Where Do We Get Our Energy?

Energy. Abundant, affordable energy is the single biggest source of our standard of living. And a lack of that energy is the quickest way to push our lowest income residents into desperate straights. There is so little understanding out there regarding the massive scale of our electricity generating infrastructure that even our esteemed senators could make comments like those of Harry Reid (see below). The talk of renewables and green energy is in our future...distant future. But people alive right now will probably never see more than a few percent of their energy come from truly renewable sources.

Here is the breakdown of the sources of electricity in the United States:
Coal 49%
Natural Gas 20%
Nuclear 19%
Renewables 9%
Petroleum 2%

Hey, renewable looks pretty good at 9%. One problem. The environmental left doesn't like about 75% of our renewable electricity: hydroelectric dams. We will not be building any more of those dams mostly because of the endangered species act. So what does that leave us with.

Other renewables and % energy generated
Biomass 1.1%
Geothermal 0.3%
Wind 0.2%
Solar <0.01%

For comparison, let's look at France.

Nuclear 78%
Hydro 11%
Natural gas 4%
Coal 4%
Other fossil fuel 2%
Renewables 1.8%

If we got almost 80% of our electricity from nuclear, I guess we would have looked at Kyoto differently. France didn't buy into the "No Nuke" movement and now they are glad they did not listen to the environmentalists of the 1970's.

So, the leftist environmentalists worked feverishly to prevent non-carbon sources of electricity (hydroelectric and nuclear) in the US and now wants to add 7 trillion in carbon taxes to make the remaining sources prohibitively expensive.

Why not fix the mistakes of the 1970's with hydro and nuclear first?

A final irony. The biggest solar project in the US was scheduled to be constructed over the next 4 years. It has been blocked by a lawsuit from the environmental left. The issue: the Environmental Impact Statement. The just say no left is trying to ruin the economy by blocking all forms of feasible electricity, and at this point they look like they will have their way, just like the 1970's.

McCain Calls for Nuclear Power

FINALLY! A presidential candidate takes a position based on something other than hope, dreams, and change. I said the same thing two weeks ago when blogging about the Climate Security Act. Gee, choosing to succeed with proven technology rather than gambling on a 7 trillion dollar tax scheme seems like a no-brainer unless you are in D.C.

It's virtually zero carbon. It doesn't take massive carbon taxes to make it cost-effective. And thanks to the French and Japanese engineers - it's safe. If it hadn't been around for 60 years we would call it a miracle.

Nuclear Power.

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. - Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030...

McCain said the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating around the country produce about 20 percent of the nation's annual electricity needs.

Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years," he said. "And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone."

Even so, he said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new ones by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.

One additional thing that politicians and bureaucrats have a hard time with is placing these things in context of our population. Oh, and we have not built a new oil refinery in those same 30 years.

US population (US Census Bureau)

1978 222 million
1988 245 million
1998 270 million
2008 301 million

Kyoto-type math - pegging our carbon emissions to a year (e.g. 1995) instead of some ratio of our actual population will make energy prohibitively expensive if the Pew research center estimates of our population (450 million) by 2050 are accurate.