Critiquing Japan's nuclear-free pathway policy Oct 12, 2012 7:22:15 GMT 9.5
Post by trag on Oct 12, 2012 7:22:15 GMT 9.5
Oct 12, 2012 3:32:52 GMT 9.5 @anonposter said:
Of course some countries may be unable to actually figure out what they need to do to remain or become prosperous but it's better that there are some prosperous countries than no prosperous countries which is the realistic alternative.
Oh, I totally agree with your earlier point that it is good for there to be many separate laboratori...I mean separate countries. :-) I think the system of separate state governments in the USA offers similar advantages.
Perhaps I take this too personally. I just worry, perhaps excessively, about the penetration of the belief that wind and solar are viable energy sources.
I live in Austin, TX and our electric rates went up this year substantially for the first time in 18 years. The City Council points to the fact that they didn't go up for 18 years, and acts like we should expect them to go up regularly. I, on the other hand, notice that they've purchased more and more West Texas wind, and committed to buy all the electricity from a !! wood burning plant, and a solar array. And the local news doesn't seem to do one iota of cost analysis to show that these expensive boondoggles are the real reason our cost of energy is increasing so dramatically. And also why our water rates are increasing. It's like the public is completely blind. Somehow, several years ago, the City Council quietly passed a resolution to get 30% of the city's electricity from "renewables" by some date.
Meanwhile, back in 2009 they had the opportunity to purchase a share in the expansion (since abandoned) of the South Texas Nuclear Project. They didn't because of the consultants' projected costs of the worst case scenario of cost overruns.
But here's the thing. The cost of electricity under the worst case example, still would be lower than the regular price of the electricity they're purchasing from that wood burning plant and the solar array. However, the capital commitment (under the worst case nuclear cost overruns) would have meant that there wouldn't be funds available to waste on wind and solar.
Meanwhile, when they passed that 30% "renewables" goal, Austin was already getting 28% of its electricity from South Texas Nuclear Project. So our electricity is already 28% carbon free and has been since the late 80s.. But the City Council and local media never mentions that.
Sadly, many of the anti-nuclear activists from the 70s when Austin bought its share of STNP are now in positions of power in the city structure. Sigh. Rather than seeing what a great thing it has been for the city ($.02/KWHr electricity) they still oppose it and want to get rid of it as soon as they can!
Anyway, given this kind of local situation in politics, I don't find it all far fetched that the national political system would refuse to acknowledge that cheap plentiful energy is why other countries are prospering, and then try anything other than the thing which would require them to admit that they were wrong about renewables.