Obama goes nuclear

On Tuesday, President Obama will announce plans to break ground on two new nuclear reactors at a Southern Company plant in Burke, Georgia -- the  first new U.S. nuclear reactors since the incident at Three Mile Island in 1979.
(ABC News)

This is good news indeed for clean energy policy.  Nuclear power is probably indispensable as a bridge to the next energy breakthrough.

Kudos to President Obama, even if he's making the move with something akin to reluctance:

The White House is making no bones about the fact that they see this announcement as advancing two agenda items: clean energy and efforts at bipartisanship.
"In the State of the Union and at the House Republican Conference retreat, the President made clear that he is willing to work with Republicans towards a comprehensive solution to our energy challenges," a White House official said. "By announcing plans today to break ground on the first new nuclear reactors in nearly three decades, the President is making good on his offer to meet Republicans halfway."

I would hope that nuclear power would be an overwhelming political winner today rather than a mere concession to Republicans.  Public polling from during the 2008 presidential election campaign appears to at least show that people view nuclear power more favorably than not:

Will this move by Obama play well with the the electorate (especially independents) as bipartisanship?  It isn't as though Obama is giving just Republicans a concession.  He is embracing a position of at least plurality popularity.  Beyond the far left, the bipartisan angle is a tough sell.

Obama on his energy plan: Prices will "skyrocket"

In his own words, Barack Obama's energy plan will cause the price of electricity to "skyrocket." But Obama is not particularly vulnerable on this issue, as I'll point out at the end.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
(Hot Air)

The drawback about hitting Obama with this one lies in the fact that John McCain also favors the cap and trade system for controlling carbon emissions, though Obama avers that his version of cap and trade will be as aggressive as any.

The issue ought to still hurt Obama with anyone not convinced the world is on the brink of a wholesale anthropogenic global warming disaster (rest easy, Al Gore) since McCain is not only likely to use a less aggressive version of cap and trade, but is also more likely to employ policies that will otherwise lower the cost of energy (such as drilling for domestic oil and gas resources).

As for nuclear power, that route will also cause prices to rise short-term because of the initial capital outlay required to get a nuclear plant up and going. In Florida, the state government is set to allow the electric company to start charging for construction of its next nuclear plant.

If the mainstream media knows about the economic pain lying in wait with the implementation of cap and trade, I haven't seen the evidence of it.

Took those words right out of my head ...

John Hinderaker over at Power Line live-blogged last night's presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. I wish to highlight one nugget that elegantly expresses what I was thinking during the discussion on energy--particularly when Obama was decrying McCain's failure to support bills that provided tax breaks for alternative energy sources.

9:44--I suppose there is no point in trying to explain to a television debate audience that you don't create wealth by subsidizing inefficient production of energy.

That sums up the whole problem with Obama's energy plan. His plan is built on a pie in the sky.

As Hinderaker points out, inefficient energy production does not assist the economy. Let's say we figure out how to get electricity from rocks, but each rock involved in the process needs to be massaged by hand in order to produce electricity. It takes 100,000 such rocks to power a medium-sized city. On the bright side, one can claim that this system can create at least 100,000 jobs (full time rock masseurs and masseuses). Economically, however, the system simply cannot work. The cost of producing the electricity will hamstring the economy. At $1 per hour, the payroll costs without any overtime for the 100,000 employees would amount to $1 million dollars. The company would need to bring in $1 million in receipts just to break even on energy costs. And on $1 per hour, how much electricity do you think employees of Electrolith Inc. can afford to fit in the budget?

Relative to the costs of other businesses, this energy delivery system would be unworkable. The whole key is cost efficiency, and aside from nuclear power the world currently has no ready substitute of comparable efficiency to fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas. Until that occurs, alternative energy sources are an economic loser.

Obama's claims of adding jobs through his alternative energy plans, I suspect, are comparable to rock masseur jobs, except that he will subsidize the new less efficient system. Everyone in the city will be taxed in order to pay for rock masseurs and the electricity they produce--at least enough for the business to operate.

The pie in the sky is the techological breakthrough required to produce energy more efficiently (or at least comparably so) than we currently do using fossil fuels. Without that breakthrough, and it isn't on the drawing board, Obama's plan is a guaranteed failure.

For that reason, exploiting nuclear and fossil fuel energy must be done until the breakthrough occurs. The direction the Democrats are taking on this will probably be disastrous.

Can't the Democrats do something to stop this?

No, not the Iraq War.

LOS ANGELES: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received its first application since the 1970sto build a new nuclear power plant, a spokesman for the NRC said on Wednesday.

The proposed plant in Maryland won't come online until at least mid-2014 and is among a new wave of about 19 reactors that will be considered by the NRC in the next year or so, said Scott Burnell, NRC spokesman.
(The News)

Will the Democratic Party turn on its green-tinged faction and support nuclear power?

Just give me the warm power of the sun
Give me the steady flow of a waterfall
Give me the spirit of living things as they return to clay.
Just give me the restless power of the wind
Give me the comforting glow of a wood fire
But please take all of your atomic poison power away.
("Power"--lyrics by John and Johanna Hall)

Of the options mentioned above, only nuclear power offers a plausible path to energy independence. The "spirit of living things" is safe from domestic exploitation thanks to Democrats if their nixing of drilling in the ANWR preserve is any indication.

Nuclear is the best energy option for the United States right now if environmentalists block the tapping of U.S. fossil fuel resources.

It would be nice if nanotechnology could make nuclear power obsolete in 50 years or so.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party seems poised to drive energy prices up-up-Up by intentionally forcing the nation toward less cost-efficient energy sources such as biofuels. That initiative is already bumping up prices, most notably with milk and meat products. As the effects spread out through the economy, we'll be at risk for spiraling inflation.