THE HILL
 

The energy debate's missed nuclear opportunity (Rep. Darrell Issa)

By Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) - 11/30/09 01:07 PM ET

Next month, global leaders will gather in Copenhagen to demonstrate their commitment to reducing carbon emissions and creating ecologically sustainable solutions to power our economy in the 21st century. Indeed, a moment has arrived when the world is looking to the United States to set the tone and serve as a model worthy of emulation – to be, as it were, a carbon-free city upon an ever-green hill.

That is, if we can keep the lights on.

America’s economic strength was forged on the back of abundant, affordable, carbon-intensive energy. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is undoubtedly important but it will take patience, prudence, and most important- money. Carbon-free energy, in all forms, comes with a significant cost.

Congress has pursued a strategy of taxing fossil fuels in order to discourage their consumption and has heavily subsidized alternative energy sources like wind and solar in an effort to expand deployment of zero carbon energy sources. This strategy ignores an inconvenient truth - renewable energy cannot meet the nation’s everyday power demands.

These resources must be developed but current technological, geographic and economic constraints limit their potential. The sad truth is that many of these resources are most abundant in remote regions, require massive amounts of land, and at present, generate variable and limited amounts of energy. In 2007, wind, geothermal and solar energy accounted for just a combined 2.5% of the nation’s electricity generation.

The conspicuously missing link in the recent climate debate has been the most efficient and proven source of carbon-free energy – nuclear power. Any realistic climate change policy must include support for the only source of clean, dependable, and relatively inexpensive energy. In 2008, the 104 nuclear reactors operating in the United States produced more than 800 billion kilowatt-hours, equal to 19% of our total electricity output and representing nearly 75% of U.S. carbon-free electricity.

For 30 years, economic and social constraints sidelined the development of nuclear power in the United States. Today, social and economic shifts have placed the nuclear industry on the cusp of a renaissance. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently reviewing applications for 26 new reactors that would provide an additional 34,000 megawatts of electricity. Even as our economy struggles and job losses mount, nuclear energy remains a sign of hope, creating almost 15,000 jobs in the last three years as communities anticipate new plant development.

Yet clean, safe nuclear energy continues to stir fears that hearken to earlier times of environmental suspicion and political bias. In more than 50 years of operation, however, not a single American has lost his or her life as a result of commercial nuclear power. Building on decades of experience, new reactor designs are more efficient, affordable and safe.

We have only scratched the surface of nuclear energy’s potential. Advanced reactor designs could revolutionize the auto industry with hydrogen fuel cells, or close the fuel cycle completely- turning the earth’s most volatile natural resources into electricity for millions. Yet it will take decades to completely close the fuel cycle- even longer if America continues to sit on the sidelines.

In the late 1970s, fears of global proliferation prompted the Carter administration to abandon domestic reprocessing. Regrettably, America still lags behind other nations that are already producing safe, clean nuclear technologies and developing new methods to secure and reprocess nuclear waste. The American solution for waste disposal – a proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain – appears destined never to open its doors. Such delays are the unfortunate result of decades of bad policy, which, if unchanged, will only widen the energy gap, hinder carbon goals, and weaken our energy security.

Still in its infancy, nuclear power is nonetheless a titan in the energy world. If the United States wants to fight the battle against carbon emissions and lead the global economy, we must build upon the innovation and entrepreneurial edge that nuclear technology has given us. Decisions today will reverberate for decades. It is time for us, as a nation, to reassert our commitment to this promising clean energy solution.

