I do agree that more nuclear power is probably a good idea and that there probably should be a very serious look at and overhaul of the regulations for nuclear energy. Other countries have been using nuclear power safely for decades. One problem with increasing nuclear power in the U.S. are the hysterical environmentalists who ironically want to cut CO2 emissions, but at the same time don't want to switch to nuclear power which emits no CO2. Another problem, which is derived in part from the previous problem, is the exorbitant costs due to the regulations on nuclear power. So while this would be a good direction to go in, I doubt that we will go in that direction.
In short, reactor safety, security and emergency planning should work synergistically, in a conservative, but realistic way, to protect public health and safety regardless of whether challenges to plant safety are operational, acts of God, or acts of terrorists.
In the past, pure deterministic regulatory approaches led, in some cases, to gross over design in the zeal to build in unrealistic margins to protect against unrealistic events. This new concept, introduced only a few years ago, calls for application of realistic engineering, physics and experience centered on safety.
The NRC took the first step in this direction when it transformed the reactor oversight process to common sense, objective criteria that are focused on those systems and components that are most important to safety.
First thought to be unworkable, the safety-focused reactor oversight process demonstrates that this concept can work and bring practical discipline and rigor to the process.
I do agree that more nuclear power is probably a good idea and that there probably should be a very serious look at and overhaul of the regulations for nuclear energy. Other countries have been using nuclear power safely for decades. One problem with increasing nuclear power in the U.S. are the hysterical environmentalists who ironically want to cut CO2 emissions, but at the same time don't want to switch to nuclear power which emits no CO2. Another problem, which is derived in part from the previous problem, is the exorbitant costs due to the regulations on nuclear power. So while this would be a good direction to go in, I doubt that we will go in that direction.
In short, reactor safety, security and emergency planning should work synergistically, in a conservative, but realistic way, to protect public health and safety regardless of whether challenges to plant safety are operational, acts of God, or acts of terrorists.
In the past, pure deterministic regulatory approaches led, in some cases, to gross over design in the zeal to build in unrealistic margins to protect against unrealistic events. This new concept, introduced only a few years ago, calls for application of realistic engineering, physics and experience centered on safety.
The NRC took the first step in this direction when it transformed the reactor oversight process to common sense, objective criteria that are focused on those systems and components that are most important to safety.
First thought to be unworkable, the safety-focused reactor oversight process demonstrates that this concept can work and bring practical discipline and rigor to the process.
Over the past decade, America's energy consumption has been growing about 40 times faster than our energy production. That means we're relying more on energy produced abroad. To reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, we must take four key steps. First, we must better use technology to become better conservers of energy. Secondly, we must find innovative and environmentally sensitive ways to make the most of our existing energy resources, including oil, natural gas, coal and safe, clean nuclear power.
We should have a active energy -- nuclear energy policy in America. We've got abundant resources of coal, and we're spending money for clean-coal technology. So these are longer term projects all aimed at making us become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
Q So am I reading correctly that the energy bill would not have had an effect on today's high gasoline --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it would have 10 years ago. That's exactly what I've been saying to the American people -- 10 years ago if we'd had an energy strategy, we would be able to diversify away from foreign dependence. And -- but we haven't done that. And now we find ourselves in the fix we're in. It's taken us a while to get there, and it's going to take us a while to get out.
Over the past decade, America's energy consumption has been growing about 40 times faster than our energy production. That means we're relying more on energy produced abroad. To reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, we must take four key steps. First, we must better use technology to become better conservers of energy. Secondly, we must find innovative and environmentally sensitive ways to make the most of our existing energy resources, including oil, natural gas, coal and safe, clean nuclear power.
We should have a active energy -- nuclear energy policy in America. We've got abundant resources of coal, and we're spending money for clean-coal technology. So these are longer term projects all aimed at making us become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
Q So am I reading correctly that the energy bill would not have had an effect on today's high gasoline --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it would have 10 years ago. That's exactly what I've been saying to the American people -- 10 years ago if we'd had an energy strategy, we would be able to diversify away from foreign dependence. And -- but we haven't done that. And now we find ourselves in the fix we're in. It's taken us a while to get there, and it's going to take us a while to get out.
Almost a decade after the nation's most recent licensed nuclear power plant went on line, S.C. officials will meet with utility representatives to see if there is interest in building a reactor in the state.
The May 9 meeting in Columbia will include representatives from the state Commerce Department, the governor's office, utility officials and U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett of the state's 3rd Congressional District.
