[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

With all of the recent state legislation requiring a certain portion of electricity generation to come from “renewable” energy sources, now is a good time to expand nuclear power. With the ever increasing reliance on technology, electricity demand is projected to increase 26 percent from 2007 to 2030. A report by the National Center for Policy Analysis suggests that recycling spent nuclear fuel could provide an almost unlimited supply of nuclear fuel in the USA while also decreasing the nuclear waste issue.

NCPA Report: Nuclear Power Is Safe, Could Answer Energy Mandates

Since many state governments now require a percentage of their electrical power to come from approved “renewable” energy sources, now is a good time for policymakers to allow the United States to expand the use of nuclear power as a reliable form of energy, according to a new report by the National Center for Policy Analysis.

“The demand for electricity is projected to increase 26 percent from 2007 to 2030,” said H. Sterling Burnett,” NCPA senior fellow and co-author of the report. “Nuclear power is one of the safest and most reliable forms of energy available and it emits no greenhouse gases.”

Nuclear power is also sustainable. The NCPA report explains that recycling spent nuclear fuel could provide an almost unlimited supply of nuclear fuel in the U.S.

“Recycling nuclear fuel would definitely decrease the problem of nuclear waste disposal,” said James Franko, NCPA legislative assistant and co-author of the report. “It can also be a boon to local communities and create a significant amount of jobs.”

Nuclear power should also be considered because it is clean and safe, according to the NCPA report. Nuclear power has among the lowest carbon dioxide(CO2) emissions of all energy sources, emitting only 17 tons of CO2 per gigawatt hour. By contrast, coal emits 1,041 tons and natural gas emits 622 tons. In addition, in more than 50 years of experience with nuclear power in the United States, no deaths or negative health effects have been conclusively linked to nuclear plants or recycled fuel.

“Nuclear power is a viable source of energy, and technology exists today for nuclear power to safely provide a larger percentage of America’s energy needs,” Burnett said. “Policymakers need to consider it as a long-term solution to our energy demands and remove barriers that prevent nuclear energy from being fully utilized.”

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]  A recent article written by Keith Bradsher, states “China, which by most estimates overtook the United States in 2006 to become the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, is seeking sharp improvements in the energy efficiency of its economy.”

China is taking action to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit by building new nuclear reactors – as many as 10 a year – to meet the country’s growing electricity demand.

China’s economy has grown significantly in the last 10 years, and is continuing to grow significantly. They are investing in numerous energy sources to help create and sustain their economies; building nuclear power plants is one energy source that will help their economy, and as a result, China is reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Please reread the first four words of the second paragraph “China is taking action”. I applaud the Chinese for taking initiative in reducing the amount of greenhouse gases they emit, without waiting for an agreement from Copenhagen. Unlike the United States, who is waiting for an arbitrary panel of individuals in Copenhagen to determine what nations “should do”, China is already taking action.

We (United States) have politicians, environmental activists, scientists, etc., all making a case for why or why not we should invest in nuclear power as an energy source. While the Chinese are taking action, the United States is once again arguing over who is right and who is wrong, delaying the process of investing in new nuclear reactors to meet our energy needs and sustain our economy.

This country and our politicians think like a teenage girl who has a crush on a teenage boy. But what if I do this, And this will happen or If I do that. We need politicians who will get over their Ifs, Ands, and Buts hang-ups and make decisions about how we will sustain our economy while still providing enough energy for Americans to live comfortably. We at CEI are in the process of coordinating a Letter Writing Campaign to mobilize the politicians of this country to ACT. Stay posted.

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

We’re back.  After a month of outage season it’s time to get back to work.  Most of Clean Energy Insight’s contributors are back from working their respective outages.  Contributors spent time working long hours over the past month at places like Diablo Canyon, Sequoyah, Three Mile Island, VC Summer, Oconee, and Salem nuclear power plants.  While working on-site and in the field at these plants, everyone gained invaluable experiences that will allow us to provide informed opinions and factual information to you via Clean Energy Insight in the future.

Although we did miss a lot while we were gone, we would like to provide you with a brief summary of some of the more important stories from around the nuclear industry over the past month.  More extensive commentary is to follow on some of these issues.

Senators Webb and Alexander release bi-partisan energy bill

Possibly the most promising energy legislation so far this year made its way to the game one week ago.  Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) co-authored the bi-partisan Clean Energy Act of 2009 that places more importance on nuclear power than other legislative measures introduced so far.  Both Senators are answering the call of several non-partisan groups that claim an inclusion of nuclear in energy legislation will reduce both costs and the use of resources.  This comes after Senator Webb broke with party lines and said that he could not support the climate change bills currently going through Congress.  It seems that this legislation is a step in the direction of common sense legislation that places more importance on nuclear power.  The most reliable, cleanest, and cheapest form of energy available.

““The Clean Energy Act of 2009” spends $20 billion over the next 10 to 20 years to fund a series of loan guarantees; nuclear education and workforce training assistance; research into nuclear reactor lifetime-extension; and the development of solar power, biofuels, and alternative power technologies. The bill follows the urging of Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to increase funds available for the development of nuclear power facilities and technology.

“If we were going to war, we wouldn’t mothball our nuclear navy and start subsidizing sailboats. If addressing climate change and creating low-cost, reliable energy are national imperatives, we shouldn’t stop building nuclear plants and start subsidizing windmills,” said Senator Alexander. “This legislation will create the business and regulatory environment to double our country’s nuclear power production within 20 years and to launch five Mini-Manhattan projects to make advanced clean energy technologies effective and cost-competitive.”

