Gas prices are not "low." They may be lower than they were three months ago, but we've got a long way to go till we hit $1.25 a gallon. It's still nearly twice that in DC.
Ben's response:
Froomkin-Doomkin:
My hero, Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (D.WA.), was Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. At the time of the first Arab oil boycott he said there would be "$100 a barrel oil."
At today's prices that would be about $400-$500 a barrel. It's at about $65 now. Some experts are predicting single-digit per barrel oil prices in the near future.
And all that is despite the fact that we have given nuclear power a run-around. That's the no-greehouse-gas emissions source of nuclear power, or thorium power. It said when nuclearpower was first developed it would be "too cheap to meter." Not now. Some of the subsequent regulations (some wise, many idiotic) have made nuclear more xpensive than fossil fuels.
But even the former President of Greenpeace and some liberal Democrats have now come out for nuke power.
Don't your chickens etc. etc.
Ben
posted by Ben Wattenberg at 10:30 AM
3 Comments:
OK Ben, but unless we see single-digit prices for barrels of oil before Election Day in November, don't expect the average voter to stop complaining about the cost of fuel. It's still high, and if you had to drive 100 miles a day (which I suspect you do not) you would probably feel the same.
At the moment I suspect there is little economic intersection between oil and nuclear power in the United States. Oil is used primarily for transportation and as a manufacturing commodity, while nuclear is used solely for electric power production (along with coal, natural gas, hydropower, geothermal, and solar/wind). They are not interchangeable, though I imagine the cost of electriicity does have some minimal effect on the oil market. If we have electric-only or hydrogen cars (H2 is made with electricity) then oil and nuclear would be direct competitors.
That comment aside, I believe one of the difficulties in any discussion of energy policy is that few involved in the discussion have a clear sense of how energy is produced - particularly electric energy. This is certainly true of nuclear energy - where I've worked for 20 years. BUT, it is also true that there has been no good way for the lay person to learn about the real world of nuclear power. Atomic energy is much different than its portrayals in the media, good or bad.
To offer a base of knowledge and perspective , I've written a novel that provides an insider's view of the US nuclear energy industry. It is available at no cost to readers - and they seem to like it, judging from their homepage comments. Whole Earth Catalog founder Stewart Brand (another noted environmentalist taking a second look at nuclear power) has seen the value of this approach and has been kind enough to endorse my book. It's worth taking a look. You might actually find it entertaining as well. http://RadDecision.blogspot.com
Oh, yes, there is at least one intersection between nuclear and oil - the use of heating oil versus the use of electric heat. Not sure how significant that is.
Post a Comment
<< Home