Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[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.

[Approximate Read Time: 1.5 minutes]

Radioactive waste comes mainly from nuclear power generation, (plants, operations in the fuel cycle, R&D centers), and is managed in a very rigorous, controlled industry that serves to protects humans and the environment. It maintains high-level oversight from operators, regulatory agencies and governments.

Waste management includes collection, sorting, processing, packaging, transport, storage and disposal. Since the United States does not currently recycle nuclear waste, the issue of waste management, in particular waste storage, is a sensitive issue.

Currently, the idea of using the Yucca Mountain repository as a nuclear waste storage site has been rejected by the Obama administration. Despite the fact that over 20 years of research and BILLIONS of dollars have been put into the project. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has since then been determined to appoint a panel to best determine the future of nuclear waste.

The Department of Energy will soon be announcing their Nuclear Waste Panel, a group of individuals who will study the best possible way to deal with growing civilian nuclear waste. This panel is created based on the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a law that is designed to ensure the panel is balanced with objective representation of each policy option.

Does it make sense for nuclear waste to be stored on-site at numerous locations throughout the country, or at one central location? Does it make sense for all 104 nuclear power plants to hire extra security on-site at nuclear plants or to have advanced security at one location for all of the stored nuclear waste? And in a place that scientists around the world agree to be a safe and efficient location, based on natural barriers, design elements?

If we can’t store nuclear waste somewhere, what are our other options? Since we live in a world obsessed with the three R’s, reduce, reuse and recycle, perhaps this panel will entertain the idea of recycling nuclear waste.

The French have been recycling nuclear waste for decades, and France’s LA Hague plant is an example of how much waste can be recycled and reused. The plant recycles 96% of used fuel, which leaves 4% categorized as waste. This industrial scale recycling process is proven as an effective approach to waste management, one that the United States could benefit from.

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes (Bold: 1 minute)]

NEI President and CEO Marvin Fertel recently wrote the following Op-ed at The Hill outlining legislation must-haves in order for the expansion of nuclear power to occur in the United States.  Fertel creates a nuclear industry wish-list of policy and legislation changes that he feels must be made.  If Fertel’s policy suggestions were implemented in such legislation as the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill, nuclear power will be able to create jobs, clean baseload energy, and economic benefits a lot sooner than currently projected.  I’ve bolded the important stuff to save you time.  Enjoy.

Nuclear power poised to help meet demands of climate change legislation

By Marvin Fertel - 09/08/09 PM ET

More than a century ago, the famed journalist and writer Ambrose Bierce stated, “Electricity seems destined to play a most important part in the arts and industries. The question of its economical application to some purposes is still unsettled, but experiment has already proved that it will propel a streetcar better than a gas.”

Bierce’s prediction is staggering in its understatement.

Today, the electric power sector is a $340 billion industry that employs approximately 400,000 workers and constitutes 3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Electricity’s reach, of course, has long since eclipsed streetcars. It propels virtually the entire economy and is so vital that there is a discernible statistical correlation between a nation’s reliability of electricity supply and its mortality rate.

Electricity has long since become an inextricable part of our lives. Even with improved efficiency measures, our nation’s need for electricity — including reliable, carbon-free sources such as nuclear power plants — continues to climb.

A host of recent analyses has concluded that the nation’s use of nuclear energy must increase in the coming decades to meet rising electricity demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in its analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, found that the contribution of low- or zero-carbon energy technologies to electricity supply must increase to 38 percent by 2050 from the current 14 percent. An additional 180 nuclear power plants (104 operate today) will be needed to meet the legislation’s emissions targets, the EPA said.

Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences concluded in its July report “America’s Energy Future” that “(S)ubstantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are achievable over the next two to three decades through a portfolio approach” that includes nuclear energy. The report identifies advanced nuclear energy plants as one of two “key technologies” that must be demonstrated during the next decade “to allow for their widespread deployment starting around 2020.”

At present, 25 new reactors are in the federal permitting process, with four to eight plants expected to be completed by 2017. The industry plans to invest $8 billion in just the next few years — on top of billions already spent — to be in a position to start construction of carbon-free nuclear plants in 2011-2012.

Nuclear energy and other clean energy technologies can help jumpstart our economy and make America a world leader in low-carbon energy. American manufacturers will benefit because construction of new nuclear power plants will create demand for thousands of components and commodities like concrete and steel.

Nuclear energy’s good-paying, long-term employment opportunities already are helping to fuel a transition in America’s energy landscape. The nuclear energy industry is one of the few bright spots in the U.S. economy — expanding rather than contracting in communities like Chattanooga, Tenn.; Newport News, Va.; Cheswick, Pa.; and Lake Charles, La.

As the Southern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments stated in a pro-nuclear resolution it adopted unanimously in August, “Clean nuclear energy is an engine for economic growth.” Construction of a new reactor by itself constitutes four years of employment for as many as 2,400 skilled craft workers, with 400 to 700 permanent jobs once the plant starts operating.