“This legislation is measurable, achievable, and targeted.  By making a concerted investment in nuclear power and other renewable energy technologies, we can effectively address our nation’s energy requirements and also the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,” said Senator Webb. “This legislation is a practical approach to move the United States toward providing clean, carbon-free sources of energy, to help invigorate the economy, and to strengthen our workforce with educational opportunities and high-paying jobs on U.S. soil.””

Dr. Aris Candris: Why the US needs nuclear power

“Other clean energy sources can’t meet the needs of a growing economy.”

Westinghouse Electric CEO Dr. Aris Candris provided a great article in the Wall Street Journal where he outlined the need for nuclear power in the United States.  The nuclear industry is fortunate to have someone like Dr. Candris at the forefront.  As always, Candris does a great job putting the need for nuclear power in a global context.  He likens nuclear power to a stimulus package in itself.  Here’s what he had to say about jobs:

“To date, the recent growth of the nuclear energy industry has created at least 15,000 jobs, with many more on the horizon. Westinghouse’s work alone in the deployment of four new nuclear plants now under construction in China will create or sustain an additional 5,000 U.S. jobs in 20 states. These jobs are in fields such as engineering and design, and in the manufacturing of fuel rods and assemblies, pumps, motors, circuit breakers, etc.

Beyond that, the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness (a trade group) estimates the nuclear energy industry will create as many as 350,000 jobs over the next 20 years, many in traditional building trades (welders, pipe-fitters, construction workers) that have been hard hit by both global competition and the current economic downturn.”

NEI President reminds of the need for nuclear in any effective climate change legislation.

In the past, we have covered the necessity of nuclear power in any effective climate change/energy legislation (here, and here).  NEI President and CEO Marvin Fertel posted a concise article at The Hill while we were out.  You should read it for yourself.  Here are the first and last paragraphs from that piece:

“There’s a growing consensus in Congress across party lines that significant expansion of nuclear energy is needed to meet our electricity demand while achieving the country’s ambitious climate change goals. The nuclear industry is moving forward with 13 applications for a potential 22 new reactors under active review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The industry also has identified federal policies necessary to facilitate the expansion of the nuclear component of our energy portfolio to the scale that numerous independent analyses have concluded are necessary.

Addressing climate change while producing the quantity of electricity needed to sustain economic growth and maintain a high quality of life necessitates a significant contribution from nuclear energy as part of our diversified portfolio. Inclusion of a meaningful nuclear energy title by itself doesn’t get you to an agreement in Congress on climate change legislation. But at the same time, you can’t get there without it.”

CEO of NRG says that nuclear is needed for electric vehicle usage worldwide

NRG CEO David Crane told the US Senate that in order for electric vehicles to be used on a large scale while meeting carbon emission targets, nuclear would have to be used.  Here are a couple of quotes from the article from World Nuclear News:

“A combination of electric vehicles with clean generation and nuclear power for baseload will solve America’s climate and energy security problems, according to testimony from a senior utility chief.

Crane said: “We need to build a zero carbon baseload foundation under our wind farms and solar fields. That foundation is new advanced nuclear power.”

“We need to focus on a commercial foothold strategy that will quickly capture a significant market share for electric vehicles in key American cities and city clusters,” said Crane, adding that “the electrification of our transportation sector will provide the cure to our national addiction to foreign oil.”"

Japan, United States to work on nuclear recycling

In order to meet emissions targets and employ more clean energy, President Obama and the Department of Energy plan to get the help of the Japanese nuclear industry with recycling American nuclear fuel.  This is promising since the practice has been outlawed since the Jimmy Carter years, and the Obama Administration is attempting to end the Yucca Mountain project.

Progress says it needs 12 nuclear reactors to meet emissions goals set by Congress

Progress Energy is getting realistic in response to the recent climate change and energy legislation that is passing through Congress.  Progress released a statement saying that in order to realistically achieve an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, at least 12 new reactors would have to be added to its own energy portfolio.  Progress is currently planning to build new reactors at the Shearon Harris site in Raleigh, NC, and the Crystal River site in Levy County, FL.

Clemson University Tigers study impact of nuclear industry on jobs in State

A group of researchers at Clemson University reported that the nuclear industry in South Carolina is responsible for supporting 28,704 jobs in the state.  The group upstaged their rivals at the University of South Carolina who recently reported that BMW employed 23,050 jobs in the state.  The group also found that if planned nuclear reactors were to get built in the state, an additional 12,400 permanent jobs would be created.  I have heard in the past that nuclear energy is South Carolina’s number one trade export.

Clean Energy Insight has created a Fact Sheet for 2009 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 2009

I know that Halloween is today and this may find some of you a little late, but as a light and fun holiday article, I thought we could discuss “Green” Halloween ideas.  Here are some fun Halloween ideas that will help you have an eco-friendly holiday.

1) Reuse or make your own Halloween costume:

Okay, so I know this sounds cheesy but how easy, cheap and fun would it be to make your own costume?  Be a little creative.  Some of the most memorable costumes I had as a little kid were ones my mom made.  One year my mom took a clear trash bag, cut holes for legs and arms, blew up a bunch of colorful balloons and stuffed my sister and the balloons in the trash bad.  She was a bag of jelly beans.  It was hilarious and definitely won best costume on the street.  If you don’t feel like being creative, ask a friend if you could borrow an old costume they might not be using.

2) Decorate with nature:

So who doesn’t love the colorful changing of the leaves, or the brownish color corn stalks, or acorns falling off the trees?  Use these items to decorate your home for this fall holiday instead of purchasing a bunch of expensive decorations that you could have probably made yourself.

3) Walk…Don’t Drive:

Now I hope that none of you do this but walk, don’t drive your kids from house to house trick-or-treating.  Driving takes all the fun out of trick-or treating.  Not only is it good exercise but it is a time that you can spend with your children.

4) Take a reusable bag:

Take and old pillow case that you don’t use anymore (which I am sure you all have) and let your kids paint them to make their trick or treat bag?  It would be a creative, fun activity for your child to do plus you can store it away with the rest of your Halloween decorations and use it for years to come!

5) Purchase candy that has the least amount of wrapping:

So I know a lot of you are going to be passing out the candy instead of getting the candy (unless you pick at your own candy bowl…which I am sure is what I will be doing) so one way to been a little more environmentally friendly is when you go candy shopping, try to buy candy that has less wrapping and packaging.

I hope everyone has a fun filled and safe Halloween!!!  If you get a last minute party invite or are still debating on what to wear, check out the Mother Nature Network for some easy eco-friendly costume ideas.

Don’t forget, the cleanest energy is the energy you don’t waste.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

TGIF!  Time to reveal another way to save energy.  To piggy back on what we discussed last week, properly installing and using a programmable thermostat in your home is an easy way to save energy and money!  Remember that the cleanest energy is the energy you don’t waste.

Programmable Thermostat

By using a programmable thermostat in your home, it is easy to pre-program settings to regulate your home’s temperature.  Depending on your family’s schedule, the thermostat can be set to properly adjust your homes temperature as to deliver savings without sacrificing comfort.  According to the US Department of Energy, each household can save approximately 10% a year on heating and cooling bills by turning back the thermostat 10°–15° for eight hours.   By using a programmable thermostat, you can pre-set a schedule and adjust when you want to turn on and off  your heating or air-conditioning based on when you are sleeping or not in your home.

Energy star qualified programmable thermostats come with pre-programmed set-points as a guide to help setup your thermostat.

Courtesy: EnergyStar.gov

Effort: Medium

Time Required: 2 Hours

Materials Needed: Energy Star Programmable Thermostat and manual that comes with it.

Instructions:

1) Choose the right programmable thermostat

2) Have your thermostat properly installed

3) Properly set and use your thermostat

4) If you would rather not purchase a new thermostat you can still save with your manual thermostat.  You can manually adjust your thermostat before you go to bed or leave your home.

Helpful Reminder:

Turning your heating or cooling system way up or down with not heat or cool your home any faster.  It will however make your system work harder…using more energy.

Read the rest of this entry »

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Our nation has a continued dysfunction in regard to paying attention to and solving real problems.  Tunnel vision and osmosis must be the source of some of our nation’s prioritization because all of the problems that get attention have the same attributes.  They are within arms reach or are right in front of our collective faces.  This is the only way I can explain the reason why the vast majority of regulation and laws passed for air pollution control up to this point are for automotive emissions.   All this attention when only 20 percent of our nation’s air pollution is from car exhaust and 80 percent of air pollution comes from electricity generation by fossil fuels.

I’m not particularly for or against car exhaust regulation, I’m just puzzled by our nation’s constant attention being drawn to it just because we are around cars all of the time.  Are we unable to use data to make decisions anymore?  Do we really have an attention span that short or is our congress that dense?

Our nation has real problems in many areas, some we can see with data and some we see because we are staring at it every day.  I think our nation needs a better ability to prioritize problems on an absolute scale.  It is no secret that Clean Energy Insight is for nuclear electricity generation because it solves the 80% part of the air pollution problem while simultaneously creating jobs here in the USA.

Congress appears to have renewed some attention to the climate bill this week. Let me make a few suggestions that may help reduce the tension in the air.  Number one, if you don’t want any more coal plants to be built then just write a law that says that (or restricts it to a small number) and stop this increase in costs of production nonsense that would be immediately passed onto the citizens.  Number two, make nuclear power the preferred source of base load power and pass loan guarantees for about $20 billion per year over the next 15 or so years.  This creates many thousands of jobs, solves the clean energy problem, and does not spend any federal money (just co-signing the loans).  Number three, put any other kind of non-base load renewable feel good power generation in there you want.   We all know solar, wind et al. won’t make a difference to the big picture overall power consumed, but apparently we have to spend money on it to feel good about ourselves.

Let’s get smart America and use data to solve the right problems the best way and reject the continued dysfunctional short attention span that is spending us into the poor house, gaining us little progress on pollution control, and no job creation during the worst recession in 75 years.

Now take a deep breath and sigh admittedly to yourself…..”nuclear is the solution”.

[Approx. Read Time 6 minutes]

The US Chamber of Commerce has been making major news lately, and I’d like to make an attempt to analyze what the fuss is all about.  Hopefully, by asking a few questions and doing a little research, you will be able to better understand what you may be reading in the news.

The pro-Nuclear United States Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation.  It’s self-proclaimed goal is:

“To advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility.”

According to a Harris Interactive Poll (2008), the Chamber was ranked 5th most familiar and 5th most trustworthy organization in the United States.  However, the Chamber has gotten a lot of harsh criticism lately from many of its members even leading to some companies dropping their memberships.

Recently, the Chamber of Commerce has come out in opposition to the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill that passed the House during late summer.  Since the Chamber has made their opposition publicly known, several major public energy utilities that have heavy stakes in Nuclear power have left the Chamber.  These include Pacific Gas & Electric and Exelon (See here).  Surprisingly, even leading coal power generating utilities like Appalachian Electric Power and Duke Power have come out in support of the Waxman-Markey legislation.  Here is what PG&E Chairman and Chief Executive Peter Darbee had to say about their decision to split from the Chamber:

“We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.”

After reading PG&E’s comments, you may find yourself taking sides against the Chamber of Commerce.  I can certainly understand their support for this legislation.  But before you get hopping mad, take a cool head over to the Chamber’s website to see what they have to say about the situation.  In their explanation for their stance against Cap-and-Trade, they explicitly state that they believe the legislation doesn’t do enough to rollback emissions and implement renewable energy technology.  See below for an excerpt from the Chamber’s website:

Five Positions on Energy and the Environment

Also see our Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future with 88 concrete recommendations and detailed timelines which form a comprehensive, long-term energy strategy that if adopted, will put America on a path for a more secure, prosperous and clean energy future.

1. The Chamber’s position on climate change

The Chamber has in its public documents, Hill letters and testimony, supported efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. Our position is simple: There should be a comprehensive legislative solution that does not harm the economy, recognizes that the problem is international in scope, and aggressively promotes new technologies and efficiency. Protecting our economy and the environment for future generations are mutually achievable goals.

2. The Chamber’s position on Waxman-Markey

We opposed this specific legislation because it would not reduce the global level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It is neither comprehensive nor international, and it falls short on moving renewable and alternative technologies into the marketplace and enabling our transition to a lower carbon future. It would also impose carbon tariffs on goods imported into the U.S., a move that would almost certainly spur retaliation from global trading partners.

3. The Chamber’s position on EPA’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act:

The Clean Air Act is not the appropriate vehicle for regulating climate change. Even though EPA is only addressing motor vehicles, the Clean Air Act is structured so that once EPA regulates greenhouse gases in any manner; the Act regulates all emitters of the gases which includes stationary sources that have never been subject to EPA Air regulation. To quote Congressman John Dingell, this will be a “glorious mess.” Our economy does not need a glorious regulatory mess, especially now. Reason needs to prevail and Congress needs to enact a comprehensive climate change law.

4. The Chamber’s position on alternative/renewable energy sources:

The Chamber has vigorously supported the production and use of renewable energy and we have consistently called for additional funding for renewable and other clean energy technology advancements. The Chamber’s website contains all of our letters of support to Congress and comments to agencies, and our reports on the status of funding for new energy technologies. In addition, we have sent dozens of concrete policy recommendations to the Administration and Congress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere while keeping our economy healthy. We are currently leading the fight to clear the regulatory, legal, and Not-In-My-Backyard roadblocks that are delaying promising wind, solar, nuclear and other clean energy projects across the nation.

5. The Chamber’s position on the role of technology in addressing these challenging issues:

American business is the single biggest investor in clean technology. The Chamber has routinely supported tax incentives and credits, appropriations and stimulus funding to promote the accelerated development of these technologies.  Our Institute for 21stCentury Energy dedicated an entire chapter of its Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future to increasing sources of renewable energy in our transportation and electricity sectors. We supported all of the technology provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and has promoted their funding since the passage of these laws

PG&E’s Peter Darbee also claimed that he fears that the Chamber of Commerce “has forfeited an incredible chance to play a constructive leadership role on one of the most important issues our country may ever face.”

See the Chamber’s Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future in which the Chamber notably came out in favor of an expansion of Nuclear power in America (page 21).

The Chamber’s official nuclear stances include the following:

• Increase the amount of federally stored uranium for use in domestic nuclear power.
• Expeditiously establish a program to recycle nuclear waste.
• Develop centrally located storage facilities for used nuclear fuel.
• Request that the current Administration must make a formal decision on Yucca Mountain.
• Mandate that the Federal Gov’t pay back Waste Fund payments to utility rate-payers ($27 Billion) if the Yucca Mountain plan is disregarded.
• Improve the DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program for nuclear power.
• Improve the NRC licensing review process with additional resources and more efficient processes.

Wading through this back-and-forth between the US Chamber of Commerce and public energy utilities may leave you feeling dizzy.  It left me wondering why the utilities were so hard on the Chamber for stances it really doesn’t seem to take.

The answer may lie in a statement or series of statements by one Chamber official in which he called for a “Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st Century” in order to reportedly test the scientific theory of man-made global warming.  William Kovacs, a VP at the Chamber, immediately came out and retracted his statement. Claiming that he was misunderstood and didn’t effectively relay the Chamber’s position on the issue.

This all stemmed from the Chamber’s opposition to an EPA ruling that CO2 has a direct harmful effect on human health and welfare, which allows the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to more strongly regulate emissions on industry and business. (See here.)

However, other than this single statement/issue, the Chamber has been pro-climate change solutions.  The Chamber explicitly states that it’s mutually achievable goal is to protect the economy and the environment.  One of the main reasons the Chamber doesn’t think this is achievable with the Waxman-Markey bill can be seen in the graph below (Click graph for large size).

(Note - This graph was provided by Alex Flint, Senior VP of Governmental Affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, in a presentation he gave to NA-YGN members during this past summer.  Although, Flint and NEI came out in support of Waxman-Markey’s pro-nuclear provisions, his point by showing this data was that in order to reduce costs the final legislation must be more pro-nuclear.  This is currently being seen with the Boxer-Kerry legislation making its way through the Senate, although Waxman-Markey wasn’t as openly pro-nuclear.)

Regardless of your stance on climate change and climate change legislation–In it’s current form, the Waxman-Markey bill is a bottom-line price-increase on energy consumers, as shown above by NEI.

Furthermore, regardless of your stance on this legislation, public energy utilities are profit-seeking businesses, and a profit-seeking business would not go out of its way on principle alone to support something that would harm its profits.  Utilities like Exelon with a considerable number of operating nuclear power plants are naturally supporting the legislation because nuclear power emits zero greenhouse gases.  Exelon CEO John Rowe commented on this yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.

WSJ: You’re outspoken about the need for carbon-emission reductions. You dropped out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because it opposed legislation. But you own 17 nuclear reactors that would benefit.

