…but they’re not a part of it per se. They’re also not a terribly reliable source of energy (like solar), and they’ll do next to nothing to reduce our dependency on oil or coal. Nuclear and natural gas are the best clean forms of energy, but they don’t give people warm fuzzies like wind farms and solar panels, especially those on the left, who believe in unlimited energy without using resources to generate it, PhDs for all, equal outcomes from different inputs, the end of poverty, and Santa Claus.

A few months ago, I listened to a podast from AEI in their Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Link here. It’s excellent and explodes a lot of myths about so-called green energy. To find it in iTunes, search the store for AEI and click on the Economic Policy Studies at AEI. The podcast is dated 5/13/10.

The author, Robert Bryce, has written a book called Power Hungry, which I got for my nook (the Barnes & Noble kindle) after listening to the podcast. It’s chock-full of numbers and data tables, and it’s fascinating and very well written.

Interestingly, according to Bryce, coal was the dominant source of energy until 1950, when oil took the lead (WWII and the growing auto industry increased the market share of petroleum). Coal was number two until 1958, when natural gas took second place. By 1971, the United States was consuming twice as much energy produced by gas as coal. Congress and regulators intervened. Their intervention led to a decrease in the amount of gas-based energy. Coal-based energy consumption, which peaked in the late 1940s, dropped in the 1950s, increased a bit in the 1960s, and increase noticeably in the 70s. It has basically been even with natural gas since the late 70s. You can see the chart (and some others) in this PDF from the Department of Energy (second page, which is numberered xx).

At any rate, I think that this helps to bolster the laissez-faire argument. I’m still a bit on the fence about nuclear because of the neighborhood effects, but you make a great point about its improved safety, aesthete. As fossil fuels become more expensive, I think that nuclear will become an increasingly more attractive option, but I suspect that fossil fuel reserves are much greater than we know. Another thing that a lot of enviros ignore is how much better we are now of extracting fuels using new technology.

If we were to enact Cap ‘n’ Trade, I think that it might actually increase worldwide carbon emissions (assuming that anthropogenic global warming is even an issue). My logic goes something like this: The United States produces energy that is much cleaner than, say, China’s, and our factories are presumably more efficient, from a power standpoint. Rising energy costs in America (due to C&T) would lead even more businesses to move their manufacturing operations to China, which simply isn’t going to sign onto any carbon emissions treaties (or they’ll sign one and cheat), because capping carbon emissions is economic suicide, and China does what’s best for China, not what makes vocal progressives happy. So a widget that moves from the U.S. to China will now be associated with greater carbon per widget production cost, and assuming that widget consumption stays steady, carbon emissions increase. We lose, the environment loses (again, assuming anthropogenic GW, which we all know is iffy), and China wins. Not a great idea.

One is a few miles to the north, in Cornelius, NC, and the other is a few miles to the south, outside Rock Hill, SC. Charlotte, where I live, sits between the two, and we have two man-made lakes (Norman and Wylie) as a consequence. I’m totally confident in the safety of nuclear plants, and I prefer for-profit enterprises to non-profit (generally), though that’s another story for another day.

I’d take living this close to two nuclear plants to living this close to two coal plants any day. And I don’t think that wind or solar will (or can) become anything anytime soon, other than something to show tourists and provide people with a sense of moral superiority.

I don’t believe in conspiracies, except in the rarest of circumstances. I do think that heavily regulated industries (eg banking, electricity) tend to develop regulations that favor the biggest companies. Sometimes this is because they have significant lobbying power, sometimes because they swing the hardest when rules are written (or compliance schemes designed).

Mini nuclear plants probably aren’t a great example of a company or industry pushing rules and regulations out of self-interest, though. Looks a bit silly now that I re-read it.

…or clean his gutters, giving him his own nuclear plant doesn’t seem like such a great idea.