GNEP - not that bad.

Alex Raskin writes about the recent agreement between Japan and US on collaborating in development of nuclear energy. The official news release is here. In January, DOE released a strategic action plan for Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The details are here. Whether nuclear power is good or bad is highly debatable. All that is healthy. A slice of those views are present in the comments in Raskin's post. In general, here are the beliefs for supporters of nuclear power: nuclear power is cheap, it is GHG pollution free, and it can produce bulk power. From the skeptics: nuclear power is dirty and waste disposal is a pain, safety is a concern, highly subsidized by govt., risky if it fell in hands of the terrorists, and causes other forms of pollution.

All are valid arguments. Lurking in these arguments though - is the persistent question: What's the way out? The problem does not have a silver bullet.

The reality is that we have become used to a level of energy consumption that we think it is almost our god given right. Like the air we breathe. Energy-lifestyle has become our culture. Asking me to consume less is like asking me to give up my favorite vice. We love to live in the denial that the looming energy crisis is not going to affect me. We human beings never react to crisis willingly? Especially when we know it is slow. We are not willing to pay extra taxes or see our tax money go into wrong initiatives. GNEP in this particular case. We do not want to be charged a higher electricity bill. So what are the other options? We and the government go after the manufacturers to take a big bite. And manufacturers respond to shareholders. Unless shareholders incentives are good they don't care. And who knows what the incentives are.

Government may be not the most efficient of enterprises. May be it uses spin doctors and smoke and mirrors for leverage as Raskin indicates. But again, government is not where I look for a lean mean six sigma culture. More than anything else, I look for it to take up projects that is beyond any body else. So, while I share all the concerns, I believe the energy situation requires the real "Fortune 1" enterprise - Uncle Sam to take the lead. And implicit in this expectation is the role that government needs to play in outgrowing politics and sincerely educating people of what the goals are, the timeline, and the process. Evangelize, evangelize, evangelize. Perfect solutions don't exist today, but let's face it: this is a busy economics and not a burst economics problem. As much as I would like, building the advanced nuclear reactor will not happen the same way as developing youtube. Not even Google. It would take long drawn , persitent, planned commitment. Many hours, many failed attempts, lot of dollars, and many a career. Govt.'s initiative in involving the global community is smart. Other countries have continued its development in nuclear energy (while US nuclear R&D was quiet) and in some ways gone ahead of US in spent fuel extraction, reprocessing of waste and sodium-cooled recycling reactors. So collaboration will be a benefit. And more so: to the extent the process is opened up, there is greater trust. Trust is paramount to handling the politics surrounding nuclear energy. To the extent we open up, it is easier to get access to what others are doing. More exchange means more cross-border conversation which leads to greater mutual understanding and better understanding what others are doing for nuclear security.

Final word: geothermal, hydro, etc. holds lot of promise, but at this point they do not show any potential for solving bulk power needs. Unless, of course we reduce our consumptions by many folds. Any takers on that front?