Mr. Rowe: We don’t flinch from the charge that, yes, some of our motivation and enthusiasm comes from the fact that we should make money on it if it happens. I started dealing with this problem more than a decade ago, long before I had a sense of how much money I could make for Exelon. A good solution to a societal problem is one where the winners help solve the problem.

With the current Waxman-Markey bill not putting much stake in nuclear power, energy prices will rise.  But why are utilities that produce power using fossil fuels also fervently on board with the legislation?

In an attempt to explain, the demand for energy is for all intents and purposes perfectly inelastic.  A product that has inelastic demand has few substitutes.  Examples of inelastic goods include gasoline, medicine, Super Bowl tickets, and electricity.  In the case of energy, this is exhibited by the fact that energy consumers basically have no choice in who they purchase their electricity from or whether they need to use electricity at all.

Another characteristic of a perfectly inelastic good is that when a tax or price-increase is introduced, the producer is able to pass 100% of the increase on to the consumer.  That is the cost to produce electricity will be passed directly onto energy consumers by public utilities who emit a lot of greenhouse gases.  Hopefully, knowing these economic facts will help you understand why even coal-heavy public energy utilities with seemingly so much to lose are supporting Waxman-Markey.

In fact, if you do an internet search on “Chamber of Commerce Cap and Trade” you will find countless news articles that state the Chamber’s official position to be anti-climate change, anti-emissions reductions, anti-cap-and-trade, anti-renewable energy, etc.  All running contrary to the Chamber’s explicitly stated positions.

Personally, I’m not sure that the public energy utilities can be held completely responsible for the Chamber’s true message apparently getting lost in translation. Unless you do the necessary research, you will find that many ”credible” news-outlets are getting the story wrong.  All because of one statement that was immediately retracted.

Maybe the Chamber of Commerce is right when it states that current legislation isn’t doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create a competitive renewable and clean energy sector in the United States?  But the next time you hear a news-release pronouncing that the Chamber of Commerce has decided to support climate legislation in Congress, you can bet that it will be because Congress has actually decided to take further and more effective steps in the direction of competitively reducing emissions and creating a strong renewable energy portfolio.  An energy future that includes nuclear power.  Until then, it just looks like business as usual.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

We have covered the nuclear power issue in the United Kingdom previously, here and here.  Lord Philip Hunt (center), Minister of the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the United Kingdom, offered the following pro-nuclear letter in the Guardian today.  Very well written and interesting to see the statistics from Britain on nuclear power that are very similar in proportion to those in the United States.

It seems as though certain leaders in the United Kingdom are realizing the role that nuclear power should play in their energy portfolio.  In a country like the United Kingdom with limited land resources, nuclear power is a perfect fit.  As we showed last week, nuclear power is the most dense form of energy; meaning that nuclear power uses the least amount of land of any power source to create power.  I also saw some anti-nuclear commentary from Britain today about the high costs of nuclear power.  True, nuclear power has high upfront costs.  Nonetheless, reports from the United States show that nuclear power is one of the cheapest forms of energy available.  This can be seen in the following graph compiled recently with information from the United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

Since we do get so many visitors from across the pond, I am tempted to offer a “What Does Renewable Energy Look Like?” (Part I, Part II) article for the UK.  Those of you from the UK, let me know what you think about that in the comments section, and I will try to get that done before I leave for an outage next week.

‘Britain an ideal location for new nuclear power’

Lord Hunt, a minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, gives his verdict on Britain’s nuclear power projects.

Monday, October 19, 2009

A nuclear renaissance in the UK presents a tremendous opportunity. It has the potential to supply us with substantial amounts of home-grown, low-carbon, reliable and relatively cheap energy. That is why the government is facilitating a new generation of nuclear power: removing regulatory barriers, making the planning system fairer and faster, and creating more certainty for communities and industry.

Climate change and the need to replace ageing power stations mean this is the right thing to do. It is in our long-term national interest. We need to transform our energy sector, replacing old infrastructure with high-tech, low-carbon energy sources. Nuclear energy, alongside a tenfold increase in renewables and investing in clean coal, will be central.

Already the energy industry has announced plans for new reactors to generate 12GW of new nuclear power, more than currently exists. The first of these new plants is on course to start feeding into the grid by 2018, which would usher in a new era of secure clean energy, driven by a rejuvenated industry and workforce.

The civil nuclear industry currently generates 11GW of power from 10 nuclear power stations and provides employment for 44,000 people in the core industry and the direct supply chain. We estimate that a new nuclear power station has the potential to provide 9,000 jobs during construction and 1,000 jobs during operation, with many more created across the supply chain. The estimated economic benefit would be £2.8bn for each new plant.

While the government fully supports a new generation of new nuclear power, we recognise that there are legitimate concerns amongst the public. We are the first administration to take serious action to address Britain’s nuclear legacy. I recently visited the site at Dounreay, where workers are completing, ahead of schedule, the decommissioning of the site.

It’s exactly this sort of achievement that makes Britain an ideal location for new nuclear power. We have the skills, ingenuity and experience needed, coupled with a strong safety record. Ours is a world-class, rigorous, and transparent regulatory system, ensuring we maintain the highest standards of safety.

The government will announce shortly a rigorously assessed list of sites suitable for new nuclear development, alongside a clear statement of national need. We are determined that this entire process is conducted in partnership with local communities. We have already conducted extensive consultation to hear people’s views and address their concerns and will continue to do so.