No single technology can independently slow and reverse increases in carbon emissions. But these studies confirm nuclear energy is an indispensable part of a comprehensive approach that, thankfully, is identified in energy and climate change bills pending in Congress.

Provisions in the House and Senate bills are necessary if nuclear energy is to expand at the level necessary to meet both electricity demand and reductions in greenhouse gases.

The legislation in both chambers would establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration, which would function as a permanent financing platform to provide loans, loan guarantees and other credit support for clean-energy technologies, including new nuclear power plants, wind and biomass.

Congress should approve additional policy elements that will speed the transition to advanced reactors and help meet near- to mid-term carbon reduction goals. These include:

• Ensuring that the volume of loan guarantees available for new reactors is comparable to other carbon-free electricity sources and refining the Department of Energy loan guarantee program in key areas that are slowing implementation of the program;
  
• Providing new tax stimulus for investment in new nuclear energy facilities, new nuclear component manufacturing and workforce development;
  
• Expanding the existing production tax credit to all new reactors that produce electricity by 2021;
  
• Reducing the time to market for advanced reactors to six years from nine to 10 years by enacting clarifications to ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing process works as intended; and
  
• Mandating creation of a blue ribbon commission to re-examine management options for used nuclear fuel, and establishing incentives for state and communities to develop consolidated storage facilities for used nuclear fuel.

America needs a commonsense, balanced approach as we shift toward low-carbon sources of energy. Diversity of clean electricity is essential not just to protecting our environment, but also to promoting energy security and reliability.

Nuclear energy is a proven source that generates one-fifth of U.S. electricity reliably and affordably.

In the coming decades, we will be challenged to simultaneously meet rising electricity demand and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. To meet this challenge, Congress must establish a comprehensive and sustainable national policy that supports the development of technology-based, zero-carbon solutions like nuclear energy, solar and wind that can be implemented in the near term and are affordable for consumers.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

A long slow recovery of the economy with job growth tentatively scheduled on the back end has caused our government to spend nearly a trillion dollars on “stimulus.”   Job creation is supposed to be at the heart of this spending and the results are mixed at best.

As much as 50 billion dollars in federal loan guarantees were almost  included in the stimulus package this Spring which could have allowed for the construction of 7 to 10 new nuclear power plants all in different states across the country.   Unfortunately, the loan guarantee amount was reduced by Rep. Waxman (Dem, CA) at the last minute to 18 billion dollars, which would allow the construction of only 3 new plants.

A quick refresher of what a loan guarantee is: essentially, the government co-signs on a construction loan but pays no cash in the process. The reason this is done is to lower the risk of the loan, which lowers the interest rate.   The lowering of the interest rate makes the large investment more manageable for the utility and incentivizes them to start construction sooner.   In this instance it would be economic stimulus without spending. This cash free type of stimulus is a beautiful thing in this poor economy.

So, if EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) and others say we need more nuclear plants to meet the nation’s energy needs and maintain clean air standards, and the economy is desperate for job creation, then loan guarantees are a no brainer.   The current three loan guarantees are not enough and we need more to add job creation into this economic recovery. Our congress needs a sense of urgency in the right direction on this issue, and currently the urgency is all going to other issues besides job creation.

[Approx. Read Time: 2.5 minutes]

Yesterday, Jim Efstathiou Jr. reported from Bloomberg that the Cap-and-Trade Bill, in its current form, would boost the amount of land required for the development of energy by approximately 48%.  This is because the Bill places a lot of importance on renewable energy technologies like biomass and wind power.  Critics are calling this “energy sprawl.”  Although, unlike it’s evil twin “urban sprawl,”  the Sierra Club doesn’t have a website devoted to grinding it to a halt.  The Sierra Club claims to support preservation and conservation of the environment while also avidly supporting the use of wind and solar power.  While not being a contradiction in theory, (renewables are environmentally friendly from an emission and fuel resource standpoint) this stance is a blaring contradiction in reality because of the massive amounts of land required to support most renewable technologies.  Maybe the Sierra Club would benefit from checking out how much land their ardent support for wind and solar requires in order to produce as much energy as say, nuclear power.

Here are two blogs where I previously addressed this issue:

What Does Renewable Energy Look Like

What Does Renewable Energy Look Like Part II

Forests, Deserts in Climate Measure May Spawn “Energy Sprawl”

By Jim Efstathiou Jr.

Aug. 26 (Bloomberg) — More forests, deserts and grasslands in the U.S. will be used to produce energy under a proposal to cap greenhouse gases, an unintended consequence of efforts to fight global warming, according to a Nature Conservancy report.

A bill that boosts energy from wind turbines and biofuels will increase the amount of land needed for energy development as much as 48 percent, or almost 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) during the next 20 years, said Robert McDonald, a scientist with the Arlington, Virginia-based Nature Conservancy environmental group. An area larger than Minnesota will be affected even without any climate change bill, he said.

