Skip to main content

The Clean Energy Standard

bingaman The most striking element (from an energy perspective, certainly) of the State of the Union speech was President Barack Obama’s embrace of a clean energy standard. Recognizing that nuclear energy and natural gas can play significant roles in carbon emission reduction took the idea mainstream whereas it had previously been of interest mostly to energy wonks and policymakers.

The change has been noticed. Here’s the Washington Post:

The first is establishing a clean-energy standard expected to require that American utilities derive a certain amount of the electricity they provide from clean sources - the president mentioned 80 percent by 2035. Last year, Democrats opposed including nuclear energy or natural gas in that mix; Tuesday night, Mr. Obama included both.

The Post really isn’t right that Democrats opposed nuclear energy. There was no clean energy standard bill last year and Democrats were not opposed to including nuclear in such a mix. Both major bills in the House (Waxman-Markey) and the Senate (ACELA) in 2009 had nuclear up rates and/or new nuclear in their renewable portfolio standards.

Leaving that little problem aside, the Post editorial board is outlining the two elements it considers to be Obama’s successor idea to cap-and-trade. The second is increased funding for energy research, which you can read about at the link. What’s interesting here is the Post’s reaction to the inclusion of nuclear energy:

If America is to have such a standard, this is the right call. It widens the appeal of the policy to Republicans, but it's also sensible, since nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases and natural gas produces about half the carbon emissions of coal. A well-designed policy would take advantage of that difference while giving less credit for natural gas than for truly renewable fuels.

Nuclear isn’t renewable energy, either, so this feels a little befuddled – likely, the writer meant that natural gas does produce carbon emissions and thus should not receive full credit.

The New York Times’ ClimateWire gets this about right:

Obama's clean energy outline favors sources like wind, solar and nuclear over "clean coal" and natural gas. Those fossil fuel energies, which emit some greenhouse gases, would receive "partial credits" under a clean energy standard that may allow utilities to trade energy credits earned by using low-carbon power sources, according to a White House fact sheet.

In any event, an important editorial voice for the inclusion of nuclear energy in a clean energy standard.

---

I was curious about that White House fact sheet and found that it is not an official fact sheet but something distributed to various opinion makers. I was able to get hold of it - and the nuclear take away mirrors what was said in the speech:

To give utilities the flexibility to generate clean energy wherever makes the most sense, all clean sources – including renewables, nuclear power, efficient natural gas, and coal with carbon capture and sequestration – would count toward the goal.

We’ll see: The Hill newspaper reports that Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) is considering bringing up a bill to support a clean energy standard and a brief bit in Reuters reports that Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is bending is warming up to the idea:

The chairman of the Senate's energy panel said on Monday he could support including nuclear power in the White House's clean energy standard for generating electricity as long as renewable energy benefited.

"If we can develop a workable clean energy standard that actually continues to provide an incentive for renewable energy projects to move forward, and provide an additional incentive for some of the other clean energy technologies, nuclear being one, I would like to see that happen," Senator Jeff Bingaman told reporters.

Bingaman is consequential here because he is chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, which will be the first Senate committee to look at any bill that includes a clean energy standard. This will be an interesting story to follow in 2011.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) makes a point so forcefully, the camera blurs his hand a bit.

Comments

The policy should be a bit more aggressive, IMO.

It should be mandated that 50% of the electrical energy produced by a utility in the US come from carbon-neutral resources (nuclear, renewable, etc.) by 2020 with the penalty of a heavy carbon tax on those utilities that fail to reach this criteria.

I should note that there are several utilities that have already reached this goal thanks to their use of nuclear energy.

And a 90% carbon-neutral mandate should be required for US utilities by 2030.

Such mandates would allow utilities and financial institutions to aggressively invest in carbon-neutral energy resources with a lot more certainty.

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 Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…