Putting nuclear energy at the very heart of our low-carbon economy is part of our credibility going into the climate summit in Copenhagen. We need to demonstrate how we intend to reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050. We need to show real action and real leadership, and that is why we need new nuclear energy.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Ceiling fans used in addition to your air conditioning can save energy by allowing a higher thermostat temperature setting. In the summer or warmer months, use the ceiling fan in the counterclockwise direction. While standing directly under the ceiling fan you should feel a cool breeze.  Air movement from the fan evaporates moisture on the skin and makes a person feel cooler. Therefore, you can raise the thermostat and feel just as comfortable. For every degree you raise the air conditioning thermostat, you can save approximately 3 % - 5 % in cooling costs. There is no energy savings if you use a ceiling fan and forget to raise the thermostat.

To get the full effect of your ceiling fan, in the winter or cooler months, reverse the motor and operate the ceiling fan in the clockwise direction. This causes the warm air circulating near the ceiling to produces a gentle updraft, forcing the warm air down into the room without blowing any cool air.

How Much Energy Do Ceiling Fans Use?

(Here is some useful information on ceiling fans from Progress Energy)

Fans use no more electricity than light bulbs. Typical wattage for various ceiling fan sizes are:

• 36″ = 55 watts
• 48″ = 75 watts
• 52″ = 90 watts
• 56″ = 100 watts

For example, a 48″, 75-watt fan used 10 hours a day at half speed or less would cost $.50 to $.90 a month to operate. For a 1,500-square-foot house with air conditioning using two ceiling fans and raising the thermostat setting could save about $70 to $200 over a six-month cooling season.

Effort: Low if already have ceiling fans, Medium to High if installing Ceiling Fans

Time Required: 5 minutes if already have ceiling fans, 2 hours if installing ceiling fans

Materials Needed: Ceiling Fans (preferably Energy Star) and directions and materials that come with it

Instructions:

1) How to select a ceiling fan: Fan sizes typically range from 34″ to 56″ in diameter. The size of the fan depends of the room dimensions.  Below gives a general idea of the size ceiling fan for the size room it is located in.

• 36″ fan for rooms that measure up to 9′ X 12′
• 48″ fan for rooms up to 12′ X 15′
• 56″ fan for rooms larger than 12′ X 15′

2) Installing a ceiling fan: Follow the directions that come with the fan.  The following Do-it-Yourself website is also a helpful tool.

Helpful Reminder:

Adjust your thermostat when you have your ceiling fans running.  For each degree you lower or raise your thermostat (depending on the season and which direction your fan is rotating), you’ll reduce heating or cooling costs 3 % to 5 %.

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

I once read an article by William Tucker that included some interesting facts about nuclear energy.  You can read it here.  One statistic from Tucker’s letter that I’ve kept with me is that uranium is 2 million times more energy dense than coal.  Hopefully, by representing this fact visually it will stick with most of you.  Let’s get started…

Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given volume or mass of a certain substance or material.  If an energy source has a high energy density, then you’ll need less material or resources to create the same, if not more, amounts of power than energy sources with lower energy densities.  I’ve tabulated the energy density of various energy sources below.  These numbers are easily accessible on the internet from various reliable sources.  I started with a wonderfully informative website named “What Is Nuclear?” linked here.

*Tucker explains in his piece that solar energy is 10-50 times less dense than wood.  I’d like to use this, but I had a hard time justifying that you can consider solar energy in terms of mass (kg) when solar energy density is usually measured per square meter.  I included solar in the table as a matter of perspective.

I will be the first to admit that if you don’t have a scientific background, you cannot fully appreciate this data unless it is put into perspective.  So, how can you put these numbers into perspective?  I will first represent this data with graphs.  Then I will represent these numbers in terms of feet, and then in miles.

Represented Graphically

First, the energy densities of wood and ethanol, both directly derived from plants, are shown in the below graph.

Next, the energy densities for wood, ethanol, coal, crude oil, diesel, and natural gas are graphically displayed.

Next, natural uranium and reactor-grade uranium are included in the graph.  They completely dwarf the other energy sources.

You can see that other than natural and reactor-grade uranium the other energy sources don’t even show up on the graph.  This is because nuclear energy is just that energy dense!  In fact, if I were to stretch this graph out to where natural gas, coal, and oil would begin to show up, this graph would be almost one mile long!

Represented in Feet

Wood - 10 ft

This can be compared the height of a basketball goal, or the career average passing yards per attempt of Ryan Leaf (3.6 yards).  Leaf is often referred to as the worst quarterback in NFL history.

Coal - 33 ft

This can be compared the career average passing yards per completion of Brett Favre (11.4 yards).

Crude Oil - 42 ft

Compare this to the distance that a football punter stands behind the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped to him for a punt.  Virginia Tech’s football program has proven that 42 feet (14 yards) isn’t very far.  They have led all NCAA football teams in blocked kicks over the past two decades.  It takes about 3 seconds from the snap to the blocked punt.

Natural Uranium - 570,000 ft (108 mi)

This is approximately the distance from Washington DC to Richmond, VA on I-95.  It takes 2 hours to get there with no traffic.

DC to Richmond

Reactor-grade Uranium - 3,700,000 ft (700 mi)

This is the approximate distance from Washington, DC to Chicago, IL via interstate travel.  This trip takes 11 hours without traffic or bathroom breaks; and although some may argue otherwise, I would be willing to bet that Brett Favre cannot throw a ball this far.

Represented in Miles

Coal - 33 miles

This is equal to the average round-trip daily commuting distance for Americans (ABC News/Time Magazine/Washington Post Poll).

Commute

Natural Uranium - 570,000 miles

This is equal to traveling around the equator 23 times.  Or making one trip to the Moon and back.  Hardly a daily commute.

Reactor-grade Uranium - 3,700,000 miles

This is equal to traveling around the equator 149 times.  Or you could make 15.5 round-trips to the moon, but you would have to stay there because you’re one-half a round-trip short.