"We just want to get everyone together, see if anyone's interested in South Carolina, and then we'll move forward from there," said Tim Dangerfield, chief of staff at the Commerce Department.
Almost a decade after the nation's most recent licensed nuclear power plant went on line, S.C. officials will meet with utility representatives to see if there is interest in building a reactor in the state.
The May 9 meeting in Columbia will include representatives from the state Commerce Department, the governor's office, utility officials and U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett of the state's 3rd Congressional District.
"We just want to get everyone together, see if anyone's interested in South Carolina, and then we'll move forward from there," said Tim Dangerfield, chief of staff at the Commerce Department.
The public sector, including the oversight committees of the U.S. Congress, can help maintain the conditions that ensure Americans will continue to reap the benefits of today’s nuclear power plants, and create the conditions that will spur investment in America’s energy infrastructure, including new nuclear power plants . . .
Nuclear power plants contribute to the fuel and technology diversity that is the core strength of the U.S. electric supply system. This diversity is at risk because today’s business environment and market conditions in the electric sector make investment in large, capital-intensive technologies difficult, particularly in the nuclear power plants and coal-fired power plants best suited to supply baseload electricity.
"Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand," Moore told the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Resources in Washington, DC.
"There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice," Moore said. Moore believes his former colleagues at Greenpeace are unrealistic in their call for a phasing out of both coal and nuclear power worldwide, as they have called for in Ontario, for example.
"There are simply not enough available forms of alternative energy to replace both of them together. Given a choice between nuclear on the one hand and coal, oil and natural gas on the other, nuclear energy is by far the best option as it emits neither CO2 nor any other air pollutants."
Moore told the subcommittee there are virtually no other beneficial uses of uranium beyond electricity production, "whereas fossil fuels are a precious non-renewable resource and have a multitude of constructive uses including the manufacture of durable goods such as plastics.
The public sector, including the oversight committees of the U.S. Congress, can help maintain the conditions that ensure Americans will continue to reap the benefits of today’s nuclear power plants, and create the conditions that will spur investment in America’s energy infrastructure, including new nuclear power plants . . .
Nuclear power plants contribute to the fuel and technology diversity that is the core strength of the U.S. electric supply system. This diversity is at risk because today’s business environment and market conditions in the electric sector make investment in large, capital-intensive technologies difficult, particularly in the nuclear power plants and coal-fired power plants best suited to supply baseload electricity.
"Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand," Moore told the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Resources in Washington, DC.
"There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice," Moore said. Moore believes his former colleagues at Greenpeace are unrealistic in their call for a phasing out of both coal and nuclear power worldwide, as they have called for in Ontario, for example.
"There are simply not enough available forms of alternative energy to replace both of them together. Given a choice between nuclear on the one hand and coal, oil and natural gas on the other, nuclear energy is by far the best option as it emits neither CO2 nor any other air pollutants."
Moore told the subcommittee there are virtually no other beneficial uses of uranium beyond electricity production, "whereas fossil fuels are a precious non-renewable resource and have a multitude of constructive uses including the manufacture of durable goods such as plastics.
[N]uclear power provides a form of cheap -- and clean -- energy. Paying less to heat and cool our homes would offset the pain of higher gasoline prices -- and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. All good.
Our view is that nuclear power plants, when properly regulated and maintained, provide a safer, cleaner, cheaper and longer-lasting source of energy than the traditional types of energy generation – coal-fired or natural gas plants in particular. Nuclear plants are used throughout Europe. With the tragic exception of Chernobyl in 1986 – the result of a flawed design – these plants have been safely operated for many years.
Nuclear plants do not pollute the atmosphere, as do coal-fired plants, nor do they require vast amounts of an increasingly expensive commodity, such as natural-gas plants. We agree with Bush that the government should make it easier to build such plants.
If things proceed as Bush advocates, helping China and India to develop and deploy clean energy technology, that will be the most effective thing the US can do about environmental issues including GHG emissions. With their large populations and fast growth rates they are poised to dwarf the rest of the world's emissions as well as consume an ever larger share of dwindling fossil fuel reserves. The US should also increase its use of emission free nuclear energy, but that wouldn't help if China and India were not also being helped.
This could be good. It was encouraging to see the US avoid being sucked into the Kyoto inanity, but avoiding dumb policy isn't enough. Good alternatives are needed, and this sounds much better, though it's still a long way from being a reality.
