Skip to main content

The First 100 Days for the Next President: An Energy Plan

The First 100 DaysA $200 billion pool to finance and drive private investment in carbon-free energy infrastructure is one cornerstone of a comprehensive action plan that the next U.S. president should implement in his first 100 days to secure America’s energy supplies, the Council on Competitiveness said in a report [PDF] issued today.

A “clean energy bank,” modeled after the U.S. Export/Import Bank, would provide financing for the development of energy solutions that avoid, reduce or sequester carbon as well as supporting infrastructure. Among the options: nuclear, renewable and biofuels.

Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and chair of the Council’s Energy Security, Innovation and Sustainability Initiative, said jumpstarting energy infrastructure investments is the “unaddressed element to date to transforming our energy sector.” Absent the investment stimulus needed to build nuclear power plants, renewable projects and infrastructure such as a “smart” electric grid, U.S. energy policy will continue to languish, Jackson said.

“Energy has garnered great focus recently, but focus must become action. Our next president must send a clear signal in the first 100 days that will send us on a journey from rhetoric to reality,” Jackson said.

The Council’s 100-day plan includes measures such as mandating energy efficiency within the federal government, expanding the full suite of energy sources, incenting innovation in the energy and sustainability marketplace and mobilizing a world-class energy workforce.

The Council, backed by a who’s-who list of advisors from academia, research, energy, labor and business, will release its comprehensive energy security and sustainability report next spring.

Video of Dr. Jackson's appearance at the National Press Club can be seen here.

Guest post by Scott Peterson.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Clinton's NRC Chairwoman. What a disaster! She was the same person who said during her tenure as NRC Chairwoman that she expected nuclear generation to drop 50% by 2020. I can't find her speech rite now, but she was a token appointee. Nils Diaz, her successor, was far more effective. She set the conditions up that let Davis Besse happen.

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 …

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…

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…