that? Maybe we've been going about this all wrong. Clearly this is the most loquacious president we've had in decades. What if we make the case that all those speeches actually increase the amount of CO2 he exhales into the environment, making him the most significant contributor of Presidential CO2 since Roosevelt? Perhaps it would fall short of getting him kicked out of office early, but maybe it would at least force him to cut back on his teleprompted emissions.
ReplyDelete