[N]uclear power provides a form of cheap -- and clean -- energy. Paying less to heat and cool our homes would offset the pain of higher gasoline prices -- and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. All good.
Our view is that nuclear power plants, when properly regulated and maintained, provide a safer, cleaner, cheaper and longer-lasting source of energy than the traditional types of energy generation – coal-fired or natural gas plants in particular. Nuclear plants are used throughout Europe. With the tragic exception of Chernobyl in 1986 – the result of a flawed design – these plants have been safely operated for many years.
Nuclear plants do not pollute the atmosphere, as do coal-fired plants, nor do they require vast amounts of an increasingly expensive commodity, such as natural-gas plants. We agree with Bush that the government should make it easier to build such plants.
If things proceed as Bush advocates, helping China and India to develop and deploy clean energy technology, that will be the most effective thing the US can do about environmental issues including GHG emissions. With their large populations and fast growth rates they are poised to dwarf the rest of the world's emissions as well as consume an ever larger share of dwindling fossil fuel reserves. The US should also increase its use of emission free nuclear energy, but that wouldn't help if China and India were not also being helped.
This could be good. It was encouraging to see the US avoid being sucked into the Kyoto inanity, but avoiding dumb policy isn't enough. Good alternatives are needed, and this sounds much better, though it's still a long way from being a reality.
Huber and Mills do not foresee an immediate end to oil and gas consumption but they suggest environmentalists should cut their ties to the anti-nuclear power movement (with its Hollywood axis — remember the 1979 movie starring Jane Fonda called "The China Syndrome"?) and realize that clean, plentiful energy can be produced. The Greens are the swing constituency which can set our country back or move it forward with an energy policy. Post-Three Mile Island the gap between meeting a rising demand for energy and the environmental opposition increasingly to rely on nuclear power was met by burning coal. However, nuclear power is cleaner and safer than other fuels, a record which should appease the environmentalists' concerns about global warming. Solar and wind power cannot meet all of our anticipated energy needs over the next two decades but it should be part of the energy mix.
Huber and Mills do not foresee an immediate end to oil and gas consumption but they suggest environmentalists should cut their ties to the anti-nuclear power movement (with its Hollywood axis — remember the 1979 movie starring Jane Fonda called "The China Syndrome"?) and realize that clean, plentiful energy can be produced. The Greens are the swing constituency which can set our country back or move it forward with an energy policy. Post-Three Mile Island the gap between meeting a rising demand for energy and the environmental opposition increasingly to rely on nuclear power was met by burning coal. However, nuclear power is cleaner and safer than other fuels, a record which should appease the environmentalists' concerns about global warming. Solar and wind power cannot meet all of our anticipated energy needs over the next two decades but it should be part of the energy mix.
Under pressure over high energy prices, President Bush on Wednesday will propose tackling the root causes of the problem by encouraging new oil refineries be built at closed military bases and jumpstarting construction of new nuclear power plants . . .
On nuclear, Bush will propose offering companies risk insurance to mitigate the cost of delays due to any potential failures in the licensing process. The last generation of nuclear power plants was built in the 1970s and 1980s.
"There is a new and better licensing process. However, there is substantial uncertainty with potential investors about the ability to move through the new licensing process," one senior official said.
Senior White House officials said Mr Bush would also call for international co-operation to promote “greater use of clean coal and nuclear power around the world” to reduce stress on global energy markets.
In addition to increasing capacity, Mr Bush believes nuclear power can also be part of the solution to climate change because it does not produce the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
The first essential step toward greater energy independence is to apply technology to increase domestic production from existing energy resources. And one of the most promising sources of energy is nuclear power. Today's technology has made nuclear power safer, cleaner, and more efficient than ever before. Nuclear power is now providing about 20 percent of America's electricity, with no air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power is one of the safest, cleanest sources of power in the world, and we need more of it here in America.
Unfortunately, America has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s. France, by contrast, has built 58 plants in the same period. And today, France gets more than 78 percent of its electricity from safe, clean nuclear power.
