What We Know That Isn't So

On my Fox Business program this week (Thursday at 8pm & 11pm ET),  I look at the junk science and junk economics that drives our politicians' favorite pet projects. Democrats, of course, love to subsidize wind and solar energy, because they don't emit greenhouse gases -- nevermind that they don't create nearly enough power to replace oil and natural gas.

However, Republicans have their own "green" energy fantasy: Nuclear power. In my syndicated column this week, Cato energy analyst Jerry Taylor explains why Nuclear power is no better:

"If nuclear power made economic sense, we wouldn't need to subsidize it."

Affordable nuclear power, says Taylor, is a Republican fantasy. Promoting it makes no more sense than Nancy Pelosi's promotion of wind and solar power. "Take a Republican speech about nuclear power, cross out the phrase 'nuclear,' and put in 'solar' -- you've got a Democratic speech about energy."

All these "alternative" fuels are economically impractical. Natural gas is practical. And plentiful.

...He also notes that when the Department of Energy proposed offering to guarantee 80 percent of the cost of new nuclear plants, the big investment banks told the department that even 80 percent loan guarantees wouldn't be enough. They needed 100 percent guarantees, or they wouldn't make the loans.

"To me that's a market verdict that you're supposed to respect. ... We need to leave these (matters) to markets. And in the marketplace, investors will not spend a single red dime on nuclear power because it's too expensive. ... It's not Jane Fonda or Greenpeace that killed nuclear power. It's Wall Street investment banks who've looked at the bottom line."

Full column here.