Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label National Journal

Looking to the Future

Over at the National Journal's Energy and Environment blog, Amy Harder asks how the energy mix will differ 30 years from now - in 2042, in other words. What long-term market dynamics -- if any -- will shift the nation's energy from fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy? What environmental concerns should the country consider? What role do the federal and state governments play in shaping and sustaining the energy mix? And why try to answer whopping big questions like that when you have access to some leaders in industry and elsewhere to help out? Former Energy Secretary Spencer Abrahams has a book (Amazon link - no benefit to me - but it's a pretty interesting book anyway) that asks a similar questions and he's got it sorted: I  call my plan the 30—30—30 by 2030 strategy. It calls for us to produce 30% of our power from nuclear and 30% from natural gas and clean coal by the target date. It also calls for us to generate another 30% from a combinatio...

Clean Energy, The EPA and a Question

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) released what called the chairman’s mark of the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill, called the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733). At least, this is an accurate title – bills are often called something benign despite repulsive contents, but this one hits the goals of the bill. While it’s about 100 pages longer than the previous draft version, the nuclear section is much as it was – the focus remains workforce, used fuel management and safety. We expect this section – and all the sections – to gain more provisions as the bill moves along. Grist’s David Nelson points out one notable difference between the House and Senate versions of the bill: it retains EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act. Nelson doubts this will survive the process. We’re not really sure why this bill would not take precedence over EPA since it establishes the same kind of carbon reduction regime ...

National Journal's Expert Blog Asks: "Does Nuclear Fit the [Climate] Bill?"

The answers to this question from various experts should be fun to watch unfold over the week . Be sure to remember to check in occasionally to see how the discussion is going. It's up to five mixed responses so far... Update 1:50 pm: NEI's CEO Marv Fertel added his two cents to the discussion . Update 10/21, 4 pm: So far 14 experts have weighed in. Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa has the most favorable votes with NEI's CEO right behind. Carl Pope from the Sierra Club dropped an odd comment about Texas and low-level waste and surprisingly the American Wind Energy Association felt the need to comment about the nuclear industry's financial barriers. I wonder what AWEA thinks of HSBC's comments : HSBC Private Bank is recommending weightings of 1-5 percent in nuclear power to clients without ethical objections, as subsidy-dependent renewable energy stocks are too exposed to political risk. Fredrik Nerbrand, head of global strategy at HSBC's private banking arm, said nuclear ...