Impact of ‘Not on Planet Earth’ paradigm
Chamber of Commerce says investment in nuclear energy is being sidelined
If you are wondering if the White House is paying any attention to the future of the nuclear energy industry in the U.S., stop right now. If you were counting your chickens, new nuclear power plants, before they were hatched, e.g., got loan guarantees, take a deep breath and exhale slowly.
Instead of a chicken in every pot, what the Obama administration is dealing with is a crisis around every corner. The President and his advisors are overwhelmed with a lot of really big issues. The future of nuclear energy is way down the list. The agenda at the White House looks like this.
- The real rate of unemployment is approaching 20%
- U.S. debt and the federal government deficit are sky high
- Health care reform may cost more than the nation can afford to pay
- Financial regulatory reform is creating more uncertainty for business
- International trade imbalances are doing the economy no favors
_________________
What nuclear renaissance?
The problem, as they see it, is the renaissance isn’t likely to happen in this country or at least not on the scale advocated by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) (right) who called for 100 new U.S. reactors. Most of the activity in the nuclear renaissance will take place in non-OECD countries with China and India leading the pack. Federal loan guarantees need to get out the door in the U.S. Harbert says to show the industry the government is committed to nuclear energy. When asked by this blog why the next round of awards is hanging fire at the Department of Energy, she said “the bureaucratic process gets in the way.” And she added that the NRC is a problem with its four-year long review of applications for new reactors and new plants.
According to Harbert, the Chamber invited NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko (left) to speak to a group of senior business executives. When asked what the NRC will do to make the regulatory process more efficient for approval of new plants, Jaczko reportedly pushed back saying he sees his role as making existing plants “more safe.” Harbert said “you could feel the air go out of the room.”The NRC has been hiring new nuclear engineers to do the reviews, and has won a coveted award as one of the best places to work in the federal government. According to Harbert, what matters are the bottom line results – are new reactors getting licenses in a timely manner so they can break ground, create jobs, and generate electricity?
Congress isn’t helping either by failing to approve an expansion of the loan guarantees this August. Plus, Harbert notes, “There was nothing for the nuclear industry" in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.
What’s wrong with this picture Harbert says is that her analysts say that to meet U.S. CO2 emission goals by 2050, the U.S. would have to build 32 reactors every decade for the next 40 years, or 128 new nuclear reactors, along with other energy measures. That’s actually close to Sen. Alexander’s number, but just not on the time scale that he envisions.
What should be done? Harbert says the White House must understand that business is focused on “the time / cost of money.” Once it figures this out, support for nuclear loan guarantees might be more forthcoming.
What should the utilities that want to build new reactors do? First of all, there are policy and public relations steps it can take. Harbert says the nuclear energy industry has to stop getting painted into a corner over the waste problem. Instead, the industry has to portray itself as a “smart choice” when countering the views of green groups.
More at:
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2010/09/impact-of-not-on-planet-earth-paradigm.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FYiuo+%28Idaho+Samizdat%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
No comments:
Post a Comment