Skip to main content

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

By
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.
Labels:

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.
September 10, 2008 at 12:22 PM
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