The Blog

Bring on the Nukes

4:04 PM, Jun 6, 2014 • By GEOFFREY NORMAN
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

When the EPA released its new rules aimed to get the nation on the road carbon free (sort of) energy generation, the news was plainly bad for coal. No surprise there.  The prospects for renewables solar, wind, hydro, etc. – were enormously enhanced by the plan. This was also unsurprising.  But what about nuclear power?

As Jonathan Lesser at NRO makes clear, nukes produce lots of electricity and very little carbon.  And they provide:

… steady and dependable supplies of electricity around the clock, day in and day out. [Nuclear power] has the highest overall availability of any generating resource — better than coal, better than natural gas, and much better than wind. 

So one would think that, if the crisis is upon us, we should be doing all we can to get new nukes built and keep the old ones running, since:

Now and for the foreseeable future, nuclear energy will remain the only resource capable of producing low-cost, dependable, around-the-clock, zero-emission electricity.

But nuclear power fails politically.  It might be just the thing to keep the world from getting hotter but … well, it just isn’t cool.

Recent Blog Posts

The Weekly Standard Archives

Browse 15 Years of the Weekly Standard

Old covers