Skip to main content

Giuliani on Energy Policy

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani gave a speech last night in New York City where he touched on what he believes should be priorities for a national energy policy:
"I can't imagine how you can achieve anything in government without a plan," he said in his remarks at the Princeton Club, referring to the nation's long-range energy needs. "This is an area where we haven't had a plan in a very, very long time."

Mr. Giuliani, whose consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, advises energy companies and a liquefied natural gas project on Long Island Sound, called for easing and hastening permits for more nuclear power plants, natural gas ports and oil refineries. He said the nation could not afford another 30 years without a far-sighted energy policy.

"We've been sitting there for a generation, just hoping there'll be some magic solution," he said.

(snip)

Asked by an audience member what his advice to Mr. Bush would be, Mr. Giuliani called for fixed numerical goals and deadlines to build more nuclear power plants, encourage use of hybrid cars, and increase the supply of ethanol and other resources. Ethanol is an economic priority in Iowa, which has the nation's first presidential caucuses.

(snip)

"The idea of energy independence for the United States is maybe the wrong paradigm --— I don't know if we can ever be independent," he said. But he added, "I think you can be independent by being diversified," arguing that Americans needed to depend more on home-grown fuels and energy resources.
Though the New York Times says Giuliani was critical of President Bush, many of his suggestions are already part of Administration policy.

For more, see the AP account of the speech, or visit the Giuliani Blog. Thanks to Taegan Goddard for the pointer.

UPDATE: Ryan Sager has more. Thanks to Instapundit for the pointer.

UPDATE: A lot of folks are liking what they heard from Giuliani, including Hot Air, Jay Reding, Tinkerty Tonk and TexasXtreme.

UPDATE: More thoughts from Decision '08 and What If?.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

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…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…