PDA

View Full Version : Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy to Boost Climate Bill



TheProfessor
01-31-2010, 04:55 PM
Obama signals compromise on nuclear energy and drilling to save climate change bill, lure GOP
(http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9709897)
President Barack Obama is endorsing nuclear energy like never before, trying to win over Republicans and moderate Democrats on climate and energy legislation.

Obama singled out nuclear power in his State of the Union address, and his spending plan for the next budget year is expected to include billions of more dollars in federal guarantees for new nuclear reactors. This emphasis reflects both the political difficulties of passing a climate bill in an election year and a shift from his once cautious embrace of nuclear energy.

He's now calling for a new generation of nuclear power plants.

During the campaign, Obama said he would support nuclear power with caveats. He was concerned about how to deal with radioactive waste and how much federal money was needed to support construction costs. Those concerns remain; some say they've gotten worse.

His administration has pledged to close Yucca Mountain, the planned multibillion-dollar burial ground in the Nevada desert for high-level radioactive waste. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has been criticized for his slow rollout of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to spur investment in new nuclear power plants, and the administration killed a Bush-era proposal to reprocess nuclear fuel.

What has changed is the outlook for climate and energy legislation, a White House priority. The House passed a bill in June that would limit emissions of heat-trapping gases for the first time. But the legislation led to a Republican revolt in the Senate, where the recent election of Republican Scott Brown from Massachusetts has made the measure even more of a long shot.

Obama reaffirmed his commitment to a bill in his State of the Union speech as a way to create more clean-energy jobs, but added that "means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country."

To back that up, he is expected to seek $54 billion in additional loan guarantees for nuclear power in his 2011 budget request to Congress on Monday, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the request has not been made public.

White House officials say Obama's actions reflect his long support of nuclear power. But lawmakers from both parties say the speech reflected a new urgency and willingness to reach out to Republicans who have criticized Obama for not talking more about the role nuclear energy can play in slowing global warming.

The 104 nuclear reactors in operation in 31 states provide only 20 percent of the nation's electricity. But they are responsible for 70 percent of the power from pollution-free sources, including wind, solar and hydroelectric dams.

Several analyses of the climate bills passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate suggest that the U.S. will have to build many more plants in order to meet the 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 called for in the legislation. One of those studies, by the Environmental Protection Agency, assumed 180 new reactors would come on line by 2050.

"I see an evolving attitude on energy by the president," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, who has called for 100 plants to be built in the next 20 years. Alexander, R-Tenn., said Obama's mention of nuclear energy in the address Wednesday night was the most important statement that the president has made on nuclear power.

"Up until now, the administration has been pursuing a national windmill policy instead of a national energy policy, which is the military equivalent of going to war in sailboats," he said.

Well before the speech, three senators cobbling together a Senate energy and climate bill — Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham — were pledging to include more in the bill for nuclear energy and offshore drilling to secure the necessary 60 votes to overcome a likely filibuster from opponents.

What's unclear is whether Obama's endorsement will help. It could attract more Republican and moderate Democrats. But nuclear energy and offshore drilling may alienate some liberal Democrats and environmentalists. One environmental group, Friends of the Earth, called it "a kick in the gut."

Graham, in an Associated Press interview, said Obama's speech was an opening that he hoped to take advantage of to court more GOP support. But he said some pro-nuclear Republicans, while pleased with the president's remarks, are nervous about the other part of the bill — a plan to limit heat-trapping pollution, which will raise energy costs.

"The president did a great job putting nuclear on the table in a robust way, as well as offshore drilling for oil and natural gas," said Graham. "I hope Republicans understand we have a once in lifetime chance, but in return we have to come up with emissions standards."

Lieberman praised Obama for "reaching out beyond the Democratic Party base," but said it may not be enough to win the support of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. McCain criticized Obama's stance on nuclear power during the 2008 campaign, but has backed efforts to reduce global warming.

McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said that while the senator was encouraged, the administration needs to address reprocessing and disposal if nuclear power is to be a viable option.

On Friday, the Department of Energy announced a bipartisan commission to investigate alternatives to Yucca Mountain.

The nuclear energy industry is waiting to see what else the administration will deliver. Its wish list includes more financing for loan guarantees, as well as tax incentives for nuclear energy manufacturing and production facilities.

