Archive for June, 2010

Nukes, Baby, Nukes

Posted by Carrington Dillon On June - 28 - 2010

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

I wanted to share this article from Bradley Blakeman, professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown, on the United States’ need for more nuclear energy.  Blakeman hits all of the key points–nuclear power is clean, safe, reliable, and cheap.

Duke Energy's Oconee Nuclear Power Units 1, 2, and 3

Duke Energy's Oconee Nuclear Power Units 1, 2, and 3

Nukes, Baby, Nukes

By Bradley Blakeman

Published June 23, 2010 | Foxnews.com

Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.

With regard to our energy independence, the BP oil disaster should be a call to action. Everyone knows we are dependent on fossil fuels coming from foreign sources yet; no one to date has the will to do anything serious and credible about it.

Nuclear energy is the Holy Grail of clean, safe and affordable energy that America can produce and exploit without detriment to the environment.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting Glen L. Mc Cullough, Jr., the former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Glen wrote a terrific paper entitled, “Five Smart Energy Steps for America.” This is what Glen said with regard to nuclear power:

“Build advanced nuclear energy plants. Nuclear energy provides 20 percent of the nation’s electricity but comprises 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity with no nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury or particulate emissions. Nuclear plants are online 91 percent of the time making nuclear the most reliable source of electricity. Nuclear energy is affordable with an average cost of around 1.9 cents per kWh.”

Nuclear energy is safe. The U.S. Bureau of Labor reports that it is safer to work in a nuclear power plant than in a bank. Nuclear energy is also sustainable: ample uranium supplies exist and the U.S. should begin to recycle used fuel, which can power our nuclear plants for centuries.

But we must close the fuel cycle — the U.S. Department of Energy should comply with the Nuclear Energy Act of 1982 and utilize the more than $24 billion paid by ratepayers to build a secure, national repository like Yucca Mountain.

Nuclear energy can be an economic boon. According to one of the largest U.S. electric utility companies, building 1,000 megawatts of advanced nuclear energy provides more than twice the amount of jobs than wind and six times more jobs than solar. What’s more nuclear power plant employees earn high average salaries — yet another reason 74 percent of Americans favor nuclear energy.

America today has approximately 100 operating nuclear power plants. For the past 30 years America all but put a complete halt to construction of new nuclear power plants in spite of the fact that the U.S. was the pioneer of this technology. Today the U.S. Navy operates over 150 nuclear powered ships and submarines.  The Department of Defense has relied heavily on nuclear power while the private sector has been shut down by government regulation and environmental objection.

France is about the size of Texas and primarily relies on nuclear power for its electricity needs. In addition, France is the world’s largest exporter of electric power.

So, not only is France providing adequately for its own needs but it is also selling excess to other nations in Europe. France has become an example for the rest of the world for providing clean and affordable energy.

Nuclear power plants do not pollute the air or produce greenhouse gases.

Today, thanks to technology, spent radioactive fuel can be reprocessed to recover fissile and fertile materials thereby providing fresh fuel for plants. Sadly, in America today there exists no civilian reprocessing plants in operation, although three have been built at great expense.

The world is passing by the very country that invented clean and safe nuclear power.

If our country is serious about becoming energy independent and free from foreign sources of fossil fuel then we need to get serious and build within the next 15 years 200 nuclear power plants throughout our nation.

We should also demand that Yucca Mountain be opened for storage as well as reprocessing. The average time for the permitting and construction of a nuclear power plant is between 8-10 years. The average life span of a nuclear power plant is 30+ years. Think of the jobs that could be created and the costs that could be amortized over long periods of time to make nuclear power affordable. It is a win win.

America needs a “moon shot” on energy and nuclear power is not “pie in the sky.” If other countries can rely on nuclear power as a main source of their electricity needs then America should as well.

Forget “drill, baby, drill” we need “nukes, baby, nukes.”

