Carbon-Free Nuclear Energy Must Play Strong Role to Achieve U.S. Climate Goals, NEI Says

Marv Fertel

Following is a statement regarding President Obama’s plan to address climate change and control carbon emissions by the Nuclear Energy Institute’s president and chief executive officer, Marvin Fertel:

“The strength of America’s electric system is diversity of technologies and fuel types. When it comes to reducing the U.S. electric sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, efforts can succeed only if carbon-free nuclear energy plays a larger role in the nation’s electricity mix. That’s not simply the opinion of our industry. It is the determination made by several independent organizations that analyzed the leading climate change bills pending in Congress some five years ago when prospects for enacting legislative measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions appeared to have momentum. These include the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration, which found that between 69 and 187 new nuclear energy facilities would be needed to meet the bills’ carbon reduction objectives in the electricity sector.

“There is no debating this fact: Nuclear energy produces nearly two-thirds of America’s carbon-free electricity. As a nation, we cannot reach our energy and climate goals without the reliable, carbon-free electricity that nuclear power plants generate to power our homes, businesses and infrastructure.

“President Obama recognized this during the presidential campaign when he said, ‘It is unlikely we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option.’ Likewise, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz supports the expansion of nuclear energy to meet national energy and environmental imperatives.

“Nuclear energy must continue to be a major part of the nation’s energy portfolio if we wish to effectively reduce carbon emissions to protect the environment, and to expand our supply of reliable, affordable electricity. We look forward to working with the administration to help achieve these extremely important goals.”

For more on the President's speech, please follow our Twitter feed.

Read More

Excerpts from President Obama’s Climate Action Plan Regarding Nuclear Energy

President Obama

Like plenty of folks in Washington today, we'll be paying close attention to President Obama's speech on climate change. The President will be giving the speech today at 1:30 p.m. U.S. EDT at Georgetown University. You can watch the speech via a live stream from WhiteHouse.gov.

Copies of the climate plan were leaked to the media overnight. Brad Plumer of Wonk Blog has already done an initial analysis. Here at NEI, we've already taken a look at the plan and excerpted all of the sections below that contain references to nuclear energy.

With abundant clean energy solutions available, and building on the leadership of states and local governments, we can make continued progress in reducing power plant pollution to improve public health and the environment while supplying the reliable, affordable power needed for economic growth. By doing so, we will continue to drive American leadership in clean energy technologies, such as efficient natural gas, nuclear, renewables, and clean coal
technology.

Unlocking Long-Term Investment in Clean Energy Innovation: The Fiscal Year 2014 Budget continues the President’s commitment to keeping the United States at the forefront of clean energy research, development, and deployment by increasing funding for clean energy technology across all agencies by 30 percent, to approximately $7.9 billion. This includes investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels and emerging nuclear technologies – including small modular reactors – to clean coal. To continue America’s leadership in clean energy innovation, the Administration will also take the following steps:

Expanding Clean Energy Use and Cut Energy Waste: Roughly 84 percent of current carbon dioxide emissions are energy-related and about 65 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to energy supply and energy use. The Obama Administration has promoted the expansion of renewable, clean, and efficient energy sources and technologies worldwide through:

• Financing and regulatory support for renewable and clean energy projects
• Actions to promote fuel switching from oil and coal to natural gas or renewables
• Support for the safe and secure use of nuclear power
• Cooperation on clean coal technologies
• Programs to improve and disseminate energy efficient technologies

Looking ahead, we will target these and other resources towards greater penetration of renewables in the global energy mix on both a small and large scale, including through our participation in the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative and accelerating the commercialization of renewable mini-grids. These efforts include:

• Nuclear Power. The United States will continue to promote the safe and secure use of nuclear power worldwide through a variety of bilateral and multilateral engagements. For example, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission advises international partners on safety and regulatory best practices, and the Department of Energy works with international partners on research and development, nuclear waste and storage, training, regulations, quality control, and comprehensive fuel leasing options. Going forward, we will expand these efforts to promote nuclear energy generation consistent with maximizing safety and nonproliferation goals.

Also, recall that the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in March called on the White House to support the development of new reactor technologies and to lead the development of a nuclear fuel management program. Specifically, PCAST recommended:

Nuclear power requires special attention, as the Federal Government’s role is different than for all other technologies. Nuclear power currently supplies 19 percent of U.S. electricity. Achieving low-carbon goals without a substantial contribution from nuclear power is possible, but extremely difficult. Nuclear power involves large capital investments recovered over long time periods. Even if current market conditions driven primarily by low natural gas prices persist for a decade or more, it is important to eliminate obstacles now that would impede renewed commitments to nuclear energy as energy economics shift over time. Today, a critical issue is progress in nuclear-waste management, and we recommend implementation of the recommendations put forward by the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America’s Nuclear Future. Indeed, nuclear waste disposal needs to be addressed independent of whether nuclear power deployment continues. The recent DOE strategy document generally endorses the BRC and proposes a timeline for some key steps towards a functioning waste management system. Implementation is key.

That's it for now. Look for more all day long as we follow the coverage via our Twitter feed.

