Skip to main content

Natural Gas Prices Kill The Pink Flamingo

By Eric McErlain
Have you ever heard of Union Products? Probably not, but I'm guessing that you've probably seen the item their best known for: The plastic Pink Flamingo.

They've made millions of them over the years, but they closed their doors yesterday because of rising energy costs, in particular, the rising cost of natural gas. Here's how our friends at NAM Blog put it:
Union Products is closing its doors because of RISING COSTS for plastic resin and electricity, in addition to some financing problems, according to the AP article. Plastic resin is a chemical product and the basic feedstock for it is natural gas. And many public utilities use natural gas as a power source. Congress has failed to open new areas for U.S. natural gas production, (we have vast reserves of it). So we can lay the demise of yet another manufacturing facility at the feet of those in Congress who have stalled and killed off several measures pushed this year to ease this cost pressure.
Just another concrete example of how volatility in natural gas markets helped eliminate some American jobs. But if you're the sort of person who won't shed a tear at the demise of the Pink Flamingo, what about the American chemical industry? Here's Andrew Liveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, at the Detroit Economic Club Monday, in a speech on how rising energy prices are killing his industry too:
The United States is losing major business investments and high-paying manufacturing jobs because it does not have an adequate energy policy to address rising natural gas prices, said Dow Chemical Co. CEO Andrew Liveris in a speech Monday to the Detroit Economic Club.

The United States has vast amounts of natural gas along its coasts, but environmental laws prevent drilling. Liveris, head of the $46-billion Midland-based global company, said he would like to build more chemical plants in the United States, but the country's environmental laws and lack of a coherent energy policy are discouraging.

"Faced with the choice of investing here in the United States, with the certainty of higher and more volatile natural gas prices, how can I recommend to my board and to my shareholders to invest here?" Liveris asked.
So what's the solution? Well, as our friends at NAM would tell you, opening up more areas to drilling for natural gas would help, but another piece of the solution would be to build more nuclear power plants in order to displace natural gas-fired electric generating capacity. In turn, that would make more natural gas available for chemical production, agriculture and manufacturing and bring some price stability to the North American market for natural gas.

Split an atom, save American manufacturing.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more