The Pew Center on the Prospects for Climate Change Legislation

Earlier today, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change issued a report on the prospects for the passage of climate change legislation in the next Congress:

The 2006 elections have significantly improved the prospects of rational climate policy in the United States. While it is not yet clear how many of the newly-elected senators and representatives are prepared to vote for mandatory climate change measures, the new Democratic congressional majority puts control of the agenda in the hands of policymakers who, to a large extent, favor climate action

[...]

The wild card is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McCain, in partnership with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), wrote the first GHG cap-and-trade bill in 2003 and forced the Senate votes on it in 2003 and 2005. McCain’s commitment to climate action has been among the most important factors in advancing the issue in Congress to date. Now McCain is considered a front runner for presidency in 2008. If he becomes the Republican nominee in 2008 and continues to force votes on his climate change bill, anything is possible: Moderates from both parties might have an easier time voting for a climate change bill if its author is the head of the Republican Party.

All told, given:

* the US public's growing concern over climate change;
* the climate measures of California and the northeastern states;
* the growing sense in US industry that climate action is inevitable;
* the past several years of momentum in Congress;
* the recent election results; and
* Sen. McCain's chances of being the Republican nominee for President in 2008

we are optimistic that enactment of mandatory US climate action is plausible by 2008 and likely by 2010.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Electricity, Nuclear Power, Climate Change, Global Warming, GHG

Comments

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog