Which Senator thinks coal and nuclear are clean energy?
This is not a joke. In an energy policy debate on Capitol Hill this week Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) wanted to introduce an amendment that would require 15 percent of electricity generated in the US to come from renewable sources by 2020. This was contested by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) who offered an alternative amendment that includes coal and nuclear as clean energy (As a "The Simpsons" fan, I can't but think that Mr. Burns would be delighted with this).The proposed RPS (or Renewable Electricity Standard) would become part of the amendment to bill S.1419, The Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, which Bingaman, who is chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, co-authored with Domenici. This legislation is intended to serve as the benchmark for national energy diversification and for boosting domestic biofuels production.
The opposition to this legislation comes not only from the oil-lobbyists but from the utility industry as well, which would have to invest in renewables to reach their quotas, at consumers' cost.
A national RPS has been proposed 17 times since 1996, although never reaching national level. Currently, 23 states already have individual RPS legislation.
[Source: Renewable Energy]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Kevin 1:28PM (6/17/2007)
Perhaps you should learn a bit more about nuclear energy than from cartoons.
Reply
Mike Z 2:11PM (6/17/2007)
I agree, I'm actually quite alarmed that the staff of this blog are anti-nuclear.
Reply
Pep Boys Sux 4:13PM (6/17/2007)
The only eco-argument against nuclean energy is the waste by-product, which can be recycled at expense. Mr. Navarro's anti-nuclear policy is nonsense. This country will never be free from coal and oil with just wind power. Atomic energy is a green avenue, one that shows realistic potential. If the green lobby is going anti-nuclear, then we're in for oil imports for a long time.
Reply
Bill 5:22PM (6/17/2007)
Well, we're not in for more oil imports, but we'll be burning a lot more coal for electric power.
Remember France is near energy independent in electricity thanks to their aggressive nuclear program.
I wouldn't be surprised to see 100 more nuclear plants here in the U.S. over the next 20 years (mothballing at least some coal power plants)
We'll need them to charge our batteries (on our plug-in, or series hybrids) at night.
Reply
bioburner 5:51PM (6/17/2007)
I'm all for biofuels. I worked in a nuke plant for 15 years and know they can be safe if operated properly. And evry expensive to build and operate. My electric bills almost doubled when the second unit was placed in the rate base. My only problem with nuke power is in the disposal of the spent fuel and de-commissioning the old plants. Does anybody know how much money DOD spent to de-commissin the "experamental" reactor at Shippingsport Pa.? How much money is/was being spent to cleanup TMI? I don't know thats why I'm asking.
Reply
susan.kraemer 11:35AM (6/18/2007)
Nuclear is the second worst choice, only coal is worse, why leap from the frying pan into the fire!
I am glad the calmer heads voted down Domenici's amendment! Nuclear contaminates the environment and it is not renewable as it depends on Uranium!
It makes perfect sense to use up all our best energy choices before we resort to the worst.
We have enough ocean, wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectric power to easily meet this measly 15% standard nationwide.
Theres plenty of evidence it can be done.
New Zealand is 2/3s renewable, Iceland 100%, Navarre 75%. The DOE says we have 150% of what we need nationwide in windpower alone:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_potential.html
We need to invest in DC transmission for long distance electric transmission and then we can send power long distances without losing efficiency.
Reply
Mike Z 11:36PM (6/17/2007)
Thorium and Uranium supplies with proper technologies can last for 1,000s of years at a minimum. The US Nuclear power reactors have had over 4,000 years of combined uptime without a single deadly accident: What more do you want to prove that it is safe?
And how exactly does nuclear power contaminate the environment, the entire process just concentrates and accelerates the natural decay of uranium after all. The waste is a political issue, not a science one.
Wind power is important, but if you think that it's the answer to all of our energy needs, you're living in a ferry tale world.
Reply
Scatter 4:56AM (6/18/2007)
Nuclear waste does contaminate the environment because uranium in the ground is only weakly radioactive and locked in one place while the products of nuclear fission are very strongly radioactive and moved around.
