The Absurdity of Energy Independence

John Boehner, talking to Larry Kudlow last night, said the need for “energy independence” is a good reason to build nuclear reactors:

JOHN BOEHNER: –listen, I think we need– we need to take a step back– understand what happened, understand what changes have been made, and really understand what– what– what are the risk here. As we all know– Japan– sits– in– volcanic area– prone to earthquakes. You know, they have some 1,500 earthquakes a year. We’ve got parts of the United States– that have some inclination toward earthquakes. But, we have other parts of the country where there are– there’s no threat. But, we need to learn those lessons. But, I don’t think it should deter us– from trying to do everything we can– to move America toward energy independence.

Like almost all invocations of energy independence, this makes no dense. There are two things you’d like to see from energy. On the one hand, you’d like it to be plentiful and cheap. On the other hand, you’d like it be to clean and safe. Independence has nothing to do with it. If anything, various energy-related disasters—oil spills, reactor meltdowns, mine collapses—should emphasize the fact that producing energy isn’t really a great line of work to be in. The good thing about a nuclear reactor is that it gets you electricity. The bad thing about a nuclear reactor is that there’s a potential for disaster. Under the circumstances, there’s nothing wrong with obtaining dirty, dangerous energy from a foreign country. In Denmark, their grid is networked with the Norwegian and Swedish power grids which allows them to draw on Swedish nuclear power and Norwegian hydro without there actually being nuclear plants or giant dams in Denmark. The foreignness of those energy sources is a benefit, not a cost.

Meanwhile, unless I’m mistaken our nuclear plants use plenty of imported uranium so the whole idea of obtaining nuclear autarky is off base anyway.