Cross-posted from The Heritage Foundation.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/69779-the-energy-debates-missed-nuclear-opportunity-rep-darrell-issa

Comments (8)

Nuclear power is BY FAR the most expensive form of new energy. It would have to be almost entirely funded by government spending, as it has been historically. Talk about 'just scratching the surface,' we have barely even begun to look at energy efficiency, improved electricity transmission technology, electric/hybrid vehicles and mass transit, and a whole host of other sustainability issues that would improve our local economies, save energy (eliminate oil imports entirely) AND help protect the environment and our way of life. Basically, the nuclear energy issue is a canard for big energy corporations — as if they haven't gotten away with enough over the years (from Exxon to Enron and everywhere in between).BY Ethan on 11/30/2009 at 14:39
Ethan, you are a very dangerous person. God help us because with people like you, we'll need it. You want us to lower our carbon emissions to 1990 levels. Yet, you put out unproven solutions. Do the math, would you? I'd be funny if it weren't so serious.BY DAN, Ca on 11/30/2009 at 16:31
Dan, I guess that means that you are FOR pollution… Here are some facts that suggest that YOU are in fact the dangerous one: An analysis released in 2004 attributed 24,000 premature deaths each year to power plant pollution. In addition, the research estimates that over 550,000 asthma attacks, 38,000 heart attacks and 12,000 hospital admissions are caused annually by power plant pollution. (http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Power_Plant_Emissions.pdf) … More: 61.7% of Americans live in counties that have unhealthful levels of either ozone or particle pollution. Almost 186.1 million Americans live in the 525 counties where they are exposed to unhealthful levels of air pollution. 40.5 million people in the United States live in the 37 counties with unhealthful levels of all three: ozone and short-term and year-round particle pollution. (http://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/publications/state-of-the-air/state-of-the-air-report-2009.pdf)BY Ethan on 11/30/2009 at 17:24
See current print version of ASME's Mechanical Engineering.Great article "Facts Fission" by Theodore Rockwell of http://www.mpr.comHe worked in Manhattan project and under Admiral Rickover.Digital version soon in www.memagazine.orgBY Franko on 11/30/2009 at 19:04
It makes little sense to me if you were trying to lower the Pollution of choice, instead of giving the money to third world countries and helping them develop industries and become a developed country which would ONLY cause more polluting. We still have no zero emissions on energy sources that are powerful enough to power a small country. The better answer would be to take the money and help reduce emissions the US taxpayers and US companies produces, so we can use our money to clean our environment to help the world. This would be a win-win for pollution! Any other way would make it financially impossible for the US to ever quit polluting. It is not about Global Warming. Follow the money and there is a lot to follow.BY Janis on 11/30/2009 at 20:06
Giving the corrupt UN (oil for food..etc..) billions a year, for them to forward to to 3rd World countries, is a recipie for disaster. Think of all the deaths it would cause by coup after coup when undeveloped countries are suddenly awash with big bucks? Dem's are against surge in Afghanistan using "corrupt" Afghanistan government as an excuse, but are willing to give $10 Billion of US tax payers dollars a year, that is undoubtedly most likely to incite riots and blood shed all over the globe?BY Mon on 11/30/2009 at 23:32
While I am usually of the opposite view from Darrell Issa, in this case I agree that we should look at nuclear as an important piece of our energy solution. My only problem is with the way the accounting is done with regard to ratepayers. The big power companies rates are determined by public utility commissions; partially those companies can charge according to a "fair return on investment" which in the case of nuclear power plants is megabillion, which of, course, means mega-rates for ratepayers. This whole "funding" issue and what it means to ratepayers is something that the big power companies would prefer not be examined too closely by the public. The effect is that there is no incentive for cost containment in these projects; the opposite is true, that the more expensive the project the more "return on investment" is passed on to the ratepayers.BY Smilinjack on 12/01/2009 at 00:19
>>>This whole "funding" issue and what it means to ratepayers is something that the big power companies would prefer not be examined too closely by the public<<< That is totally true. And not only that, but there would NEED to be substantial substantial public funding of new nuclear plants. That means OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS. So people and families would be hit TWICE. Once from the government and once when they get their energy bill. Nuclear is a HORRIBLE idea. We need to focus FIRST on energy efficiency, hybrid electric vehicles, and mass transit. Issa's whole point is the economics of energy and the economic cost of greenhouse gas reductions. Well, why does he then promote literally THE MOST EXPENSIVE source of energy while ignoring by FAR the most cost-effective ways of transitioning to a greener, cleaner country?! It is totally 180 degrees backwards.BY Ethan on 12/01/2009 at 10:42

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.