New Nuclear Plants Fact Sheet 2010

Posted by Carrington Dillon On June - 24 - 2010

fl3constructionClean Energy Insight has created a Nuclear Energy Fact Sheet focused on New Nuclear Plants and their benefits.  I’ve attached the Fact Sheet for you to use in any way that you would like.  Attach it to a pro-nuclear letter you are sending your Congressman, or just send it to a colleague or friend.

Clean Energy Insight - New Nuclear Plant Fact Sheet 2010

Nuclear Fact Series - Nuclear Energy Subsidies

Posted by Carrington Dillon On June - 22 - 2010

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

diablo1Myth: Nuclear Energy Relies on Government Subsidies

The myth that the nuclear energy industry receives a massive amount of taxpayer subsidies is alive and well in internet chatrooms, blogging websites, and even certain “think tanks.”  One of the goals of Clean Energy Insight is to provide easy access to facts about nuclear energy.  So we are starting a “Wednesday Facts Series” that will address perpetuated nuclear industry myths that aim to harm the nuclear industry for the benefit of certain special interests.

Loan Guarantees

The issue of massive nuclear industry subsidies has been preserved with a number of issues.  The first and most recent is that the Loan Guarantees considered in recent “Stimulus” legislation are actually taxpayer subsidies.  Loan Guarantees are not subsidies.  They are loan guarantees. It’s that simple.

Price-Anderson Act

Second, the Price-Anderson Act has also been attacked as a government subsidy program for the Nuclear industry.  The fact is that the Price-Anderson Act provides liability insurance protection to the nuclear industry at no cost to the public whatsoever.  The purpose of the Act was to remove economic barriers and actually stimulate a competitive private Nuclear industry while providing public compensation in the event of a Nuclear incident.  To date, the Price-Anderson Act hasn’t cost taxpayers one dime.  Here is a detailed fact sheet from the NEI about the history and nature of the Price-Anderson Act.

Traditional Subsidies

The “Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy Development” or “Bezdek Report” was completed in September 2008 by Management Information Services Inc.  The attached graph comes from the Bezdek Report and shows a summary of federal incentives for various energy industries.

Disbursements are another word for federal grants or traditional subsidies.  This is the culprit in question today.  As you can see, federal subsidies going to the Nuclear industry total $-14 Billion.  This means that the nuclear industry actually pays more to the federal government than it is given.  This can be explained by the Nuclear Waste Fund (Yucca Mountain) payments to the government from the Nuclear industry.  The Nuclear industry actually subsidizes the federal government!

The only gripe that some may have about this data and Nuclear power is the large amount of Research and Development funds that were apparently handed to the commercial Nuclear industry.  This is not the case.  Most, if not all, of these monies were given to federal government research facilities like the Oak Ridge National Laboratory during the early days of Nuclear power research (notice that the statistics cover 1950-2006).

I hope this article served to raise awareness about the facts surrounding the myths about Nuclear industry subsidies.  Next Wednesday, Tyler Moses will address the myth that people have a “not in my backyard” mentality when it comes to Nuclear power plants.

Summary of Federal Incentives, 1950-2006

Type of Incentive Energy Source Summary for Incentive Type
Oil Natural Gas Coal Hydro Nuclear Renewable Geothermal Total Share
Tax Policy 173 88 31 12 20 2 326 45%
Regulation 116 3 7 5 11 142 20%
R&D 7 6 32 1 67 19 3 135 19%
Market Activity 5 2 2 59 2 2 72 10%
Gov’t Services 31 1 14 1 1 2 50 7%
Disbursements (Subsidies) 3 8 2 -14 2 1 ~0%
Total 335 100 94 80 65 45 7 726
Share 46% 14% 13% 11% 9% 6% 1% 100%

In case you are interested, here are brief explanations of the other incentive categories:

Tax Policy includes federal tax credits, exemptions, deductions, etc. as incentives for investment.

Regulation includes federal mandates and government-funded controls on certain energy industries.  An example is the Oil industry’s exemption from price controls in certain cases.

Research and Development includes federal funding for scientific research and development.

Market Activity involves direct federal government involvement in the marketplace.

Government Services refers to all services provided by the government with “direct charge.”

Fact Sheet 2010 NEI Quiz