Skip to main content

Back to the Old Nuclear Arguments–in a Good Way

The argument advanced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) – that taking down baseload energy plants has the capacity to destabilize the grid – a couple posts down should not lead anyone to imagine that the tired old arguments are anywhere near dead – or old or tired, for that matter.

Lyons says a major problem is that the market presently has no mechanism to sensibly recognize the value of carbon-free power generation, particularly nuclear power. “When well-run, clean [nuclear] energy sources are forced out of the marketplace due to a combination of reduced demand, low natural gas prices and market structure,” Lyons was quoted as saying by the Greenwire energy-news service, “our markets are providing the wrong signals.”

Lyons here is Peter Lyons, the Department of Energy’s assistant secretary for nuclear energy. He was also an NRC commissioner in his time. So he may be an interested party but also an extremely knowledgeable one.

Lyons said that the DOE studied a scenario where 30 percent of the county’s 100 reactors would be shut down. He said the DOE regards many of the nuclear plant closures currently on the calendar as premature. If those closures were to go ahead as per that scenario, there would be no way to meet our goal of cutting emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

Lyons also says that there is “no mechanism to sensibly recognize the value of carbon-free power generation…” which may sound like a return to trying for cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.

Forbes writer Michael Krancer gives Lyons a lot of space – he spoke at a Platts conference not long ago – and as always, Lyons is on point. The whole piece is well worth a read. Whereas Murkowski broadens the conversation by warning that overregulating baseload energy – she’s including coal and natural gas in her figuring – Lyons brings back the issue of climate change and carbon emissions. Which is still valid and worth having in the mix. When you take in all the plausible policy goals one might develop with energy these day, nuclear energy, at least as a key element in a diverse portfolio, comes out ahead- way ahead.

Comments

Its up to the Federal government to help utilities gradually transition from a carbon polluting energy economy to a carbon neutral energy economy.

And this can be done by simply Federally mandating that at least 50% of the electricity being produced by a utility in the US or imported into the US come from carbon neutral resources by 2020 and 90% by 2030.

A 15% sin tax would be placed on all of the electricity (carbon and carbon neutral) produced by utilities that fail to reach these Federally mandated levels.

Such legislation would allow utilities to gradually invest in building more carbon neutral electric power plants over the next 16 years or to purchase carbon neutral power plants from other utilities in order to meet Federal standards and in order to avoid Federal sin taxes.

There are already a few utilities in the US that meet the 50% carbon neutral level thanks to their production of nuclear and hydroelectric power.

The TVA should set an example for other utilities by selling off all of its carbon polluting electric power plants and using that revenue to build more nuclear power plants.

Marcel

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 …

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …