Skip to main content

Rising Natural Gas Prices Forsage Expensive Winter

By Eric McErlain
Today's Washington Post is taking a closer look today at an issue we're very familiar with: The rising cost of natural gas and its effect on the American economy:
U.S. consumers could face bills averaging 48 percent higher this season than last year, according to predictions by the economic research firm Global Insight Inc. The escalating costs could cause Americans to cut back on dinners out, trips to the mall and spending, crimping U.S. economic growth. Businesses, squeezed by high energy costs, could limit expansion plans. The high prices also are pumping up inflation.

Manufacturers that use huge amounts of natural gas are scouring the world for cheaper prices and considering moving operations to ease their costs. A renewed exodus -- many companies have already shifted overseas -- could further knock back growth in the United States and boost unemployment.

Andrew N. Liveris, chief executive of Dow Chemical Co., told a hearing yesterday before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the country is in a "natural gas crisis." The Midland, Mich., company, which uses large amounts of the fuel to produce chemicals, must consider locating new plants in other parts of the world, such as China and the Middle East, because of U.S. energy costs, he said.

"How can I recommend investing here?" Liveris said.
Patrice Hill also covers the issue in today's Washington Times. None of this is exactly news, as Pat Cleary over at the NAM Blog sent out the warning about a month ago.

So how does nuclear energy fit into the equation? Well, by displacing natural gas-fired electrical generating capacity, that's how. And there's an historical precendent for it, as nuclear energy was substituted for much of America's oil-fired electrical generating capacity back in the 1970s.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Stewart Peterson said…
>>So how does nuclear energy fit into the equation? Well, by displacing natural gas-fired electrical generating capacity, that's how. And there's an historical precendent for it, as nuclear energy was substituted for much of America's oil-fired electrical generating capacity back in the 1970s.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
We have to go after coal capacity. Using nuclear to prop up the current fad leaves the half-built nuclear plants being converted to coal when the fad passes. The same happens for using it for new expansion--as soon as expansion slows or stops you've got a $15 billion bill and nowhere to sell the electricity.
October 8, 2005 at 11:23 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

By
The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …
1 comment
Read more

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

By
If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

By
With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …
Post a Comment
Read more