Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

( By Mark Stewart ) [Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Florida state authorities, including the Governor, approved an important element of Progress Energy’s proposal to build two new nuclear power plants (NPP) in Levy County, FL.  You can read the Jacksonville Observer’s account here.  Florida officials approved the plants despite some protesters using some of the same, tired, and inaccurate arguments against the world’s only reliable carbon-free baseload electricity generation method. FL Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda was sure to make her voice heard with the following:

“I’m concerned about the cost with regard to this nuclear power plant, I’m concerned about the time that it’s going to take to build this nuclear power plant, I’m concerned about the number of jobs, I’m concerned about the danger and I’m concerned about the legacy that we leave our children and our children’s children.”

As detailed in a previous post, NPP are a GREAT investment, if you are able to think long-term.  NPP do take time to build but they are the only technology available NOW that can provide the CO₂ free power on a large scale that the US (and the rest of the world) needs.  I’m not sure what Rep. Vasilinda means when she says she is concerned about jobs but the lasting positive economic impact a NPP has on the surrounding community has been well documented.  Finally, just for good measure, Rep. Vasilinda throws in a vague boogeyman statement about “danger” that our children and our children’s children will face.  As proven year after year by OSHA statistics, the nuclear industry is one of the safest major industries in the U.S.

Not to be outdone, Lake Worth City Commissioner Cara Jennings offered the following:

“Scientific research has clearly shown that the entire nuclear process - from minor to transportation, process, use and long-term storage - has negative consequences on public health,” Jennings said. “Even when running ‘safely,’ nuclear power plants release radiation. Radiation is odor-less, tasteless, invisible and deadly even in low doses.”

Not to let facts get in the way of an argument, but you are exposed to 400 times more radiation while getting a full set of dental X-rays than if you lived outside a nuclear power plant for one year.  Commissioner Jennings also offered the following regarding Progress’s plan to replace existing coal plants with the new NPP

“Is this really the best we have to offer the people of our state?” she asked. “Go ahead Floridians, take your pick: lung cancer and air pollution from coal or cancer for your kids and a waste product so deadly we have nowhere to put it.”

All nuclear waste is currently stored safely at the facility where it is generated.  You can read more about the safety of spent nuclear fuel storage here.  While this isn’t a long term solution, it is safe and a long term solution does exist in the form of reprocessing technology being used NOW in France.

As NEI’s Richard Myers said this week “You clearly cannot have a credible program to control carbon emissions without expanded nuclear power.”

( 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?