It's time for America to start building again. That's why, three years ago, my administration launched the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative. This is a seven-year, $1.1 billion effort by government and industry to start building new nuclear power plants by the end of this decade. One of the greatest obstacles we face to building new plants is regulatory uncertainty which discourages new plant construction. Since the 1970s, more than 35 plants were stopped at various stages of planning and construction because of bureaucratic obstacles. No wonder -- no wonder -- the industry is hesitant to start building again. We must provide greater certainty to those who risk capital if we want to expand a safe, clean source of energy that will make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
To do so, I've asked the Department of Energy to work on changes to existing law that will reduce uncertainty in the nuclear plant licensing process, and also provide federal risk insurance that will protect those building the first four new nuclear plants against delays that are beyond their control. A secure energy future for America must include more nuclear power.
“There is widespread recognition that nuclear energy offers an emission-free source of electricity that can be readily expanded to meet our needs for reliable, baseload power and reach our clean-air goals. The expected increase of America’s electricity demand by 50 percent over the next 20 years, along with increased awareness of our global environment, means that new nuclear power plants must be part of our energy future. We look forward to working with the president and Congress to pass an energy bill that achieves the dual goals of sustainable economic growth and environmental stewardship.”
Under pressure over high energy prices, President Bush on Wednesday will propose tackling the root causes of the problem by encouraging new oil refineries be built at closed military bases and jumpstarting construction of new nuclear power plants . . .
On nuclear, Bush will propose offering companies risk insurance to mitigate the cost of delays due to any potential failures in the licensing process. The last generation of nuclear power plants was built in the 1970s and 1980s.
"There is a new and better licensing process. However, there is substantial uncertainty with potential investors about the ability to move through the new licensing process," one senior official said.
Senior White House officials said Mr Bush would also call for international co-operation to promote “greater use of clean coal and nuclear power around the world” to reduce stress on global energy markets.
In addition to increasing capacity, Mr Bush believes nuclear power can also be part of the solution to climate change because it does not produce the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
The first essential step toward greater energy independence is to apply technology to increase domestic production from existing energy resources. And one of the most promising sources of energy is nuclear power. Today's technology has made nuclear power safer, cleaner, and more efficient than ever before. Nuclear power is now providing about 20 percent of America's electricity, with no air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power is one of the safest, cleanest sources of power in the world, and we need more of it here in America.
Unfortunately, America has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s. France, by contrast, has built 58 plants in the same period. And today, France gets more than 78 percent of its electricity from safe, clean nuclear power.
It's time for America to start building again. That's why, three years ago, my administration launched the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative. This is a seven-year, $1.1 billion effort by government and industry to start building new nuclear power plants by the end of this decade. One of the greatest obstacles we face to building new plants is regulatory uncertainty which discourages new plant construction. Since the 1970s, more than 35 plants were stopped at various stages of planning and construction because of bureaucratic obstacles. No wonder -- no wonder -- the industry is hesitant to start building again. We must provide greater certainty to those who risk capital if we want to expand a safe, clean source of energy that will make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
To do so, I've asked the Department of Energy to work on changes to existing law that will reduce uncertainty in the nuclear plant licensing process, and also provide federal risk insurance that will protect those building the first four new nuclear plants against delays that are beyond their control. A secure energy future for America must include more nuclear power.
“There is widespread recognition that nuclear energy offers an emission-free source of electricity that can be readily expanded to meet our needs for reliable, baseload power and reach our clean-air goals. The expected increase of America’s electricity demand by 50 percent over the next 20 years, along with increased awareness of our global environment, means that new nuclear power plants must be part of our energy future. We look forward to working with the president and Congress to pass an energy bill that achieves the dual goals of sustainable economic growth and environmental stewardship.”
The Scottish Greens are urging voters to make nuclear power an election issue and oppose any Labour plans to increase the number of nuclear stations.
Nineteen years after the Chernobyl disaster, Chris Ballance MSP said nuclear power had proved to be "a dirty, risky and expensive mistake".
He said renewable energy had not been properly utilised to meet Scotland's energy needs.
The MSP said a new Labour government would build more nuclear stations.
The Scottish Greens are urging voters to make nuclear power an election issue and oppose any Labour plans to increase the number of nuclear stations.
Nineteen years after the Chernobyl disaster, Chris Ballance MSP said nuclear power had proved to be "a dirty, risky and expensive mistake".
He said renewable energy had not been properly utilised to meet Scotland's energy needs.
The MSP said a new Labour government would build more nuclear stations.
But, as Peter Huber and Mark Mills remind us in The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why we will Never Run out of Energy . . . the substitution has been outrageously wasteful. It takes four tons of coal to satisfy the power needs of one inhabitant of Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive for a year. A few ounces of uranium could cover the same need.
