Skip to main content

The American Power Act: Early Support

j-wayne-leonard Although Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) decided not to co-sponsor the American Power Act – a protest against its spot on the Senate’s calendar being usurped by immigration legislation – that does not mean his support for it has waned:

"I believe the broad concepts we came up with before are transformational and are the most consumer and business-friendly effort to date in dealing with carbon pollution. Most importantly, they can serve as a framework in allowing America to lead in the creation of alternative energy jobs and significantly reducing our dependency on foreign oil. With these goals in mind, I am interested in carefully reviewing the details of the new proposal.

Graham leaves himself an out with that last sentence, but we think he has the right idea. He does enter into contentious territory:

"Abandoning drilling and fossil fuels is not a realistic option. However, it is imperative that we pause to find out what led to the historic oil spill in the Gulf and ensure that it never happens again. The reality still remains that fossil fuels will be required in America for decades to come.

We suspect this is an issue on which politicians can set sail. Right now, the tide is not with Graham’s argument, but tides that come in can go out, too – this one falls into wait-and-see territory, but at least Graham has hoisted his flag.

---

Energy bills are not known to attract a lot of affection from environmental advocacy groups, but Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) has worked to get as many on-board as he can. It’s an impressive line-up:

Alliance for Climate Protection, Audubon, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Climate Solutions, Defenders of Wildlife, Environment Northeast, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Fresh Energy, Green For All, League of Conservation Voters, National Tribal Environmental Council, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oxfam America, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, The Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, World Wildlife Fund.

And here’s part of their joint statement (part of a larger pdf):

Every day the Senate fails to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation we put our economy, our national security and our environment at greater risk. Inaction is too costly, and the challenge is too urgent. The Gulf Coast oil catastrophe is yet another reminder that the United States must reduce its dependence on oil to protect our security, economy and environment.

We mostly agree – what’s not to agree with, really – and will just note the different view of what the oil spill represents than that of Sen. Graham. (Other conservation and environmental groups provide their own quotes, too.) Clearly, the legislation – though obviously not timed to appear coincident with the oil spill – has found its moment, though hopefully not at the expense of its many provisions not aimed at oil. Too much focus on that issue will warp perception of a very expansive bill.

The document we snatched this from contains a great many testimonials. Read through it and see if your favorite is there.

---

Speaking of favorites being there, here is NEI’s President and CEO Marvin Fertel from the same document:

“The nuclear-related provisions of this legislation provide a solid platform for the expansion of nuclear energy to meet our electricity needs, create thousands of jobs and help achieve the desired reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. I applaud Senators Kerry and Lieberman for their collaborative work on this legislation and for seeking input from a variety of interested parties to craft this proposal. We believe there is solid consensus on the need for, and the value of, the nuclear energy provisions in this proposal.”

And a snippet from Entergy’s President and CEO J. Wayne Leonard:

Entergy supports the bill’s market-based approach, which will put a price on carbon dioxide. This is the most effective and efficient way of achieving reduction of greenhouse gasses and spurring innovation and investment into new carbon-reducing technologies.”

Likewise, here is Exelon’s Chairman and CEO John Rowe:

As the nation’s largest nuclear operator, Exelon also appreciates that the senators have recognized nuclear power as a low-emission source of baseload electricity with an important role to play in the country’s transition to a low-carbon economy.

Entergy’s J. Wayne Leonard wants you to know.

Comments

Pete said…
Compare the comments of Exelon's John Rowe (also a member of DOE's Blue Ribbon Commission) on the American Power Act with his comments in March regarding the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project.

He called the absence of a waste-storage plan "a major impediment to development of new sites" for nuclear plants. The federal government cannot issue any new licenses until it has a viable nuclear-waste plan.

The Financial Times reports this week that Exelon has said it will not construct new plants until progress is made on storage.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/66176650-5eaa-11df-af86-00144feab49a.html

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…