Read More

All the President’s Science Advisors–Endorse Nuclear Energy

President Barack Obama made climate change an issue he wants to focus on in his second term. This may lead somewhere or nowhere, depending on the variables, but so it goes.

In crafting a policy(which hasn’t yet emerged), the President turned to his advisors on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) for comment.

What is PCAST?

President Obama established the current PCAST in 2010 as an advisory group of leading scientists and engineers who directly advise the President and the Executive Office of the President; one of the members serves as the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (the Science Advisor). PCAST’s charter is to advise the President on matters involving science, technology, and innovation policy, including, but not limited to, policy that affects science, technology, and innovation, as well as scientific and technical information that is needed to inform public policy relating to the economy, energy, environment, public health, national and homeland security, and other topics.

So it seems the right crowd to address climate change in energy policy. They offered six key recommendations. I’ll let you find the other five at the above link, or more directly, here.

Over the past four years, emissions reductions have come primarily from declining oil consumption and a switch from coal to natural gas in the electricity sector. Further reductions in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions over the next decade will result from a continued shift from coal to natural gas and renewables in the electricity sector.

Which sounds disappointing, doesn’t it? Nuclear energy has been around so long that it’s possible to forget that its presence forestalls building fossil fuel plants. Building new reactors would do more of that.

But wait:

Nuclear power requires special attention, as the Federal Government’s role is different than for all other technologies. Nuclear power currently supplies 19 percent of U.S. electricity. Achieving low-carbon goals without a substantial contribution from nuclear power is possible, but extremely difficult.

Nuclear power involves large capital investments recovered over long time periods. Even if current market conditions driven primarily by low natural gas prices persist for a decade or more, it is important to eliminate obstacles now that would impede renewed commitments to nuclear energy as energy economics shift over time.

Today, a critical issue is progress in nuclear waste management, and we recommend implementation of the recommendations put forward by the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America’s Nuclear Future.

Indeed, nuclear waste disposal needs to be addressed independent of whether nuclear power deployment continues. The recent DOE strategy document generally endorses the BRC and proposes a timeline for some key steps towards a functioning waste management system. Implementation is key.

We also support adequate research funding for new and potentially cheaper nuclear technologies.

“The Federal Government’s role is different than for all other technologies.” This is the bolded portion  in the original and I have no idea what it means. I reckon it refers to the government taking charge of used fuel disposal, since this is brought up later in the section, but it’s ambiguous at best.

But that’s not the point. The point is “Achieving low-carbon goals without a substantial contribution from nuclear power is possible, but extremely difficult.” That sounds like something we’d say here – and have. Validation never hurts, though. And it puts nuclear energy in the mix, where it belongs.

(I do feel a bit guilty ignoring the rest of this largely non-nuclear-focused document. At only nine pages, it’s worth a read – I suspect it will be the basis of a lot of discussions and, who knows, maybe some congressional action in the next few months.)

---

PCAST is stating what has become common wisdom about cutting down greenhouse gas emissions. I’d say the council is reasonably neutral on nuclear energy usage while NEI, for example, isn’t neutral, yet this view is consistent.

It is even consistent among those with no real affection for nuclear energy. Take this bit, for example, from the dependably anti-nuclear Guardian in England:

If you believe strongly enough that we should phase out nuclear then with sufficiently strong political commitment around the world, this could be done consistently with tackling climate change. However, as a practical matter, we are far from being on course to limit carbon emissions to levels consistent with a 2C target. Ruling out one of the major low-carbon technology options currently available is bound to add to the difficulty and the risk of what is already looking like a very tough challenge. Balancing the problems of nuclear power against its contribution to climate mitigation (and other energy policy objectives) is an inescapable dilemma.

Making lemonade from lemons, I guess.

Read More

What the President Said About Nuclear Energy

The President doesn’t talk about energy issues that much in his weekly address – it isn’t the homiest topic, I guess – but this week, he did, from the Argonne National Labs. The motivation for this is the recent spike in gas prices, coming a little earlier in the year than previously.
Obama’s approach to rising gas prices is to continue to invest in technology to make gasoline less necessary.

But the only way we’re going to break this cycle of spiking gas prices for good is to shift our cars and trucks off of oil for good.  That’s why, in my State of the Union Address, I called on Congress to set up an Energy Security Trust to fund research into new technologies that will help us reach that goal.
Here’s how it would work.  Much of our energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together.  So I’m proposing that we take some of our oil and gas revenues from public lands and put it towards research that will benefit the public, so that we can support American ingenuity without adding a dime to our deficit.  We can support scientists who are designing new engines that are more energy efficient; developing cheaper batteries that go farther on a single charge; and devising new ways to fuel our cars and trucks with new sources of clean energy – like advanced biofuels and natural gas – so drivers can one day go coast-to-coast without using a drop of oil.

