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.

The year 2009 is in full swing, and never before has there been so much discussion as there currently is about how to power our nation’s enormous energy needs. Any essential energy for our country must surely possess the following qualities. It must be scalable affordable, and safe. Not only that, but our new clean energy source must also be clean, that’s to say producing such energy shouldn’t cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and shouldn’t contribute negatively to climate change.

Which of the current proposed clean technologies possesses enough of these qualities to be considered a premier alternative to our current coal-producing power plants? Nuclear has to be considered a top contender. Certainly it’s not a renewable or sustainable energy source like solar or wind, but despite its drawbacks, nuclear energy represents a nearly perfect way for our highly developed nation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly and permanently at an affordable cost.

In order for the United States to invest more heavily in nuclear energy, a movement has to begin to gather steam. So far President Barack Obama seems more bullish on wind and solar than he does on nuclear, but all indications are that he’s probably an “energy realist” who would be willing to listen to strong arguments for increase investment in nuclear power generation, especially because it represents a strong domestic industry. Nuclear power generation would result in high skilled labor jobs opening up in the domestic market, which is always goods news to any politician.

There hasn’t been much discussion about nuclear energy from the Obama adminstration yet

President Obama shouldn’t ignore nuclear energy as part of America’s future, like he currently seems to be doing. When President Obama appointed Steven Chu the head of the Department of Energy (DOE), he called on him to reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil, create jobs, and spur innovation.

How can President Obama ignore nuclear energy if he wants to create a new, greener America that isn’t thirsty for foreign oil? He can’t for long.

Many proponents of nuclear energy say that Obama should accelerate the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program if he really wants to see advancement in the nuclear industry.

“The Next Generation Nuclear Plant is a public/private cost-sharing technology development program. The high-temperature gas cooled reactor (HTGR) technology being developed by NGNP is critical to the future of nuclear energy.”

Energy policy has seemingly taken a backseat to the consumer credit crisis and meltdown on Wall Street. That’s likely to change in the next few months and a real debate is likely to break out concerning what direction the energy needs to go in concerning energy production.

Certainly increased spending for wind and solar energy will be well rewarded, but so would an upgraded regulatory environment for the nuclear industry. Small nuclear plants could seemingly be a boom for certain towns that could greatly benefit from the energy production. If an emphasis is maintained on safety and education, the nuclear power industry would also easily create tons of jobs.

With the current economic climate, it seems reasonable that a discussion of energy policy including nuclear is likely to be sparked on a national level. Nuclear energy can help with the economic problems because building new nuclear power plants is a sure-fire method to create high paying jobs.

Nuclear energy supplies about 20% of the energy needs of the United States. The technology has been proven to be safe over many decades. Yet nothing seems to stir the fears of people quite like the idea of nuclear power. The idea of radioactive material contaminating citizens is not a thought most folks want to consider. The cries for increasing our nuclear energy capability have been increasing in frequency and pitch in recent years.

Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of nuclear energy.

Cons of nuclear energy

1. Building and maintaining nuclear power plants is an expensive proposition. No utility company since the 1970s have attempted to build one.
2. Nuclear safety. The big concern with nuclear plants is their safety. Nuclear accidents have the potential to be enormously dangerous. There have been nuclear accidents that have caused severe damage to the environment.
3. Nuclear waste. The waste products of nuclear energy don’t just go away. They have to be stored for thousands of years. They also have to be safely transported from one location to the next through populated areas. Any nuclear waste accident could be devastating. Plus, if the wrong people get their hands on nuclear waste, they could “weaponize” it.

Pros of nuclear energy

1. Nuclear energy is a technology that can be easily deployed.
2. Nuclear power doesn’t emit greenhouse gases. A switch to nuclear from coal could reduce the effect of global warming instantly
3. A large percentage of the country’s energy needs could be met with an ambitious construction program. Most other green tech ideas like solar and wind most likely can’t provide the same amount of electricity as coal-burning plants do.
4. The nuclear power industry creates high paying, high skilled domestic jobs that won’t be “offshored.”

The nuclear industry has atrophied in the United States and will need to be re-invigorated. Direct investment in nuclear plants has been low, and less people are learning the skills needed to work in the industry. That could change easily, especially with so many unemployed Americans currently looking for new careers.

