Gus Van Horn blog Posted January 20 Report Share Posted January 20 I voted against Donald Trump in the last election and have never been a fan of his.That said, I am cautiously optimistic that the next four years come with a real possibility of improvement in energy policy at the federal level.The optimism comes from the fact that energy advocate Alex Epstein will have some influence over energy policy in the new administration, and he has a clear, well-thought-out plan for things that are both possible during that time and will cause improvements within a comparable time span. Any of these happening would be great news.And he has proposed 25.The caution comes from the fact that this is happening on Donald Trump's watch. Yes, very little, if any, would have happened in a Harris administration, but while Trump might be receptive to these ideas, he is an inconsistent thinker: This means that he could seriously undercut whatever improvement he makes in energy policy with, for example, punitive tariffs that will cause gas prices to skyrocket as the initial shock to the energy (and energy-related) markets that would destabilize.And longer-term, if Trump undercuts these improvements badly enough, he will play into the hands of anti-capitalists, who will point to his policies, good and bad alike, and promise to dismantle them all.That said, I highly recommend reading them all at Epstein's blog, where he presents them in an easily-digestible bullet format, with related measures grouped together under broader goals.These goals are: Unleash Responsible Development End Preferences for Unreliable Electricity Set Environmental Standards Using Cost-Benefit Analysis Address Climate Danger Through Resilience and Innovation, Not Punishing America Unleash Nuclear Energy From Pseudoscientific RestrictionsThe six ideas for unleashing nuclear, each of which he briefly elaborates, are: Change the NRC's mission from infinite risk reduction to maximum facilitation of safe nuclear energy. Set science-based safety thresholds for radiation. Embrace cost-effective approaches to used nuclear fuel. Promote nuclear R&D using existing DOE resources. Expedite permitting for nuclear plants. Base nuclear evacuation guidelines on objective cost-benefit analysis.This is not a plan to completely separate the government from the economy, or even just the energy sector, as moral and practical a long-term goal that be. But it can be a first step, and it buys time to work towards such a goal: As history has shown repeatedly, when an economy stifled by central planning is freed up even a little bit, prosperity noticeably improves.I recently enjoyed seeing Epstein mop up the floor with RFK, Jr. in a debate about fossil fuels. (As a bonus, RFK, Jr. reacts defensively at one point to Epstein's apt and often-used analogy of vaccine skepticism to bad thinking about fossil fuels.) Donald Trump is no capitalist, and he could more than undercut these fantastic policy suggestions with atrocious trade policy, but his second presidency may well bring Americans relief from decades of destructive energy policy caused by environmentalism.-- CAVLink to Original EC and Jon Letendre 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boydstun Posted January 21 Report Share Posted January 21 I checked out Alex's specific remarks on nuclear radiation standards (health physics) the other day, and they are ignorant. THAT is not what has brought nuclear power electrical generation to be an unprofitable investment for new capacity. The anti-nuclear local cultures, expertly organized to stall construction projects in their area, and the stalling of the DOE storage at Yucca Mtn. by citizen opposition (to stifle nuclear energy electrical production) are much larger factors making growth in nuclear capacity uneconomical.* It is smart of course to not put all your eggs in one basket; it is best if we have a variety of ways to produce electrical power. But Alex's facile remark on the nuclear sector radiation standards is not substantial or helpful. His other suggestions in this area are things already being done, except for the first one, which is a step back from the mission of NRC to AEC (which ended with the TMI accident). Under NRC regulation of nuclear power in the US, there have been no more failures here on the order of TMI. One big failure, and, practically speaking, that would be the end of nuclear power in civilian service in the US. Under our regulated design safety standards in the US, the plant at San Onofre, which is the sort of plant at Fukushima, would have withstood that tidal wave. And the diesels would not have been flooded either, because we designed for the contingency and elevated them. It is not only the NRC that has contributed to our success in safe operations since TMI, but the culture of nuclear safety in all the plant modifications and operations in those companies, and superb training of employees, and great asset we receive by the supply of personnel trained and experienced in the US Nuclear Navy. I was a little surprised to see Alex's accession to the idea that the US government should be doing things at all to address "climate danger". I'm sure that was not within "provide for the common defense" idea in our constitution. Nor should it be. Moreover, I remain unconvinced that any human efforts in this or that way will significantly impact the course of climate, say, to 2100. The climate is going to do what it is going to do. The sea is going to rise to where it is going to rise. The best condition for humans under Nature-the-Giant is to leave real estate prices free in a market arising by individual decisions (and not be providing government subsidy for people to live in uninsurable places). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.