“Let’s be clear. Nuclear power’s Secondary Financial Protection is not insurance. Insurance is a voluntary agreement among the parties in which all or a portion of a risk is transferred from one party to another in return for a payment, which is set by the participants, ideally in a competitive market. The SFP is a government mandated protection racket.” (Devanny, below)
“The only solution is a fixed compensation scheme with each plant being responsible for its own liability insurance. If a compensation scheme, based only on the dose profile each individual and business would have incurred assuming no evacuation, is combined with a radiation-harm model that recognizes our bodies’ ability to repair radiation damage within limits, the risk will be easily insurable.” (Devanny, below)
The notorious Price-Anderson Act, enacted in 1957 as part of a federal effort to get peaceful atoms into commercial use, has been extended seven times and is set to expire on its own terms next year (end of 2025).…
Continue Reading“Do we need a clean energy industry that depends on government handouts forever? Yes, if you ascribe to the climate disaster mantra…. Does anyone consider letting market forces drive technology development?”
An op-ed in Monday’s Houston Chronicle, “Houston is making a losing bet on fossil fuels,” greeted visitors to CERAWeek. Author Randall Morton attacked oil company CEOs and Houston business leaders for defending a “declining” industry. His opening sentence? “Leaders of the oil and gas industry are in Houston for CERAWeek, grappling with the inevitable decline of the industry.”
Morton then goes after the “economic development leaders at the Greater Houston Partnership [who] are doubling down on this declining industry.” He specifically identifies the GHP’s Energy Transition Initiative – hydrogen and carbon capture – as failed technologies.
Fair enough, but he misses a critical point. …
Continue ReadingEditor Note: The House yesterday passed a concurrent resolution “expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.” Ten Democrats joined all but one Republican (Brian Fitzpatrick, PA) in the 222–196 victory. A free-market, winning policy on climate is to not support any legislation that increases either taxes or energy prices, directly or indirectly.
Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 25, 2024
Mr. Zinke (for himself, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Bost, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Jackson of Texas, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Lamborn, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Carey, Mr. Langworthy, and Mr. Pfluger) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.…
Continue Reading