Skip to main content

Lieberman-Warner: "Leave No Fuel Behind"

"Leave no fuel behind," says the Progressive Policy Institute. In her policy report, Finding Common Ground on Cap and Trade, Jan Maruzek, senior scholar at PPI, "advances three principles to help break the present impasse over how to price carbon emissions, how to allocate emissions permits, and how to weigh nuclear power's contribution to America's clean-energy portfolio."

PPI on nuclear's role,
When it comes to clean energy, silver bullets are few and far between. The business of making solar panels, particularly in China, relies on a slew of toxic chemicals. The economic and environmental downsides of biofuels made from food products are coming to light. Renewable sources, while extraordinarily promising, are simply not yet capable of supplying energy in remotely the same quantities as coal, which presently provides 50 percent of U.S. electricity.

Nuclear power generates electricity with no CO2 emissions, but any expansion of this industry begs the question of where to store spent fuel. The truth of the matter is that cutting greenhouse gases by more than one-half by mid-century will require us to harness all of these energy sources. The EPA’s recent economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner bill assumes, for example, that electricity generated by nuclear power will grow 150 percent and that the nation will soon refine technologies to remove and store carbon from coal-fired electricity plants. Non-fossil energy sources such as biomass, solar, and wind will also provide a growing share of the mix.

In order to develop the most effective emission-reducing combination of energy technologies, we will need to redouble our federal energy-research efforts. For example, we should invest more heavily in such advances as carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems; next-generation nuclear pebble-bed reactors that consume uranium more efficiently and reduce the potential threat of proliferation; and spentfuel reprocessing methods of the kind that the French have safely harnessed for decades.

Finally, and most importantly, PPI supports measures to aggressively expand the use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal power. Previous iterations of the Lieberman legislative proposal, formerly co-sponsored by Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.), would have diverted some revenues from a partial auction to help fund vital research and development into clean energy sources. The current version of the bill still contains support for CCS and renewables, but fails to explicitly mention ways to support next-generation nuclear technologies.

This silence on nuclear energy prompted Sen. McCain to withdraw his support. Some Republicans in the Senate have vowed to add nuclear amendments—a move that led in part to Sen. Boxer’s threat to pull the bill from the floor. As the EPA’s recent economic analysis shows, however, we simply cannot meet our twin goals of climate stabilization and cost reduction without a concerted push into nuclear, CCS, and renewable energy. As it takes up the Lieberman-Warner proposal, the Senate must recognize that we presently are not in a position to take any promising energy source off the table.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…