Where nuclear energy seems to excel is that the technology can be employed relatively rapidly and can make a massive change to the carbon footprint of the United States. Wind and solar energy will be able to do their share to help make America a greener place, but they lack the capacity to supply 100% of our nation’s energy.

Since greenhouse gas emission has become such a problem throughout the world, many governments are creating “carbon taxes” that will hammer the profits of carbon polluters. When their profits begin to dry up on coal-producing plants, these businesses will begin to look for alternatives. Carbon taxes should promote a high growth period for hydro, wind, and solar energy producing plants. Even more likely to benefit would be nuclear power.

President Barack Obama has shown a willingness to consider a revamp of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), an organization he called “moribund.” As a candidate he described himself as “agnostic” on nuclear power and said that there’s no such thing as “perfect power.”

In early speeches as President, Obama has seemingly ignored nuclear in favor of the more politically appealing wind and solar solutions. However, with job creation being such an important stalwart of his campaign and early presidency, it’s doubtful he’ll be able to ignore nuclear power for long.

A revamped nuclear industry with an emphasis on safety could solve the problem of greenhouse gases as well as stimulate employment of high-paying and stable jobs. Both of these possibilities are critical to the development of the United States.

Today we look at the relatively controversial topic of developing nuclear power as alternative energy. The reason it’s a controversial topic is because most people don’t think of nuclear power as being “green.” Sure, nuclear power is “clean” to a degree, but it’s also the opposite of renewable. Plus, the potential danger of generating nuclear power is well documented and is powerful enough to scare anyone.

The advantages of nuclear power as alternative energy

Nuclear technology has been is use for years, and is currently the second largest source of electrical energy in the United States. Nuclear energy creates energy through the process of the fission of uranium, rather than through the burning of fossil fuels, which contribute to pollution and global warming. Right off the bat, you can see that nuclear power is beneficial because it eliminates the creation of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, dust and greenhouse gases.

The disadvantages of nuclear power as alternative energy

The two big drawbacks to using nuclear power are:

1. Nuclear safety – nuclear safety must be the top priority, because a “meltdown” of the core reactor can have devastating affects on the environment and is lethal for anyone exposed to the dangerous radiation
2. Nuclear waste – removal of nuclear waste is a major task. Removal and storage of the nuclear waste until it’s depleted of its active materials is a must

All in all, nuclear safety has proven to be safe. Very few people die from nuclear energy each year. Nuclear energy is even less likely to kill anyone than coal energy.

“Potential problems from accidents in transport of radioactive materials are largely neutralized by elaborate packaging. A great deal of such transport has taken place over the past 50 years and there have been numerous accidents, including fatal ones. However, from all of these accidents combined, there is less than a 1% chance that even a single death will ever result from radiation exposure. Probabilistic risk analyses indicate that we can expect less than one death per century in U.S. from this source.”

Compared to coal, nuclear energy leads in several categories. It’s much cleaner for the environment, and even less dangerous overall to humans.

Despite being reviled for years, nuclear energy has been making a comeback in recent years. The reason is obvious. The developed nations of the world now have long track records of operating safe nuclear power plants, and although there have been accidents, there’s no proof that nuclear power is any more dangerous than coal produced electric energy. The accident at Chernobyl has been the worst case of a nuclear meltdown and that incident caused the death of less than 50 people. Coal burning for electric generation has long been proven to be worse on the environment. Plus it involves depleting one of earth’s bounties through constant mining.

The problem of nuclear waste has long been solved, as well. If you bury nuclear waste for thousands of years, it becomes inactive. Of course the idea of burying nuclear waste in anyone’s backyard is not palatable to most voters, therefore a lack of such sites exists worldwide. Even the famed Yucca Mountain Repository has never opened for business, despite the Department of Energy slating the project to begin in 1998.

There’s always the matter of transporting the waste to the repository as an ancillary issue that receives much discussion. Experts predict that Yucca Mountain will open by 2013, but all bets are off depending on what the new administration and Senate decide.

Nuclear energy has been enjoying a bit of a comeback in recent years because it’s “greener” than other methods of electrical production. If people could be assured that the technology is completely safe, and if businesses can make a profit from the construction of nuclear plants, it’s likely that many developed countries might move more of their electrical production needs over to nuclear. Nuclear energy is far from perfect, but it has performed better than many alternate proposals.