Our Green Empire

The Obama Energy Policy, like almost all of President Barack Obama’s policies, is grandly visionary, but seemingly lacking in details. I’ll give the guy a break because he’s only been in power for a few months and he’s cranking out big new proposals in a machine-gun manner. As time passes, each of his policies will likely gain more clarity.

Obama hired Dr. Steven Chu to head the Department of Energy. As we looked at in a recent article, Chu has a positive attitude towards nuclear energy. He and Obama both said they wouldn’t ignore nuclear energy as a viable alternative energy, as long as it could be produced safely and the radioactive waste could be dealt with in a secure environment.

Dr. Chu has now announced a new panel to look into those issues.

Obama has already ruled out a radioactive waste repository, like the controversial one that was proposed for Yucca Mountain. Therefore Chu has stated he’ll be selecting a “blue-ribbon panel” of experts to look at viable solutions on what can be done about nuclear waste.

Chu was meeting with the Senate Budget Committee to discuss details of Obama’s immense 3.3. trillion energy spending plan. He said that the nuclear policy and the “blue-ribbon” panel initiatives would become more clear before the end of the current year.

“I don’t want to suggest what this blue-ribbon panel might determine but let me stress this will be done this year,” Chu told the committee.

Chu said that nuclear energy must be used along with solar and wind energy, which seems to be the clear pragmatic solution for helping wean the United States from its insatiable appetite for foreign energy.

20% of the total electrical production in the United States currently comes from nuclear power. In order to increase nuclear energy production, a large investment in nuclear power plants must ensue. Chu hinted at just how the Obama administration could help stoke that fire.

Chu stressed that federal loans worth 18.5 billion dollars were still available. He also said that the government’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission rather than the Department of Energy is the agency that approves licenses for new nuclear plants.

He said that DoE and NRC are now teaming up to offer a stream-lined process that should make getting licenses much easier.

This is great economic news for companies who are big players in next-generation nuclear production capabilities. This includes industrial stalwarts Westinghouse Electric, a division of Japan’s Toshiba Corp., and General Electric. Both companies stand to benefit greatly from a faster licensing process that would encourage speedier deployment of nuclear assets.

As to the waste issue, Chu said it’s not compelling enough to halt the way of increased nuclear production. Right now nuclear waste can be stored at nuclear power plants using “dry cask storage.” That method can store nuclear waste for decades, which will buy us time until the “blue-ribbon” panel figures out a permanent radioactive waste scheme.

There are currently 31 proposed applications for new nuclear power plants that could be quickly ramped up if the storage solution problem is ignored for the time being. Chu said he didn’t think the NRC should be holding up these proposals.

Presumably a new Golden Age of Nuclear is nearing. The keys in coming months will be to see just what the new blue-ribbon panel is about and what solutions they come up with for the radioactive waste conundrum.

With 3.3 trillion dollars in spending to back them. a combination of wind, solar, and nuclear energy production could help the United States make the quantum leap needed to become a 21st century nation with a largely “green economy.” The high paying jobs that will be created based on these 31 plants becoming reality would be enough to help halt employment and even put a dent in the construction crisis.

If the Obama Energy Policy lives up to its potential, America really will be a cleaner, better place for it.

President Obama has made it clear that he wants to promote the use of “green energy” in the United States. It’s an idea who’s time came in the early 1970s when our nation ran out of usable crude oil. After that we became a country of oil-guzzling addicts that have been forced to purchase much of our energy from foreign entities who are downright hostile to our interests.

Wind and Solar power are key to Obama’s new energy plan. That’s all well and good. Wind and solar energy production means jobs to a nation of increasingly unemployed workers, but will it be enough?

Wind and solar energy productions creates job, but so does nuclear

Wind and solar aren’t the only green technologies than employ people. They show much promise, and can be used in many parts of the country effectively. Yet I’ve yet to see many experts optimistic enough to endorse wind or solar as the sole solution to our energy crisis. They certainly can help, and will in spots, but they’ll fall far short of the capacity needed by the country’s 300 million people and their dizzying array of electric devices.

“Compared to conventional coal, it looks good”

Nuclear energy production can be deployed to help “fill in the gaps” where wind and solar just aren’t enough. President Obama’s pick for Department of Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu has spoken publicly about the idea of building when he was at Berkeley in 2005.

When asked point black whether new fission-based nuclear power plants should be built in the United States, Chu greeted the idea enthusiastically.

“Absolutely. Right now about 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear; there have been no new nuclear plants built since the early ’70s. The real rational fears against nuclear power are about the long-term waste problem and [nuclear] proliferation. The technology of separating [used fuel from still-viable fuel] and putting the good stuff back in to the reactor can also be used to make bomb material.”

When asked to compare coal to nuclear, he was equally clear.

“Right now, compared to conventional coal, it looks good – what are the lesser of two evils? But if we can reduce the volume and the lifetime of the waste, that would tip it very much against conventional coal.”

Right now, wind and solar are growing fast but combined represent less than 1.25% of the nation’s energy production. Nuclear energy currently makes up just under 20% of the country’s energy requirements, despite the dearth of new nuclear power plant construction since the 1970s.

President Obama isn’t negative about nuclear energy

President Barack Obama hasn’t said much on the subject of nuclear energy. Many of his comments are along the lines of this one.

“Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity,” Obama said. “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.”

He’s made similar statements on other occasions. Without putting too fine of a point on it, Obama supports nuclear energy as long as it’s safe. He’s concerned with storage and waste, just like Dr. Chu and every sane individual, but he’s open to the idea of using nuclear energy.

As President Obama is still new to office, it’s completely understandable that the energy policy debate isn’t settled. It’s just beginning. But from what can be garnered from certain public statements, he’d at least be willing to enter into more talks about the subject.

If the issues of nuclear safety, and maybe even most importantly, storage of radioactive materials, can be worked out, nuclear power production could quickly replace coal production at a faster rate than wind and solar.

It will be interesting to see if Obama’s Energy Policy evolves to include nuclear and hydro. Right now, it just doesn’t look like wind and solar have the muscle to get the job of real change done.