Then there is the matter of damage to the environment. The central hypocrisy of the green movement is that antinuclear policy has driven the US to use the hydrocarbon fuels so much opposed by the movement against global warming.
But the mood is changing and energy options open today are far more numerous than in the 1970s or 1980s. Scarcity, once the premise of all energy policy, can now be questioned: new technologies mean that the US may never run out of energy.
But, as Peter Huber and Mark Mills remind us in The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why we will Never Run out of Energy . . . the substitution has been outrageously wasteful. It takes four tons of coal to satisfy the power needs of one inhabitant of Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive for a year. A few ounces of uranium could cover the same need.
Then there is the matter of damage to the environment. The central hypocrisy of the green movement is that antinuclear policy has driven the US to use the hydrocarbon fuels so much opposed by the movement against global warming.
But the mood is changing and energy options open today are far more numerous than in the 1970s or 1980s. Scarcity, once the premise of all energy policy, can now be questioned: new technologies mean that the US may never run out of energy.
Around the world, there is a new realism about nuclear energy, a recognition of its essential virtue, which is its capacity to deliver power cleanly, safely, reliably and on a massive scale. This thinking is eclipsing old-school anti-nuclear environmentalism.
Increasingly, thoughtful environmentalists see anti-nuclearism as counterproductive. They worry not about the growth of nuclear energy but about the likelihood that it is not growing rapidly enough to produce the clean-energy revolution the world urgently needs.
Around the world, there is a new realism about nuclear energy, a recognition of its essential virtue, which is its capacity to deliver power cleanly, safely, reliably and on a massive scale. This thinking is eclipsing old-school anti-nuclear environmentalism.
Increasingly, thoughtful environmentalists see anti-nuclearism as counterproductive. They worry not about the growth of nuclear energy but about the likelihood that it is not growing rapidly enough to produce the clean-energy revolution the world urgently needs.
Wind farms will require £12billion in public subsidies, almost three times as much as nuclear power plants will cost, according to a new report.
A study from Oxford Economic Research Associates said nuclear power could provide the same amount of carbon-free electricity for £4.4billion. The study also forecast that the Government will fail to hit its 20-year targets for carbon dioxide emissions by between 40pc and 60pc unless it significantly moves away from fossil fuels.
"Given the size of the environmental change targets, the Government is faced with some tough decisions," said Robin Smale, author of the study. "At the moment, the two options available are increasing the amount of nuclear energy or increasing renewables at the taxpayer's expense," he said.
Wind farms will require £12billion in public subsidies, almost three times as much as nuclear power plants will cost, according to a new report.
A study from Oxford Economic Research Associates said nuclear power could provide the same amount of carbon-free electricity for £4.4billion. The study also forecast that the Government will fail to hit its 20-year targets for carbon dioxide emissions by between 40pc and 60pc unless it significantly moves away from fossil fuels.
"Given the size of the environmental change targets, the Government is faced with some tough decisions," said Robin Smale, author of the study. "At the moment, the two options available are increasing the amount of nuclear energy or increasing renewables at the taxpayer's expense," he said.
As with other "silver bullet" technologies, nuclear is too often touted as the endgame, when, at best, it can be only a piece of the next energy economy.
As with other "silver bullet" technologies, nuclear is too often touted as the endgame, when, at best, it can be only a piece of the next energy economy.
Right now, we are researching several possible sources for hydrogen. Today, natural gas is the most popular choice, but we are funding research into sources from nuclear reactors to windmills.
Personally, I believe high-temperature nuclear reactors offer the ideal source for hydrogen for four reasons.
First, nuclear reactors don't emit carbons in the atmosphere. Natural gas, the other popular feedstock, is a fossil fuel that emits carbons when it's burned.
Second, we can provide our own nuclear power, controlling supply and, hence, price. We don't have to rely on foreign nations for nuclear power like we do for oil and, increasingly, natural gas.
Right now, we are researching several possible sources for hydrogen. Today, natural gas is the most popular choice, but we are funding research into sources from nuclear reactors to windmills.
Personally, I believe high-temperature nuclear reactors offer the ideal source for hydrogen for four reasons.
First, nuclear reactors don't emit carbons in the atmosphere. Natural gas, the other popular feedstock, is a fossil fuel that emits carbons when it's burned.
Second, we can provide our own nuclear power, controlling supply and, hence, price. We don't have to rely on foreign nations for nuclear power like we do for oil and, increasingly, natural gas.
