In the wake of the recent coal mining incident that claimed at least 25 workers, many are reevaluating our energy production. If you listen to the West Virginian governor it sounds as if more regulation is the key to preventing such accidents. The regulatory optimists point out that safety improvements have brought the death toll in the US down from a hundred a year in the 1990's to thirty a year now. Surely the workers were aware of the risk, there is a long history of accidents in mining. It may be counterintuitive, but more regulation may not be what workers want. That's because of the trade off between wages and safety. This idea is discussed by Steve Landsburg from the perspective of textile factory fires.
The amount of coal mining deaths look particularly unwarranted when compared to those in the nuclear power industry. There were over seventy five deaths due to coal in the last ten years. I could only find a total of three Americans who died in Idaho in 1961 from an experimental nuclear reactor. No one died at Three Mile Island. Even the most infamous nuclear disaster, Chernobyl, only killed thirty one. If our most precious natural resource is human capital, how can we restrict the amount of nuclear power plants built, resulting in the continued mining of coal? This is important in the United States, but even more important in industrializing nations like China where coal mining is the most dangerous job in the country. Every 7.4 days there is a coal mining accident with at least ten deaths in China.
If America wants to be a leader in the world, there are few better issues than this. Allow businesses to build nuclear power plants domestically and offer to build them for industrializing nations as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In fairness, Chernobyl killed a hell of a lot more than 31, if you factor in the resulting spike in the cancer rate.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm totally with you otherwise. Cap-and-trade + R&D of alternative tech + offshore drilling + nuclear energy = sound energy policy, and nuclear is pretty clearly the future (along with renewable sources, once the technology comes along). Why nobody seems to be able to get on board with all four of these at once is beyond me...Obama seems to be on board with three of them, and that puts him in the lead.
My equation is similar with minor changes:
ReplyDeleteCarbon tax (cap-and-trade is rife with political favors)
+
Private R&D (there is no reason to think government can count those costs and benefits better and with a proper tax the negative externalities will be counted)
+
offshore drilling where it is profitable, taking into account (preferably by assigning property rights or with a tax) environmental costs
+
nuclear energy (hooray we agree)
=sound energy policy (market)
As much as I love nuclear power and your points, I feel I've gotta point out that nuclear power isn't sustainable. It's just a hell of a lot better than coal.
ReplyDeleteAlso just my opinion, but from what I've read about this accident the company ignored complaints from miners for years. I think enforcement of regulation could have helped. But of course, not as much as shutting the mine down and replacing it with a nuclear plant...
"nuclear power isn't sustainable"
ReplyDeletePlease elaborate.
From Wikipedia: "Sustainable energy is the provision of energy such that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."
ReplyDeletePrimarily because of nuclear waste, nuclear energy is not sustainable over the long term like wind or solar or hydro. But it's the best we've got for the need we have right now.
A hundred years ago creating controllable energy from splitting atoms.
ReplyDeleteYou think in a hundred years we can't figure out a way to store or reuse the waste? And until then we bury it in the mountains.
We already know how to store and reuse the waste. But that doesn't make it sustainable. Anyway you get the idea.
ReplyDeleteYou've convinced me to change the title from "only" to "best".
ReplyDeleteYes... but... it's not "sustainable." Oh well, I tried. :)
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how properly disposed or reused nuclear waste is "compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."
ReplyDeleteSustainable doesn't mean there are no limits. Even wind and solar energy uses resources (metal, plastic, etc) that have a finite amount.
Update: Drilling for oil isn't much better. Only a month later, 11 workers are dead and it may be a larger spill than the Exxon Valdez.
ReplyDelete