Wind power alone won't solve our problems but wind, wave, tidal, small hydro, geothermal, liquid biofuels, biogas, biomass, combined heat and power, PV, solar thermal (and who knows, maybe even fusion eventually) all working together and combined with the easiest solution - a massive increase in energy efficiency - CAN solve our problems.
I get fed up of pro-nukes telling objectors that they're living in a fairy tale world. Nuclear is not the only way forwards and it's not the best way forwards.
Reply
Mike Z 11:54AM (6/18/2007)
I'm fed up with anti-nukers who engage in selective perception of science. They say that the scientific consensus is clear about global warming, but when the scientific consensus is that nuclear can be done safely, cheaply, and without risk they seem to ignore it. Instead of citing peer reviewed studies as evidence they turn to groups that do studies where the outcome is predetermined by the group's ideology.
Why is nuclear so bad??? Western reactor designs have killed no one, in deed, if you consider that if we did no build nuclear plants, coal ones would of been built in their place, then Nuclear might well have saved over 100,000 in the last 20 years that would of died from coal fired emissions.
I know people that work in the wind industry, they point out that just because the theoretically ability is there the cost to make more than 20%-30% of our energy from wind is not economically justifiable.
Calling nuclear power 'the worse' is just an ideological claim, and not based on science. Your no better than those who deny global warming.
Reply
Scatter 1:28PM (6/18/2007)
Cheap? It's only through massive government support (i.e. not having to pay for decades or even centuries of cleanup) and R&D subsidy (check http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html to see how skewed it is).
Anyway I'm amazed given the current climate anyone would want more nuclear reactors in their country. The new reactor designs are supposed to be able to resist an impact from a military jet but not an airliner. I don't want to be around if that happens.
And since when has there supposed to have been a consensus on nuclear power? This is news to me. Where are the letters signed by the scientific academies of the world demanding the expansion of nuclear power?
http://climatechangestatements.notlong.com
Reply
Mike Z 1:42PM (6/18/2007)
As far as I know no currently operating US nuclear plant receives any form of government subsides for the power that they generate. period.
Those who claim that nuclear is so heavily subsidized engage in a campaign of propaganda that includes calling grants to universities 'subsides' and also calls MOX fuel, which is used to decommission nuclear weapons a subsidy too.
Also if the R&D is to address the issue you have against nuclear (eliminate waste, extend fuel supplies, and make them intrinsically safe) What is your problem with that?
Also Nuclear plants can withstand an airliner impact, period. I'm not even going to bother correcting your lack of knowledge on the structure properties of a containment building, there is no hope you would even listen.
Reply
Scatter 6:18PM (6/18/2007)
Your faith in reactor design is impressive but sadly not shared by such respectable organisations as the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Federation of American Scientists and even the IAEA who were quoted in the aftermath of 9/11 as saying that it was “practically impossible” to protect reactors from a targeted attack of that nature.
The new EPRs which are planned for all over Europe have been designed to withstand a 5 tonne military jet. A 747 has a max take off weight of 400 tonnes. That doesn't fill me with confidence.
As for the subsidies - that's not propaganda. The playing field is not level and never has been. If an oil company causes an oil spill they pay to have it cleaned up (or an insurance company does). Why shouldn't the same rationale apply to nuclear power companies? In the UK the taxpayers are going to be paying for the clean up for decades (projected costs currently stand at about $140 billion) and insurance costs will doubtless be borne by the taxpayer also. That’s a massive subsidy.
When they can show that the reactors are secure from attack and accident and that they will pay for the long term clean up and their insurance costs then maybe I will consider fission acceptable. But that’s not going to happen so I’m going to stick to renewables thanks.
Reply
Brian Hague 8:52PM (6/18/2007)
and so the containment building gets a hole... how far would the radiation spread? 5 miles? less? more? I find this conversation extremely amusing, as if the plant is right in the middle of downtown. so a couple of acres gets contaminated during an attack... will people live in these areas, or be evacuated, and cleaned?
I see this as a fight between political factions... another reason why I stopped voting.
Reply
Mike Z 9:38PM (6/18/2007)
The liability structure for the nuclear power industry is structured basically the same way the FDIC is. Are you arguing that we should get rid of that too?
Reply