Less land will be needed to grow corn for cleaner-burning ethanol and to support electric-generating wind turbines if legislation gives carbon-dioxide emitters more options to reach targets, said the report, published today in the online journal PloS One. Greater energy conservation can also reduce the amount of land needed for development.

“Climate-change legislation could have a significant impact on land use in the U.S. but it might not if it’s properly designed,” McDonald, lead author of the report, said in an interview. “We’re tying to make sure that energy sprawl is one of the things policy makers are thinking about.”

Biofuel made from corn, along with biomass burned to make electricity, affects the most land for every unit of energy produced. Nuclear power uses the least amount of land, the report said.

Corn for Ethanol

Growing corn for ethanol on land already used for agriculture is one way to reduce the area needed to meet future energy needs, McDonald said. Allowing utilities and manufacturers with carbon-dioxide caps to use offsets — credits from projects that lower emissions — to meet pollution targets also reduces land use for energy.

The report analyzes the land-use implications of a climate- change bill that failed in the U.S. Senate last year. A bill that passed the U.S. House in June would have a “very similar” effect, McDonald said.

“Depending on the details of the bill, there may be millions of acres of new development,” McDonald said. “While we’re changing the rules of the system, we want to think about the land-use impacts.”

Without climate-change legislation, new coal-fired power plants will be built on over 26,000 square kilometers of conifer and deciduous forests, grasslands and desert, according to the report. Under a climate bill, costs for power from burning fossil fuels will rise, and the area needed for coal-burning power plants will be reduced by 7,500 square kilometers.

More land, meanwhile, will be needed for lower-emissions energy from biomass, biofuels and wind turbines. More than 49,000 square kilometers will be needed just to grown biomass that can be burned for electricity under a climate-change bill.

“In the scenarios we considered, there is a tendency for greater reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to be associated with a greater total new area affected by energy development,” the report said. “A decrease in U.S. emissions increases the new area impacted, although the magnitude of the effect is policy-specific.”

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

The Energy Information Administration announced today that if higher energy costs created by the current revision of the controversial Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill were to be reduced, the United States would have to double its nuclear energy production in the next 20 years.  Although this is unrealistic and pushes the limits of human production, it just goes to show how powerful and important nuclear power is to an American energy future.  Here’s an excerpt from the Washington Times report:

“To satisfy House Democrats’ low-cost solution to global warming, Americans would have to double their reliance on nuclear energy by 2030 - a target the nuclear industry says is unlikely and that many environmentalists and Democrats dislike.

That is the conclusion of a new Energy Information Administration report that looked at the House Democrats’ global warming bill. To produce enough clean energy at a reasonable cost would require construction of dozens of new nuclear power plants, even though no new plant has been built in decades.

The EIA, in its report last week, projected that to keep the costs of implementing the bill low for consumers - about $339 extra per household in 2030 according to their basic scenario - nuclear energy use would rise from 8 quadrillion BTUs a year to 16 quadrillion, or from 11.3 percent of total U.S. energy to 18.1 percent.

That’s the largest projected increase of any source of energy, even topping renewable sources such as wind and solar power, which are supposed to be the hallmark of the bill, and would mean reliance on a controversial technology”

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

On Monday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) unveiled his blueprint to construct 100 new Nuclear Power reactors in the United States.  Sen. Alexander brought up a couple of good points, like the amount of land area required for Nuclear Power vs. solar and wind powers.  For example, to generate 2000 MW, Nuclear Power requires less than 1 sq. mi., solar requires approximately 100 sq. mi., and wind requires approx. 420 sq. mi.  Since so-called environmental groups have seemingly lost the battle trying to discount Nuclear Power’s environmental effects, they have turned to the cost of the reactors.  Keep in mind that these groups regularly cite the Center for American Progress’ recent analysis of the costs associated with Nuclear–a study that many have questioned recently including the Heritage Foundation and NEI.  A link to the article on Sen. Alexander’s proposal can be found here.  Check out an excerpt below:

“We Americans invented the technology,” he said Monday in outlining his proposal for construction of a hundred new nuclear generation plants. “Isn’t it about time we got back into the game?”

The primary advantage of going nuclear is that the technology is proven. Nuclear power plants exist around the world, and other countries are building new ones. The United States erected a hundred nuclear plants between 1970 and 1990, Alexander points out, but stopped after the Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island incidents created a national phobia.

Experience has proven that the meltdown genie is a myth. Nuclear power today is as safe as any available technology, and vastly less polluting.”

And, as Alexander pointed out, they require vastly more space than nuclear plants. In his words, “There is no need to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment.”

“The difficulties with nuclear power are political, not technological; social, not economic,” our senior senator said. “The main obstacle is a lingering doubt and fear in the public mind about the technology.”