"The turnaround in the last year has just been astounding and welcome," said Jim Connaughton, the former chairman of the White House Council of Environmental Quality under President George W. Bush. Connaughton now works for Constellation Energy, the Baltimore-based energy company that owns a stake in five nuclear reactors and is seeking to build more.

"There is no question that if you look at the votes, for a majority of them that have been on the fence, restoring America's leadership in nuclear energy is an essential requirement."

coyotes_geek
01-31-2010, 05:40 PM
Overall, a good decision IMO. But McCain is right about the reprocessing and disposal issues. If we're going to expand nuclear power, and we should, then those two things are issues that need to be addressed.

EVAY
01-31-2010, 05:48 PM
Good move on Obama's part. Plus, we need more nuclear plants.

TheProfessor
01-31-2010, 06:23 PM
Overall, a good decision IMO. But McCain is right about the reprocessing and disposal issues. If we're going to expand nuclear power, and we should, then those two things are issues that need to be addressed.
Agreed. This is the kind of give-and-take needed to move legislation forward.

boutons_deux
01-31-2010, 07:58 PM
reprocessing and disposal?

What about the upcoming shortage of fuel?

Will Wall St make the loans?

Marcus Bryant
01-31-2010, 08:54 PM
And the corporatist warfare-welfare state rolls on.

xrayzebra
01-31-2010, 10:16 PM
I thought he was pushing drilling for our own resources. Drill baby drill.

Dear Leader is what he is. A community organizer with many complaints and no
solutions.

Thompson
01-31-2010, 11:42 PM
If he's really interested in building nuclear plants he needs to put pressure on Reid and the Nevada representatives to accept Yucca Mountain storage (I don't know of any other alternative).

Winehole23
02-01-2010, 02:07 AM
And the corporatist warfare-welfare state rolls on.If we're going to have a Chinese style, centrally steered industrial policy let's go ahead and have one I guess, and quit half-assing it.

SnakeBoy
02-01-2010, 06:04 AM
If he's really interested in building nuclear plants he needs to put pressure on Reid and the Nevada representatives to accept Yucca Mountain storage (I don't know of any other alternative).

I guess he's not really interested...



Feb. 01, 2010
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

Proposal would eliminate funding for Yucca Mountain

By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will propose eliminating funding for the Yucca Mountain Project in a new budget he will submit to Congress today, said Nevada lawmakers who were notified over the weekend.

Also, White House officials said they will take steps "in the near future" to withdraw a pending license application to build the long-planned nuclear waste repository, which could be a decisive move in ending the government's 23-year focus on developing the Nevada site for radioactive waste storage and disposal.

With the formation Friday of a commission to study nuclear waste management, officials said the budget will underscore Obama's "commitment to pursuing a responsible, long-term strategy" for handling waste generated by nuclear utilities and government defense agencies.

The plan would fulfill an Obama campaign promise to end the Yucca Mountain program, which has been unpopular with many Nevadans and the state's top leaders.

"This is great news," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has consulted Obama on an exit strategy for Yucca Mountain.

"President Obama is keeping his word to Nevada, and I thank him for working with me as we try to find a safer solution for dealing with the nation's nuclear waste," Reid said in a statement.

"This budget is a bulldozer that will help Nevada flatten Yucca Mountain into a permanent pile of rubble," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.

Her aides said she was notified Sunday of what the budget contains.

"Money talks, and the president's budget shouts 'no more spending' on efforts to dump nuclear waste in Nevada," she said.

The Yucca Mountain budget would be zeroed out through a merger of the project's office into the Office of Nuclear Energy, which conducts research and development on a broader scale, according to notifications sent to members of Congress.

While there might be no line item for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, it was not known whether there might be money set aside in other parts of the Energy Department budget for other expenses, such as paying lawyers and turning out the lights.

The Energy Daily newsletter reported earlier this month that Energy Secretary Steven Chu appealed to White House officials to provide $25 million for "the wrap-up of the Yucca Mountain Project."

A government source said that an all-hands meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday at the Las Vegas headquarters of the Yucca Mountain Project and that a message was being written by Chu's office to be delivered to workers.

On Friday, Chu and Chief White House Energy Adviser Carol Browner announced the formation of a 15-member commission that will be asked to recommend new strategies for managing nuclear waste.

