The drawback is that the central planning must be done well.

I can’t figure out how critics conclude that nuclear is so bad that they will spread any lie and falsify any number to stop it. Around 500 reactors will be generating soon around the world. The US has about 100 generating 20% of our power. And the industry has been operating for fifty years. The number of military reactors isn’t precisely known.

The facts are pretty simple. The present reactors are going to be running a long time. The way to have a safer nuclear industry is to replace the oldest designs. Stopping all construction will just guarantee that the old plants will run far longer.

The only way to simulataneously decrease carbon output from electric utilities (assuming this is necessary) and not wreck the economy is to pump up the % of electricity production from nuclear plants now at 20% to like 60% or even 80% -like France. France doesn’t do much right in the economic area, but in electricity production the frogs are spot on.

They prefer cap-and-trade because it is not called a tax. A carbon tax is called a tax.

Cap and trade is simpler to administer and offers a totally new way to tell people what to do.

The writer has this right:

Silly rabbit, because public costs of cap-and-trade can be fudged, hidden, ignored, and, when they absolutely have to be recognized, blamed on private companies.”

This is exactly what happened in Germany. Politics tried to unload their part of responsibility for the rising energy costs on “the greedy multinational companies”. And, to tell you the truth, they came pretty far with that.

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6287.html

The governor has no idea. The eco-philes have no idea. The “no carbon energy” (BP?) who run the ads on FOX have no idea.
The infrastructure and absolute enormity of the cost to change it, or even the cost to keep up with demand are ignored by all of the above.
As they say, “we is in trouble”
tom