“Funny thing, nuclear opponents turn free market when they complain that the technology is too expensive. And they double their double-standard when it is complained that new nuclear is too dependent on government subsidies to be sustainable.”

The debate over the role of nuclear power is running hot. But from a climate alarmists’ perspective, is nuclear the answer or a false solution?

A recent entry in the squabble comes from four nuclear-related specialists [1], which was published by POWER magazine, “Former Nuclear Leaders: Say ‘No’ to New Reactors.”

Free Market View

Before delving into the “No” statement, a classical liberal view of nuclear power in the energy mix can be presented.

From a technological perspective, nuclear power is the one scalable option for mass zero-carbon emissions.…

“Altamont Pass has been a black eye on the entire wind industry since its construction.” (National Audubon Society, below)

“… the need for renewable energy is not an excuse to … wipe out local populations of wildlife. Wind companies are making billions and can afford to ensure projects are responsibly sited and include adequate mitigations to reduce impacts to sensitive species.” (Ariana Rickard, Mount Diablo Audubon Society, below)

Altamont Pass again? Back in 1997, my Policy Analysis for the Cato Institute, “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’,” included a section, “The ‘Avian Mortality’ Problem,” that focused on Altamont Pass, then the nation’s largest wind farm and a documented killing field for protected birds.

That 625-MW project was just a short car ride away from the San Francisco headquarters of the Natural Resources Defense Council.…

“[FERC] staff have determined that approval of the Project would not result in significant environmental impacts, with the exception of greenhouse gas emissions…. we are unable to come to a conclusion regarding the significance of the Project’s contribution to climate change.” (FERC, June 2021)

“N.Y. utilities: FERC delays could jeopardize gas system,” read a headline earlier this week at EnergyWire, a publication of E&E News. “Two New York utility giants last week urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to ‘promptly’ approve a natural gas project proposed nearly two years ago, fueling a debate over the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions against other factors.” The article continued:

Although changes to the policy statement have not been finalized, the gas industry and Republican members of the commission have accused the agency of delaying project approvals since the inquiry was reopened last February.

“History rhymes. Natural gas as part of the environmental solution is a return to thirty-plus years ago.”

John Kerry stated the obvious last month to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: natural gas must be a ‘bridge fuel’ for the “energy reset” away from fossil fuels. “Gas is going to be important to the transition,” said Biden’s climate envoy, adding:

But if we move too fast and too far with too much, and build out an infrastructure for 30 and 40 years, with plans to be able to use it for 30 or 40 years without abatement — if it’s abated, terrific. If you can capture 100% and it makes it affordable, that’s wonderful. But we’re not doing that.

Forget the caveats. Wind and solar and batteries are falling short, and oil, natural gas, and coal are making up the shortfall around the world.…