In making the announcement, Browner declared the Obama administration was "done with Yucca Mountain."

The nuclear waste plan will be part of a $3.8 trillion budget for fiscal 2011 that Obama will send to Congress today. If approved, it would take effect Oct. 1.

It was not unclear whether Congress would need to pass separate legislation to merge the DOE nuclear offices.

The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management was allocated $98.4 million for this year, most of which is being spent to answer questions about a repository construction application being reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Eliminating funding for the Yucca Mountain Project would signal its end is near, but a move by Obama to withdraw the application would be another critical step toward terminating the project.

Experts who follow Yucca Mountain think the project could be revived as long as the license application is not withdrawn and the Nevada site formally disavowed.


http://www.lvrj.com/news/proposal-would-eliminate-funding-for-yucca-mountain-83230447.html

boutons_deux
02-01-2010, 10:18 AM
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/img/global/tol-logo-222x25.gif


From The Sunday Times
January 31, 2010

The Great Uranium Stampede

Everybody wants supplies as nuclear power comes roaring back



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00679/Business_679092a.jpg

Danny Fortson

It’s an odd place for a group of Frenchmen to pitch a tent city. Bakouma is one of the deepest, darkest corners of African jungle. From Bangui, the capital of the land-locked Central African Republic, it takes days to navigate the 800km of dirt track to this patch of virgin forest in the middle of the continent. Usually they go by light aircraft to a nearby landing strip.

Most of the 160 or so jungle dwellers are scientists but they are not there to count butterflies. They are drawing up plans for a uranium mine. Areva, France’s state-owned nuclear giant, is behind the project. It hopes to begin clearing forest next year after the government approves its plan.

Bakouma is not an isolated case. It’s just one example of a silent landgrab unfolding around the globe. After decades as a forgotten commodity, uranium, the radioactive element used as the primary fuel for nuclear power, is hot property again. Agents for companies, many of them government-controlled, are fanning out across the globe to gain access to the powdery, radioactive ore.

The scramble has been set off by the comeback of nuclear power. In the past couple of years countries that for decades had shunned it as an expensive, pariah technology have embraced it anew. Britain is leading the charge. The government envisages a new generation of reactors to replace the rickety old stations that will be retired in the coming years. The renaissance has taken hold elsewhere, from America to the Middle East and China.

For some, the resulting uranium rush is worrying. Rianne Teule, a nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “A lot of new countries in Africa are opening up to uranium mining but it is non-African companies that are exploiting the resource — Chinese, Canadian and French firms. It’s a whole new phase of colonialism.”

It’s also a serious business. As with oil, companies and governments are seeking to ensure supplies of a fuel that will play an increasing role as economies move away from traditional fossil-fuelled power.

Last year Kazakhstan leapfrogged Australia and Canada to become the largest supplier of uranium, producing about 14,000 tonnes, a fifth of global consumption.

Niger has also begun drawing the attention, and money, of big multinationals. Areva is investing more than €1 billion (£870m) in a giant new mine in the impoverished desert nation. CNNC, China’s state-owned nuclear firm, bought a stake in a project there last week. And Obtala Resources, a London-listed group run by Frank Scolaro, former chairman of Regal Petroleum, is in the final stages of negotiating licences for two new prospects.

“These are the kinds of projects we like,” said Scolaro. “The world is going nuclear and they will need the fuel.”

Today there are 439 reactors operating in the world. According to Steve Kidd at the World Nuclear Association, another 142 are in the pipeline, and 53 of these are already under construction. Of the latter, 20 are in China. “We forget that in France in the 1970s they were building five new reactors a year,” he said. “The Chinese are just doing what the French did, but on a Chinese scale.”

The mining boom has been boosted by a surge in the uranium price. “For three decades uranium cost $10 a pound because nuclear power wasn’t seen as very desirable. Now that we have all these concerns about the environment and going low-carbon, it’s different. It hit $137 [a pound] two years ago,” said Joe Kelly, head of nuclear fuel markets at Icap Energy. Today the spot price for unenriched uranium is $42 a pound, enough for most projects to go ahead.

The Cigar Lake mine in Saskatchewan, Canada, the world’s largest undeveloped high-grade deposit, jointly owned by Areva and Cameco of Canada, will open next year. It is one of eight that will begin producing in the next 12 months.

