Like mispronouncing the word indemnity and premature ejaculations, so too is the 'oil bubble' a self fulfilling prophecy when too much trouble is put into pointing it out.
While speculators and growing participation it the futures market are undoubtedly going to raise the cost per barrel, here Krugman does well to point out that the market function of price has seen significant increases to stem vastly increasing demand--not the nasty guys at OPEC or those 10 stock traders standing around the water cooler devising a plan to make us all pay more at the pump out of sheer amusement.
Here's a newsflash: OIL IS A SCARCE RESOURCE!
And its much more scarce and harder to find and extract then we (don't really) care to know. So, go buy a Prius or a new Schwinn.
Showing posts with label Energy Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy Economics. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Money for Nothing and Nuclear Energy for Free
The promise of cheap and efficient energy is a very exciting prospect. Including all the additional social and environmental costs, however, is it really as cost effective as it can (should) be?
"Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding." From the Australian Uranium Association.
The interest of the organization is to advance the use of nuclear energy by railing against use of fossil fuels, but it brings up an intuitive point about nuclear energy itself: take away all the bad things about it and it is actually pretty good. Seems simple enough, but what will it take to do so? The social, health and environmental concerns cannot simply be thrown to the wind. When plants are built in remote areas to power nearby cities, is it geographic discrimination? When nuclear near-disasters happen, who flips the bill--nuclear power companies, the government or a combination of both?
Nuclear power companies themselves and their lobbies thus have a compelling interest to bring together scientists and policy makers to address these issues in conjunction with advertising the benefits of more cost-efficient energy. Simply extolling the wonders of nuclear power for its own sake doesn't cut it. So, the question is "if all other factors can be mitigated should people embrace nuclear power as an energy source". I think the answer is a resounding "Yes". For the time being, there are obvious concerns which cannot be ignored--unless you are an economist with a one-armed chair.
"Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding." From the Australian Uranium Association.
The interest of the organization is to advance the use of nuclear energy by railing against use of fossil fuels, but it brings up an intuitive point about nuclear energy itself: take away all the bad things about it and it is actually pretty good. Seems simple enough, but what will it take to do so? The social, health and environmental concerns cannot simply be thrown to the wind. When plants are built in remote areas to power nearby cities, is it geographic discrimination? When nuclear near-disasters happen, who flips the bill--nuclear power companies, the government or a combination of both?
Nuclear power companies themselves and their lobbies thus have a compelling interest to bring together scientists and policy makers to address these issues in conjunction with advertising the benefits of more cost-efficient energy. Simply extolling the wonders of nuclear power for its own sake doesn't cut it. So, the question is "if all other factors can be mitigated should people embrace nuclear power as an energy source". I think the answer is a resounding "Yes". For the time being, there are obvious concerns which cannot be ignored--unless you are an economist with a one-armed chair.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)