Divergent Viewpoints on Renewable Energy

Alex C. writes in:

We need to migrate to MORE fossil fuels and nuclear because they are the most economical. The Tea Party movement in the USA will assure in 2012 that we elect DRILL BABY DRILL candidates and we end the insanity of the extreme green movement and progressive socialists. $$ will always flow to the most economical and practical sources of energy. Using the rule or law and force does NOT justify the green movement. Respect the free market and let the most economic energy sources win. The green movement will end come November 2012. No more free handouts. Time for many parasites to get a real job rather than spending taxpayers’ money that we don’t have.

It’s cool that 2GreenEnergy caters to readers with divergent viewpoints. But holy smokes!

A couple of points:

Let’s assume for a moment we should cast off all concerns about the costs to our health and safety, and that we have no obligation to preserve a habitable environment. Nuclear STILL won’t happen for the precise reason you name, i.e., it’s expensive. The actual cost of building these plants is almost never anywhere near the projected budget. Readers may want to Google “nuclear plant cost overrun,” and read a few of the 54,700 articles they’ll find on the subject. Here’s one that refers to a certain nuclear project as “satanic,” based on the actual amount of the overrun ($6.66 billion). The Florida utility, FPL Group, now estimates the cost of building a new nuclear power plant at over $9 billion, nearly double their previous estimate.

Also, I’m not so sure about the Tea Party in 2012. I’ll grant that voters are extremely displeased with big, wasteful, corrupt government. But the poll numbers surrounding the Tea Party are strikingly negative (currently favorable 32%, unfavorable 47%).