Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

NEI Nuclear Notes covered President Obama’s comments on nuclear power late last week during his trip to New Orleans.  Here they are:

“There’s no reason why technologically we can’t employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way.  Japan does it and France does it and it doesn’t have greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be stupid for us not to do that in a much more effective way.”

Sounds good.

As you are probably already aware, Senators Kerry and Boxer are currently working with their colleagues on the Senate version of the climate bill.  With important promises to make nuclear power a player in the bill, the progress has been refreshing.

Yesterday, the National Journal Online has started a debate between key players from both sides of the nuclear power aisle.  The question is whether or not nuclear should have a place in the Boxer-Kerry Bill.  There are currently eight responses from the following people:

• Carl Pope, President - Sierra Club
• Rep. Joe Pitts, R-PA - Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S. House Of Representatives
• Marvin Fertel, President and CEO - Nuclear Energy Institute
• Frank O’Brien-Bernini, Chief Sustainability Officer - Owens Corning
• Arjun Makhijani, President - Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
• Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX - Ranking Member, Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S. House Of Representatives
• Bill Snape, Senior Counsel - Center For Biological Diversity
• Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK - Ranking Republican, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Why don’t you head over to the National Journal, check out the responses and submit your vote on who you agree with the most.  Link here.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Does Nuclear Fit The Bill?

Recent endorsements by key senators, such as John Kerry, D-Mass., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., (in their joint op-ed) and Tom Carper, D-Del., could be early signs nuclear energy is gaining traction as an indispensable part of the recently introduced Senate climate change legislation. Still, lawmakers and experts alike cite obstacles, including high construction costs and lengthy license processes, that the industry will need to overcome.

What obstacles do you think are holding up nuclear development? Should the climate bill include provisions to help revitalize the industry, such as streamlining the process of getting new plants built? And if so, how? Would nuclear provisions help Senate leaders win 60 votes? Alternatively, why do you think nuclear energy should not be an integral part of Kerry-Boxer?

– Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com

( By Mark Stewart ) [Approx. Read Time: 1.5 minutes]

There’s an interesting article at the American Spectator today regarding President Obama’s policy on Nuclear Power.  A few key excerpts from the Max Schulz article:

“Two examples have emerged recently giving credence to the notion that Obama’s energy policies are crafted to appease certain constituencies rather than effect the transformation to a post-carbon economy.

The first came two weeks ago when the Department of Energy abruptly turned down USEC, Inc.’s application for a $2 billion loan guarantee to help it finish building an advanced uranium enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio. The plant was already under construction. Officials had every reason to believe the federal loan guarantee that would help nail down additional private funding was coming. After all, during the campaign last year Obama pledged his “full support” to the enrichment facility project. He promised, “I will work with the Department of Energy to help make loan guarantees available for this and other advanced energy programs that reduce carbon emissions.

So much for campaign promises. In late July the Obama Administration instructed USEC to withdraw its application, saying the company had failed to prove the enrichment technology was commercially viable. As a result, USEC announced it was demobilizing the project, and many employees could lose their jobs.”

At roughly the same time the Obama Administration reneged on his campaign promise to USEC, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was crowing that the White House privately has assured him it will eliminate funding for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository by 2011. The idea is to hamstring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s ability to complete its independent scientific assessment of YuccaMountain’s suitability to store high-level nuclear waste.

Obama is trying to kill Yucca Mountain by a thousand cuts. Unfortunately, he has not proposed any alternative for secure waste storage, aside from a promise to convene a blue-ribbon panel of experts to study an issue which the government has already spent tens of billions of dollars studying.”

Schulz, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, raises a good point about President Obama’s words compared to his actions. It is easy to make clean energy promises during a campaign, but following through on those promises is the only way to take a legitimate step towards a carbon-free economy.  We know the President can talk the talk, but will he walk the walk?