The Speculist: A Bipartisan Future

In the midst of a big week for "Greenhouse Gas" news, Nancy Pelosi made an important admission:

The Speaker also answered an inquiry from Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) on nuclear energy by saying that while she was once opposed to nuclear energy, changing technology had made her "bring a more open mind" to the option.
"It has to be on the table," she said.

RS Redstate has an almost nonpartisan analysis of the politics behind this change of heart:

Here's the situation. One side is convinced that global warming via the man-made production of greenhouse gasses is going to sucker-punch human civilization unless said production is seriously reduced, starting Right Now. The other side is not so convinced, and is both in a position and generally inclined to put the brakes on any legislation that addresses the concerns of their opponents. Fair enough, so far?
Now, again, the one side would like greenhouse gas production reduced. The other side would like the current restrictions on nuclear power - which does not produce greenhouse gasses - reduced or eliminated. From what I can tell, the other side (my side) would be thrilled to junk oil and coal plants in favor of the equivalent in nuclear... just as they'd/we'd be thrilled to get electrical power cheap enough to make this a toy for the middle class instead of the rich. We'll do it laughing in our collective sleeves, of course - to think that They traded more nuclear power for less greenhouse gasses! - but so what? I mean, really: so what? The climate change people want the coal and oil plants gone, right? They want more electric cars, yes? They'd like less greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere, correct? Well, there's a deal to be made, here: and deals where both sides think that they're skinning the other guys are the very best deals of all.

Glenn Reynolds is wondering if "Bush can sell this as an effort to have a "more European" energy policy."

It is very encouraging that such a big piece of future could be delivered with almost everyone in agreement. The only holdouts will be those environmentalists who want a complete ban on nuclear power no matter how safe it can be delivered.

Comments

The lack of cheap elecricity is not why the Tesla is out of reach for the middle class. In fact, the typical American car owner could more easily afford the electricity to run a Tesla than the gas to run the car in their driveway now.

And there will be other holdouts on nuclear. I can think of two- they own coal and natural gas.

And American nuclear fission has problems beyond environmentalist opposition. The general perception is that it's either unsafe or over kill. The general perception may be ill informed, and it might be the result of bad marketing. But the perception is what it is.

But at the end of the day, we want our air conditioning and blow dryers. And we'll accept nuclear if we must to have the juice.

Posted by: MDarling | February 12, 2007 09:19 PM

MDarling:

>The lack of cheap
>elecricity is not
>why the Tesla is out
>of reach for the
>middle class.

Yeah. I saw that and disagreed with that statement too. It's the engineering that's gone into it that's expensive, not the electricity.

>And there will be
>other holdouts on
>nuclear. I can
>think of two- they
>own coal and
>natural gas.

True. Vested interests will resist a move to nuclear. But this won't be enough to keep it from happening.

>And American nuclear >fission has problems >beyond
>environmentalist >opposition. The
>general perception is
>that it's either
>unsafe or over kill.

I would be tempted to classify that perception as part of environmentalist opposition - outside of a lobby, but still an environmentalist position.

But there might be more than environmentalism to this. There's also the NIMBY factor: "Sure we want to cheap power, but I don't want a nuclear plant here. Put it out in a square state."

Posted by: Stephen Gordon | February 13, 2007 07:37 AM

It's been suggested that we don't need to build any new plants, at least initially. We could up the amount of nuclear power considerably just by adding capacity to the plants that already exist. If this could be done as an upgrade -- yes, we're adding to the output of this facility, but most importantly, we're making it safer -- we would be well on our way. Once there was some momentum for nuclear power, the NIMBY effect would be considerably diminished.

Posted by: Phil Bowermaster | February 14, 2007 08:22 AM

The Speculist

Live to see it.

A Bipartisan Future

Comments

Post a comment