It’s kind of ingenious the way he avoids naming hybrid and electric cars – maybe they poll badly – but at least battery technology is here.
Anyway, aside from the fact that electric cars and nuclear energy go together well on the emissions front, nuclear only got a bit of a mention, but as an item on a checklist. The talk was really about gas prices.
But it led the White House to release an energy fact sheet. Such things can be parsed like the Rosetta Stone or a Papal Bull for clues to deeper intent – much as I noted the avoidance of electric cars above - but we’ll stay on the surface here.
In the fact sheet, Obama says that his administration:

Supports a responsible nuclear waste strategy. Under President Obama’s direction, the Energy Department created a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to recommend how to manage the challenges associated with nuclear waste storage and disposal. After careful consideration of the Commission’s input, the Administration has issued a strategy for action in response to the recommendations and looks forward to working with Congress on implementing policies that ensure that our Nation can continue to rely on carbon-free nuclear power.

The other three points under the subhead “Producing More American Energy” are: doubling renewable energy capacity by 2020, making the permitting of renewable energy (and other) sites easier, and leveraging natural gas. That’s pretty good company and means that, at the least, nuclear energy is considered part of the carbon emission reduction strategy articulated by the president. If nuclear energy were missing from this lineup, that would be a worry.
Under “International Leadership, nuclear appears again:

Supports American nuclear exports. We are providing increased support for American nuclear technology and supply chains to promote safe, secure, low-carbon nuclear power growth in countries that are pursuing nuclear energy as part of their energy mix.

This is actually a key point, one it’s great to have the President single out. The U.S. suffers in nuclear trade because of the considerable government vetting procedure. This is not to downplay the significance of nuclear technologies, and certainly not to lessen concerns about proliferation, it has more to do with the plethora of agencies that have to approve exports. It can take a year or more before a company can export an item. Countries such as Russia and France evade this by controlling their nuclear energy industries, but even countries with industries configured similarly to the U.S., such as South Korea, have proven more nimble internationally.
NEI has a bunch of pages on this subject. Start here and dig in.

Read More

Ernest Moniz Tapped for Energy Secretary

If you want a sense of what Ernest Moniz, the MIT physicist who is President Barack Obama’s pick for energy secretary, thinks about nuclear energy, read some of his writing. There’s a lot of it, and he’s pretty direct:

It would be a mistake, however, to let Fukushima cause governments to abandon nuclear power and its benefits. Electricity generation emits more carbon dioxide in the United States than does transportation or industry, and nuclear power is the largest source of carbon-free electricity in the country. Nuclear power generation is also relatively cheap, costing less than two cents per kilowatt-hour for operations, maintenance, and fuel. Even after the Fukushima disaster, China, which accounts for about 40 percent of current nuclear power plant construction, and India, Russia, and South Korea, which together account for another 40 percent, shows no signs of backing away from their pushes for nuclear power.

This is from November 2, 2011. A little more:

Nuclear power's track record of providing clean and reliable electricity compares favorably with other energy sources. Low natural gas prices, mostly the result of newly accessible shale gas, have brightened the prospects that efficient gas-burning power plants could cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants relatively quickly by displacing old, inefficient coal plants, but the historical volatility of natural gas prices has made utility companies wary of putting all their eggs in that basket. Besides, in the long run, burning natural gas would still release too much carbon dioxide.

Moniz is Director of the Energy Initiative and Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems at MIT. He served as Undersecretary at the Department of Energy in 1997–2001.

NEI’s take is here, from President and CEO Marvin Fertel:

“In nominating Ernie Moniz to be Secretary of Energy, President Obama has sent America a strong message that its energy leadership will be entrusted to an advocate of clean energy supplies, including nuclear energy. Dr. Moniz is experienced and well respected in the energy, nonproliferation and national security communities worldwide.  He has made it clear that he recognizes nuclear energy’s important role in reducing greenhouse gases as part of a balanced, low-carbon electricity generation portfolio.

Like NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane, Moniz was a member of the administration’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which recommended a new strategy for managing used nuclear fuel.

I’m sure we’ll learn plenty more in the coming days.

Read More

A Nuclear Energy Question for Tonight's Presidential Debate

Back on September 21, we took note of an article at AOL Energy, where reporter Margaret Ryan spent some time talking to a variety of policy analysts to devise questions about energy policy that reporters ought to ask during the 2012 Presidential debates. The first in the series of four debates -- three featuring the candidates for President and another the candidates for Vice President -- airs tonight from the University of Denver at 9:00 p.m. U.S. EDT.

Though I've pointed this out before, I think this proposed question bears repeating:

What's the future role of nuclear power? Can the nation have a serious climate policy without a serious nuclear one, including finally confronting the issue of nuclear waste? How should the US deal with nuclear waste? Would the candidate endorse continued research and development work in small modular nuclear reactors?

Here's hoping that question gets asked. For more information on the debates, click here for more from Politico.

Read More

A Nuclear Energy Question We'd Like to See Asked in the Presidential Debates

Over at AOL Energy, Margaret Ryan spent some time talking to a variety of policy analysts to devise some questions about energy policy that reporters ought to ask during October's Presidential debates.

As you might expect, this one caught our attention:

What's the future role of nuclear power? Can the nation have a serious climate policy without a serious nuclear one, including finally confronting the issue of nuclear waste? How should the US deal with nuclear waste? Would the candidate endorse continued research and development work in small modular nuclear reactors?

Here's hoping that question gets asked. For more information on the debates, click here for more from Politico.

Read More