I was watching Fox news today and saw the hosts announce a story on mini nuclear plants. Unfortunately, I missed the story, but the possibility of small scale power generation is interesting, as it undercuts all those arguments that insist power, water, and phone service "must" be regulated as they don't allow for competition. (Cell phones already destroyed the argument for phones.)

I first thought of this when I ready about the power sources developed for the DEW line radar installations. Basically, they were cubes six foot on a side containing small nuclear generators designed to operate safely without human intervention for a decade or more. When I saw them I thought, ignoring for the moment the question of nuclear fuel security, that they would allow every small housing development to get together and generate their own power, without worrying about utility companies. It was an easy way to break up huge state created power monopolies by allowing groups of a few dozen or a few hundred individuals to generate their own power. (Ironically, some of the "green" power sources, such as solar panels, also allow this, though the diffuse nature of solar energy makes substantial power generation difficult.)

Now, of course, there is one drawback. No matter how safe the reactor itself is, there are worries that the fuel could be used to create a bomb. However, that is only an issue with specific types of nuclear power sources. There are alternate power sources, many using thermal energy from more stable isotopes, which could be employed in a similar way. Obviously the more stable isotopes produce less energy, but they still provide an interesting way to generate power cleanly on a small scale.

Why do I mention this? What does it have to do with politics?

Simple. Power generation is always sued by those who argue that the free market "just can't handle all real world situations". They babble about "natural monopolies" and argue that the state "must" regulate them. The problem is, there never was a "natural monopoly". There as nothing to prevent competing wires or competing producers running on shared wires. Our power grid was simply developed base don a state-created monopoly and thus the state created a monopoly and acted as if it were natural.

But even ignoring that only a lack of imagination and the initial statist solution created these "natural" monopolies, even pretending that "natural monopolies exist", what is interesting is how technology destroys them. Look at how cable television, satellite television, internet broadcast and a host of other technologies has made made the broadcast networks, also supposedly "natural monopolies" completely irrelevant. Or, even more apt, how the favorite example of a "natural monopoly", the phone company, has been superseded by technology, with some people no longer even owning a land line any more.

And now, if the technology can be developed to the point where a small, safe nuclear generator can be developed that would be adequate for 10 or 50 homes, it would eliminate one of the last "natural monopolies", and help lay to rest the whole argument that energy production must be regulated because the half-hearted and incomplete "deregulation" schemes of the 80's and 90's failed.

Then again, it probably won't dissuade regulation fanatics. Even as their favorite examples of "natural monopolies" have been demolished,t hey have changed their arguments. Now they argue that "deregulation failed" and thus the free market is imperfect. Or they argue that the free market may work, but it lacks "justice". Or some other spurious theory. In short, no matter how much the evidence goes against those who always propose a state solution, they will continue to argue that the state should provide all the answers.

On the other hand, the undecideds, the people int he middle who have a stake in neither camp, aren't as invested in any particular theory, are not immune to evidence. They may sometimes adopt peculiar beliefs, but in general they are reasonable and will listen to the evidence. So, even if the disappearance of "natural monopolies" doesn't persuade the die hard worshipers of the state, it will help persuade those in the middle who actually make most decisions.

POSTSCRIPT

Of course, someone is going to object to any such solution as it is "radioactive". Just as there was the fear that the Cassini probe was going to explode and end all life on Earth, there is always incredible paranoia about all things radioactive. However, the truth is, we live in a  radioactive world, and are constantly surrounded by radiation. There are places on Earth where radiation naturally exceeds the "safe" levels established by various government agencies. Radiation is all around us, and inside us, it is everywhere. Ye,s it can be harmful, but the simple fact that something is "radioactive" tells us very little about whether it is safe.

Now, granted, any nuclear power source will be somewhat dangerous, as will any power generation system. The whole point of power generation is to concentrate energy, and concentrated energy is more harmful than diffuse energy, so any power source is going to be dangerous in precisely the same degree it is effective. Diffuse power systems, such as solar, may have less potential for harm, but that is because they produce less energy. ON the other hand, boilers of turbines can explode quite dramatically, as can the fuel which powers many of them, precisely because it is potent and concentrated. And nuclear fuels, being quite concentrated, are quite dangerous, but not as dangerous as many imagine.

Let us look at another concentrated power source. Gasoline is quite potent, and being potent, it also can burn or explode in quite a stunning fashion. yet we do become terrified by gasoline. We even ride around all day sitting atop 10 or 20 gallon tanks of the stuff. In fact, gasoline has become so commonplace we even transport it ourselves in gallon containers without any fear.

If we treated gasoline in the same manner we treat all nuclear power, you would need to have a government permit to get any gasoline. You would need to tell the regulators exactly where you are driving, when, and how far and would be issued precisely enough gasoline to get there. Towns would insist you give them a 10 miles or more "safe zone", and drive around them for fear of bringing dangerous gasoline into them. And every time you put any gasoline into your tank protestors would block your way.

We have become irrational about all things nuclear. Partly, I think, because it is new, just as people had absurd fears about electricity or the telephone when they first entered the home. But that is not all. Two other factors cause this. First, nuclear power had the misfortune to first be introduced tot eh world in the form of the atomic bomb, which colors all our thinking. People tend to think a failed nuclear plant would result in a mushroom cloud, for example, which is simply absurd. But, even more important that that, all these fears are kept alive, and new ones introduced, because nuclear power had the misfortune to be introduced to the public around the same time the neo-Luddite environmental movement was gaining momentum. Which explains why the US, normally the leader in technology, lags behind even nations such as France, in adopting nuclear power, our anti-technology crusaders do everything they can to keep the public terrified with absurd stories of nuclear boogeymen.