Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Jack Spencer's Power Play

Jack Spencer from the Heritage Foundation is at it again:

Electricity demand is projected to increase 40 percent by 2030, according to government estimates. Meanwhile, overzealous regulators make it difficult to expand energy capacity.

...

Proponents make it sound so simple. Just buy a new dishwasher, build a couple of windmills, put some solar cells on the roof and — voila — energy problem solved. Not really. Maryland would have to reduce its electricity consumption by about a fifth of today's use — or the equivalent of a half a million households — to meet Mr. O'Malley's objective. Since Maryland produces only 1.3 percent of its electricity from renewables, increasing that to 20 percent in the next 14 years would be daunting, to say the least.

...

The legitimacy of these draconian efforts is rooted in the notion there is an energy shortage. Conservation, after all, makes sense when there is a shortage of something.

But energy is not in short supply. There are fossil fuels, and lots of them, right here in America. Yet America is one of the few nations that chooses to leaves much of its own reserves untapped.

Yes, wind and solar power are options. But the technology hasn't advanced yet to the point where these are affordable enough or reliable enough to satisfy our growing energy demands.

Then there's nuclear power. It is emissions-free, affordable, proven and safe. It already provides the United States with 20 percent of its electricity. It can be used and recycled again and again, making it essentially limitless.

Nuclear power has the added benefit of solving many of the problems cited to justify faulty conservation plans and centrally planned energy mandates. It's abundant, environmentally friendly, free of carbon dioxide (CO2) and domestically produced. Yet officials continue to ignore its advantages.

...

U.S. interests are best served by an energy mix that includes fossil fuels, nuclear power and renewable energies. If it does turn out that CO2 is a problem — a conclusion for which there is no consensus, despite what we're told — then the role of nuclear energy will be even more critical.
You can read more here.

3 comments:

susan_coryell said...

Thank goodness I can read a voice of reason. I'm so sick of the manmade global warming alarmists----will intelligence win this argument or will emotion railroad the world into ridiculous measures to control a non-existent carbon emissions problem? God hep us all.

Anonymous said...

When I read this excerpt I was immediately concerned that despite the reasoned argument, the final line would condemn the entire thing in the minds of most people. Here's the line:

If it does turn out that CO2 is a problem — a conclusion for which there is no consensus, despite what we're told — then the role of nuclear energy will be even more critical.

Denial that man-made CO2 is a problem is not the way to convince anyone that we need to build more nukes.

See the preceding comment for yet another take on this. (the "reasonable" part of the argument is the denial ...)

George Carty said...

Even if man-made global warming is a hoax, aren't unsustainability (oil/natural gas) and noxious pollution (coal) good arguments against fossil fuels?