One Leg Short of a Round-trip

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

It’s Friday again and we’re back to talk about consumption conservation! The days are getting shorter, the air is getting colder, and we’re going to be spending more time indoors flipping on lights, cranking up the heat, and doing what we do best… consuming energy!

Making the Switch to Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs

One of the easiest ways to reduce our energy bills is by making improvements to our household lighting. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nearly 11% of our energy bill is from lighting. An Energy Star qualified compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) uses 75% less energy than a standard incandescent bulb and lasts approximately 10 times longer! That equates to about $30 in savings over the lifetime of a single CFL. (www.energystar.gov)

Courtesy of Energystar.gov

How to Upgrade your Lighting:

Effort: Low
Time Required: 1-2 minutes
Materials Needed:

• Lamp, light fixture, etc.
• EnergyStar rated CFL Bulb
• EnergyStar rated Fluorescent Fixture (Optional)

Steps:

1. Determine the most effective room to upgrade. Since CFL’s are most efficient in fixtures used continuously, try starting with a community room such as the kitchen.
2. Select the proper bulb size/power for your fixture. (Visit www.energystar.gov for guidance in choosing the right light)
3. As an optional step, consider upgrading your permanent lighting fixture to an Energy Star qualified fluorescent fixture.

Purchase, install, flip the switch, and SAVE!!!

So remember, next time you flip the switch… Energy Is Our Future –Don’t Waste It!

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

I realize that Clean Energy Insight hasn’t come out and voiced our opinion on the Senate version of the Cap-and-Trade Bill, otherwise known as the Boxer-Kerry Bill.  But don’t get your hopes up.  Personally, some of us feel that it isn’t appropriate, sensible, or productive for a nuclear power advocacy website to come out in support of the entire bill since it has such a large scope.  In fact, the Cap-and-Trade bill going through Congress is one of the largest bills in United States history.

So from now on, we will offer our opinions on the nuclear section of the bill, and at the moment we like what we see; however, currently the bill has nothing but a nuclear-friendly foundation with promises to build.

Mark Flanagan at NEI Nuclear Notes has been following the bill here and here.  Mark has described the bill as a “Christmas tree without ornaments” with regard to nuclear energy policy, and we agree.  Hopefully, those ornaments will decorate our tree with:

• More Loan Guarantees
• Tax breaks for nuclear job creation, manufacturing, and construction
• Licensing process changes that reduce time and create an efficient process
• Action to get the ball rolling on this “blue-ribbon commission” that will re-examine options for nuclear fuel

Currently, Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain have been offering strong criticism of the bill when it comes to nuclear power.  To me, this seems more like political posturing and gamesmanship than anything.  Although, I appreciate their aggressiveness in support of nuclear power, both Senators know that additions to the bill are coming.  If positive additions promised by Sen. Kerry don’t come, then they can open up the flood gates of constructive criticism.

Although it seems to be unpopular in America today, if you actually read the current bill here (beginning on page 107), you will see that the Boxer-Kerry Bill actually opens up to nuclear power a lot more than the House version (Waxman-Markey).  And when I say “open up,” I mean that it takes a big step in openly acknowledging that nuclear power will have to be a part of America’s energy solution.

On a more personal note, I am very pleased to see the focus on nuclear job creation in the bill.  Especially with respect to trade jobs such as skilled craftsmen, welders, etc.– a big issue for the nuclear industry as current nuclear tradesmen present an aging workforce.  Even if it is obvious that this comes simply as a result of Senators Boxer and Kerry fulfilling their legislative favors for the trade Unions.

We will see what happens with respect to nuclear power in the coming days.  Each of you can make a difference by calling, emailing, or writing your Senator and telling them that you support nuclear power’s role in America’s energy future.  Make them accountable for delivering those ornaments for our Nuclear power Christmas tree.

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

The United Kingdom has been warned once again that it must embrace nuclear power if it is going to address climate change initiatives and energy shortages in the country.   Backing up a government study released just two months ago, Professor David MacKay states that nuclear power is paramount to attain a secure clean energy future for Great Britain.

MacKay does bring up a brilliant point that isn’t brought up often enough–electric cars will put major strain on current power production levels.  Vehicle emissions are only a small part of the entire emissions portfolio of countries like the United States and United Kingdom.  In reality, the addition of electric cars will increase the emissions of the biggest contributor to an overall emissions portfolio–electric power generation.  In order to release a fleet of electric vehicles into a country, clean baseload power sources like nuclear power must be utilized.

Professor David MacKay: Britain ‘must go nuclear’ to control climate

The government’s chief scientific adviser on climate change has proposed a quadrupling of Britain’s nuclear power generation to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

Professor David MacKay believes nuclear power could be the only way Britain can meet its soaring demand for electricity while keeping emissions under control.

He has calculated that renewable energy sources such as wind and tidal power will never provide more than a fraction of Britain’s electricity needs.

Speaking last week on his first day as chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, MacKay set out a vision of how Britain could generate the threefold increase in electricity it needs, with nuclear power at its heart.

He cited Sizewell B, Britain’s largest nuclear power station, as a benchmark.

“This plan would involve a fourfold increase in nuclear power over today’s levels,” he said. “So at Sizewell, for example, you would have four Sizewell Bs and at other nuclear sites you would have another four Sizewell Bs, and so on.”

He added: “Britain could never live on its own renewables. If the aim is to get off fossil fuels, we need nuclear power or solar power generated in other countries’ deserts, or both.”

MacKay, who will advise Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December, stressed he was not personally pro-or anti-nuclear. “My point is that whatever energy sources we choose, the sums have to add up,” he said.

Britain emits greenhouse gases equivalent to 680m tons of CO2 a year. The government has pledged to cut this to 140m tons by 2050 and has said it wants nuclear power to play a part.