A couple of the biggest sources, meanwhile, could soon run out. America
and Russia supply up to a fifth of the world’s needs from decommissioned bombs or stockpiles built up during their nuclear arms race. They are gradually releasing these into the market. “There is a worry that when the cold-war stocks run out we won’t be able to meet demand,” said Kelly.

The US Department of Energy has pledged not to flood the market. If it did, the price would crash and bring many new projects to an abrupt halt.

That would be no bad thing, said Greenpeace’s Teule, who argued that many of the new mining areas are virtually unregulated. A recent investigation in Niger uncovered radioactive shovels on sale in the local market in Arlit, a company town next to Areva’s mine there. The country is the world’s sixth-largest producer and has ambitions to move up the rankings. It employs only three nuclear inspectors to keep watch on the industry.

Areva acknowledged the problem but said the company has instituted a plan to stop radioactive “waste rock” and scrap metal from finding its way into the local community.

Teule said: “We are using this as a specific example to other countries about the problems they can get themselves into and to ensure there is proper regulation and reports on the environmental impact.”

Indeed, even as investors flood into Niger, companies are starting new projects in other poor countries such as Namibia and Malawi.

“Getting a mine going in Texas takes two bookshelves full of authorisations,” said one commentator. “In Niger you give a shovel to a guy on $2 a day and you’re mining uranium.”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7009629.ece

boutons_deux
02-01-2010, 03:29 PM
Financial angle to federal Nuclear Loan Guarantee, includes SA CPS plans:

http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=3130&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS

Winehole23
02-01-2010, 03:33 PM
Remember STNP? We're still waiting for the energy "too cheap to meter" in Austin....

RandomGuy
02-01-2010, 04:02 PM
I have no doubt nuclear will play some role in mankind's energy mix for the foreseeable future.

We have discussed it at great length here, but the same demons still plague nuclear as always have.

1) Nukes are EXPENSIVE. It is hard to come by impartial estimates as to the cost per Kw, but it never really quite measures up to the promises of the nuclear industry. NO nuclear power plant has EVER, to my knowledge, been built for LESS than 200% of the original projected cost, often it is more like 400+%.

2) Waste disposal. NIMBY kills this. If you want nuclear power that badly, you should vote to have the waste put over your water table.

3) Construction. NIMBY drags delays on and on, forcing construction overruns.

4) Water. Some designs bypass this, but nukes are voracious consumers of water.

5) Security concerns for the waste/fuel shipments. 15 idiots with machine guns and or multiple truck bombs are hard to stop if they aren't afraid to die.

All of which simply makes it too expensive and complicated to bother with, IMO. Large scale proposals for nukes strike me as Boondoggles with a capital B.

I would much rather we put the effort and money into solar/wind and other forms of renewables, since their costs are generally a bit better estimated.

DarrinS
02-01-2010, 04:10 PM
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/img/global/tol-logo-222x25.gif


From The Sunday Times
January 31, 2010

The Great Uranium Stampede

Everybody wants supplies as nuclear power comes roaring back



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00679/Business_679092a.jpg


Danny Fortson





I always wondered what happened to Danny Fortson.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/2285/evansfortsonhug8ol.jpg

boutons_deux
02-01-2010, 04:18 PM
What if we put those $Bs to kickstart nuclear into fusion, which has seen some significant progress recently?

and into tax credits for retro-fitting ALL buildings in the US, esp commercial buildings? ie, it's cheaper to save than it is to keep building capacity to waste?

I read an article where they've diddled the DNA of microbes or algae that now produce diesel oil directly.

boutons_deux
02-01-2010, 04:20 PM
what about "divide and conquer" the nuclear sourcing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_nuclear_reactor

Marcus Bryant
02-01-2010, 06:58 PM
If we're going to have a Chinese style, centrally steered industrial policy let's go ahead and have one I guess, and quit half-assing it.

True. It's much easier for the Chinese to pull that off. Unfortunately Americans have these silly notions of natural rights and individual liberty.

The pursuit of economic progress at all cost will eventually wipe out human progress, at least in governance. Then again, a majority will accept it without much of a thought. After all, if a majority cared in this country about national life being reordered to maximize economic growth, the last couple of years would have been quite different in this country, to say the least. Or, the grand designs of the ruling class blew up in their faces and the people shrugged.