Nuclear energy security in pie chart form.

Okay, there's a pie recipe coming soon. I'm tempted to call it "Bailout Pie" since it involves green tomatoes, and many people thought it just should not be. In related news, I'm thinking of expanding the Fuzzy Wups BBB&B to the Fuzzy Wups BBBB&B, the last B for "Bank", in hopes of getting my slice of the real bailout pie. I might have some more to say about grand strategy soon, but I think I'll let glenn do that today.

Anyway, this post is about the less controversial topic of energy security. Unlike climate change, where the corrective action is both uncertain and contrary to the needs of major government programs such as Social Security (less energy consumption almost certainly means less economic output), most agree that being at least mostly self-sufficient in terms of energy is a good thing. During the recent presidential campaign, the GOP advocated multiple new nuclear reactors as a way to move away from buying our fuel from the unsavory Middle East or Venezuela. Well, according to the US Department of Energy, the GOP must think the Russia and the 'Stans have our best interests at heart.

Do not get me started on nuclear waste disposal. There is no such thing as "safe and permanent" storage, and something that's hazardous for 10k years is not exactly the kind of legacy I would like to leave my descendants. However, something that is very toxic and in the watershed for the Colorado River might do wonders for reducing energy consumption by encouraging people to vacate the desert southwest. Black humor or long term policy? You decide.

But back to energy security. The purpose of energy security is to avoid interruptions in supply, implying either a Mahan-inspired strategy of total sea dominance or generation of energy within one's own borders. The point is that nuclear energy means buying fuel from Canada, which is pretty secure, Australia, which is about as reliable as our Navy is dominant (a good bet for now); and Russia. Ask Ukraine, France and Poland how that's going.

The point of all this is that any mined fuel is a loser in the long term. At current consumption levels, we've got about 100yrs of uranium left. If consumption expands, so will exploration, but heavy metals are very rare, and uranium is always decaying. Sustainable, the GOP needs to learn and soon, is not a bad word, but the only way to actually achieve the "small government" they claim to want.