In the next few weeks it is due to publish a shortlist of up to 11 sites where nuclear power stations could be built. Most are next to existing installations.

The scale of the nuclear programme hinted at by MacKay is far greater than that suggested by ministers, however.

There are 10 ageing nuclear stations in the country, with 12 gigawatts of generating capacity — about 15% of Britain’s needs. Two are due to close next year, the rest by 2023.

MacKay’s calculations, set out to an audience of Cambridge academics, are based on a new generation of nuclear power stations supplying 40 to 50 gigawatts of power by 2050.

Since modern nuclear power stations are likely to be much more powerful than those built in the past, this suggests fewer than 15 new reactors would be needed.

At the heart of his thinking lies a prediction that, by 2050, Britain will need three times more electricity-generation capacity than it has now.

This is partly because the only way to cut the surging emissions from road transport — roughly a third of all UK emissions — is to make most vehicles electrically propelled. Millions of electric vehicles would need regular recharging.

MacKay also wants to see an end to the use of gas for central heating and the replacement of boilers with heat pumps that extract heat from the atmosphere. They run on electricity.

“Setting fire to chemicals like gas should be made a thermodynamic crime,” he said. “If people want heat they should be forced to get it from heat pumps. That would be a sensible piece of legislation.”

MacKay said there were other ways of generating the electricity Britain needed. One was to rent swathes of desert from north African countries such as Algeria or Libya, cover them in solar panels and transmit the power to Britain along high-voltage cables.

In theory an area the size of Wales could meet all of Britain’s power needs, but the idea is fraught with technical and political problems. It would also leave Britain at the mercy of the countries whose territory contained the equipment.

Another possibility would be carbon capture and storage, in which CO2 emissions are captured before they enter the atmosphere and buried. MacKay said this was an untried technology, however, and should not be relied on.

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

The Washington Capitals, an NHL hockey team, endorsed nuclear power today.  Through an endorsement from the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Caps will attempt to share the importance that nuclear energy has with respect to emission-free energy generation.  The endorsement showcases the great work and increased spending from the NEI in the past year to educate the American public on the benefits of nuclear power as a clean, safe, and reliable form of energy for the country.  Now, if only the Capitol (rather than the Capitals) will choose to fully endorse nuclear power.  Although, this is a great start.  You can check out the interesting details of the endorsement below.

NEI Partners with NHL’s Washington Capitals to Promote Nuclear Energy’s Clean-Air Value

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — To increase awareness of nuclear energy’s role in clean-air electricity generation, the Nuclear Energy Institute has entered into its first-ever partnership with the Washington Capitals of the National Hockey League. As an official energy partner of the Capitals, NEI is teaming up with the team to promote the clean-air benefits of nuclear energy to sports fans via multiple media, including signage at the Capitals’ home arena, the Verizon Center, in print and radio ads, and on the Caps’ and NEI’s Web sites.

Hockey and climate change may seem unrelated, but a rising concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is, many believe, creating changes in the climate–changes that are having an impact on hockey. From Vancouver to Vermont, Stockholm to Moscow, the ponds and lakes on which many hockey players hone their skills are freezing later in the year and melting sooner.

“Nuclear energy is an important part of a technology-based solution to climate change,” said Capitals majority owner Ted Leonsis. “It’s a proven energy provider in Virginia and Maryland for Capitals’ fans. We are pleased to work with NEI to raise awareness of the role that it can play in reducing greenhouses gases across America.”

The Washington region has long benefitted from nuclear energy’s clean, reliable electricity generation: Nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases or other controlled air pollutants while generating electricity. For local Caps’ fans, 85 percent of the clean electricity produced in Maryland comes from the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant located 45 miles from Verizon Center. In Virginia, nuclear energy produces 91 percent of the state’s emission-free power.

Additionally, Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and Richmond-based Dominion Power are among energy companies that have filed permits with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build new nuclear energy facilities.

“The Capitals’ success here in Washington provides a terrific branding opportunity for the industry as Congress and the Obama administration tackle important energy and environmental issues, all of which will benefit from America’s investment in nuclear energy,” said Scott Peterson, NEI’s vice president of communications.

Nuclear energy is the largest generator of clean-air electricity with 104 reactors in 31 states generating 20 percent of all electricity and 72 percent of electricity produced from sources that do not produce greenhouse gases. For many U.S. energy companies, nuclear energy is a vital part of a clean energy production portfolio that also includes wind, solar and hydroelectric power.

Like the energy sector, NHL players are increasingly serious about climate change. The NHL Players Association has helped its membership calculate their total carbon emissions for the regular season. Hockey players are uniquely qualified to comment on the demonstrable effects of climate change.

“A rite of winter passage among generations of hockey players–playing and falling in love with the game out on frozen ponds and lakes–has been curtailed as warmer winters in recent years have meant less access to skating recreation,” Peterson noted. “A lot of people associated with hockey believe this is due to climate change.”

Capitals’ fans this hockey season will see NEI’s “Nuclear: Clean Air Energy” message prominently displayed near the goal both at the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C., as well at the team’s training facility, Kettler Capitals Iceplex, in Arlington, Va. NEI also will air 30-second radio commercials during coverage of all 82 games on local radio WFED 1500 AM. NEI also will have video and display ads on the Capitals’ Web site and full-page advertisements in the game programs.

All season long, NEI will provide updated information on nuclear energy’s role in moving America to a more climate-friendly energy portfolio for Washington Capitals fans at http://nei.org/caps. To view partnership-related photographs, including shots of the Capitals in action, throughout the season, see NEI’s Flickr account at http://www.flickr.com/photos/_nei/.