The Arizona Star editorializes that the Grand Canyon State must not classify nuclear power as a “renewable.”
But . . . but . . . the EU calls nuclear a renewable. (Otherwise, how could France boast of its energy-from-renewables numbers?) I thought we were supposed to be listening to Europe . . .
Two small points (of the several that could be made): The AZ Star writes:
Saying nuclear energy is renewable is like saying a Twinkie is as “natural” as a banana. Yes, they both provide nutrition, but one food item is highly processed; the other is not.
The assumption seem to be that wind turbines and solar panels just blink into existence, with no negative externalities — you know, like this. The editorial continues:
Democrat Paul Newman, a freshman member of the Arizona Corporation Commission, opposes Mason’s bill. His main concern is that it would usurp some of the commission’s utility-oversight abilities. [ . . . ]
Newman said including nuclear and hydroelectric power in the definition of renewable energy would be the death knell for the state’s growing clean-energy industries.
Why is that, Mr. Newman? Because nuclear is cheaper and more reliable, despite the far more favorable tax treatment enjoyed by other renewables? Love the salad dressing, though.
Obviously, I’m kidding. This isn’t that Paul Newman — the late, great actor. He was a fan of nuclear power.