Right now in the United States, 20% of energy is generated by nuclear power. Nuclear power is generated in nuclear power plants, which is then transferred to energy utilities (power companies), who then supply the energy to your home. This energy is used to turn on the lights, the coffee maker, power the alarm clock (although sometimes we wish it wouldn’t!).

Nuclear power plants typically have a life span of 40 to 60 years. There are 104 reactors generating power in the U.S. at this time. They were built and have been running since the 1960s and 70s. Therefore, new nuclear plants need to be built in order to maintain the base power that nuclear provides.  We must support building new nuclear power plants so we can meet our energy needs required to sustain our population growth and allow Americans to continue to live “comfortably”.

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.”

“Encouraging nuclear power. Additional nuclear power is an essential component of our
strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We strongly support incentives for renewable
energy sources such as wind and solar, but successful legislation must also recognize the
important role for clean nuclear power in our low-emissions future. America has lost its nuclear
technology manufacturing base, and we must rebuild it in order to compete in the global
marketplace. Our legislation will encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants and
provide funding to train the next generation of nuclear workers. We will make it easier to finance
the construction of new nuclear power plants and improve the efficiency of the licensing process
for traditional as well as small modular reactors, while fully respecting safety and environmental
concerns. In addition, we support the research and development of new, safe ways to minimize
nuclear waste. We are working with our colleagues to create incentives for low-carbon power
sources, including nuclear, that will complement the Energy and Natural Resource Committee’s
work to incentivize renewable electricity.”

To read the full letter Click Here

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.

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 - New Nuclear Plant Fact Sheet 2009

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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”.

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.