“Our freedoms can only
be maintained by the advancement of technologies that serve mankind—
not advancing technology puts Freedom at Risk and
our freedom is
threatened because we
don't take the time to
participate in it” GJD
U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander
July 13th, 2009
ALEXANDER UNVEILS BLUEPRINT FOR 100 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN 20 YEARS In Support of GOP “Low-cost Clean Energy Plan” to Create Jobs, Lower Utility Bills and Reduce Global Warming
U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, today unveiled a blueprint for building 100 new nuclear power plants in 20 years. He said it was his own blueprint in support of “the four-step” low-cost clean energy plan supported by the Senate GOP, which also calls for electric vehicles, offshore exploration for natural gas and oil, and doubling energy research to make renewable energy cost-competitive.
Alexander said the Republican plan would “create jobs, lower utility bills and put the United States within the goals of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming by 2030 without the expensive cap-and-trade and renewable mandates passed by the House of Representatives two weeks ago.”
In an address at the National Press Club, Alexander described the House plan as the “high-cost solution to clean energy and climate change. Its economy wide cap-and-trade and renewable energy mandate is a job-killing, 100-billion-dollar-a-year national energy tax that will add a new utility bill to every American family budget. The House plan will raise utility bills and send jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. The Republican Senate plan will lower utility bills and create jobs.”
In his address, Alexander said that while nuclear power produces only 20 percent of America’s electricity, it produces 70 percent of carbon-free, pollution-free electricity. He said that one hundred nuclear plants would double U.S. electricity production from nuclear power in 20 years, making it about 40 percent of all electricity production. “Add 10 percent for sun and wind and other renewables, another 10 percent for hydroelectric, maybe 5 percent more for natural gas,” the senator added, “and we begin to have a cheap as well as clean energy policy.”
Alexander continued, “We should want an America in which we create hundreds of thousands of ‘green jobs,’ but not at the expense of destroying tens of millions of red, white and blue jobs. In other words, it doesn’t make any sense to employ people in the renewable energy sector if we are throwing them out of work in manufacturing and high tech. That’s what will happen if these new technologies raise the price of electricity and send manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries overseas searching for cheap energy. We want clean, new, energy-efficient cars but we want them built in Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, not Japan and Mexico.”
He said that the Republican energy plan should not add to the federal budget since ratepayers will pay for building the plants. Federal loan financing for the first nuclear plants is designed not to cost taxpayers money; nuclear plants insure one another. Alexander said that offshore exploration for oil and gas should produce enough royalty revenues to pay for programs to encourage electric cars and trucks. He also said that doubling energy research and development for “mini Manhattan projects” to make renewable energy cost-competitive would cost about $8 billion more a year, which is consistent with President Obama’s budget proposals for 2009 and 2010.
For a full copy of the Senator's blueprint please click HERE.
|Fission, Baby, Fission! - We need a hundred new nuclear plants |
Author: Lamar Alexander
Publication: National Review
|October 16th, 2009 - To cut carbon emissions, the House of Representatives has devised a cap-and-trade plan that also mandates a switch to renewable resources -- wind, sunshine, and "biomass" -- for 20 percent of our energy by 2020. Democrats on the Senate Energy Committee have proposed a similar mandate. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is threatening to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by executive order. The most certain consequence of these proposals is that they will raise prices and send jobs overseas. |
I have a better suggestion. Why don't we build 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years, as we did between 1970 and 1990? We would lead the world in fending off global warming, vastly improve our energy security, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and provide ourselves with clean, reliable, low-cost power.
It seems an obvious solution, but it's not happening. There has been a decade of talk about a "nuclear renaissance," but only in 2007, after Congress finally overhauled the license-application process, was a New Jersey company -- NRG Energy Corp. -- able to file the first license application in 30 years with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If they're lucky and the NRC, which hasn't reviewed an application in 30 years, is able to meet its goal of getting the review done in four years, they may get a license by 2011 and a reactor up and running by 2017. The NRC now has 21 other applications pending or expected, and the Department of Energy has awarded four of them federal loan guarantees. The hope is that, once the first few reactor designs and the applications for specific construction licenses get through the NRC's review process, reactors can be built in a reasonable amount of time. It shouldn't be that hard: The Japanese are completing them in less than four years.
Much of the world is moving ahead. At the U.N. Climate Change Summit last month, Chinese president Hu Jintao said his country will "vigorously" expand its nuclear production. China started looking at reactors only in 2006 but has 132 on the drawing boards already. Russia has decided to double its nuclear capacity. Japan gets 36 percent of its electricity from nuclear and has two new reactors under construction. France gets nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear and has among the cheapest electricity rates in Western Europe.
The nuclear renaissance is well under way. It just hasn't reached our shores.
Why is it important that we pursue nuclear, which produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity today? Because there simply won't be any other way to meet the energy demands of the 21st century unless we go on burning a billion tons of coal each year.
Renewable solar and wind energy, the president's solution, is an intermittent source of power: It works only about a third of the time. Until we figure out how to store vast amounts of electricity, wind and solar can provide only part-time power.
Renewable resources are also afflicted with what the Nature Conservancy calls "energy sprawl." That is, they take up staggering amounts of land. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has proposed using 1,000 square miles of western lands to generate 33,000 megawatts of electricity from new solar installations. You could get the same from 25 new reactors that would fit comfortably onto existing nuclear sites. To meet the president's goal of generating 20 percent of our electricity from wind, we would need to build 186,000 wind turbines, and they would cover an area the size of West Virginia.
Reactors are the answer. The same people who built them in the past -- the utility companies -- would build the new ones, with ratepayers' money. What is needed for this is a limited number of government loan guarantees, to relieve the uncertainty of whether the new proposals are ever going to make it through the regulatory maze. Congress this year appropriated $18.5 billion, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu has suggested $40 billion, but we probably need closer to $100 billion. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this would cost the government very little money because the energy companies would pay back the loans.
There are questions concerning safety and nuclear waste. On the former, according to Energy Secretary Chu -- a Nobel Prize-winning scientist -- the nuclear-energy industry's record is "really very, very good." And as far as waste is concerned, Chu says we can safely store spent fuel in on-site dry casks for the next few decades. In that time we can commercialize processes currently being researched at the Department of Energy to recycle the waste without producing pure, weaponizable plutonium, reduce the waste to only 3 percent of its original volume, and shorten the time that it is dangerously radioactive from a million years to only 300, at which time it will be no more radioactive than the original uranium ore was.
The real problem with nuclear energy is that it is surrounded by unwarranted fear. With the conspicuous exception of Secretary Chu, Obama officials are able to wax eloquent only about blanketing the landscape with 186,000 unreliable, 50-story windmills or thousands of square miles of solar collectors. When I try to talk to them about nuclear power, they seem to get a sudden case of indigestion.
Nuclear power has to be a subject we can talk about. And we'd better do a lot more than talking, soon. Otherwise, we're going to find ourselves trailing the world in providing low-cost, clean, reliable energy, and our high-paying jobs will head overseas looking for cheap, carbon-free, reliable electricity produced by foreign nuclear plants.
Mr. Alexander is a Republican U.S. senator from Tennessee.