By Christine Todd Whitman
BusinessWeek
September 17, 2007
I am addicted to electricity. So are you. And so is your business. We live in an "always on" world--air conditioners, streetlights, TVs, PCs, cell phones, and more. And with forecasts that we'll need 40% more electricity by 2030, determining how we can realistically feed our energy addiction without ruining our environment is the critical challenge of the new century.
Of course, we could buy energy-saving appliances or drive fuel-efficient cars. We can recycle cans, bottles, and newspapers. We can even plant carbon-absorbing trees. But, no matter how much we may wish they would, these acts by themselves won't satisfy our energy demands. To do that, we need a diverse energy mix that takes a practical, rather than emotional, approach.
Enter nuclear energy. Nuclear alone won't get us to where we need to be, but we won't get there without it. Despite its controversial reputation, nuclear is efficient and reliable. It's also clean, emitting no greenhouse gases or regulated air pollutants while generating electricity. And with nuclear power, we get the chance to preserve the Earth's climate while at the same time meeting our future energy needs.
The cost of failing to meet these needs will be steep. The global economy relies on world-class power grids to trade stocks, to communicate instantly, and to buy and sell around the clock. If anything points to the frustrating effect that a failed power grid can have on profits, it's the San Francisco power outage that took down Silicon Valley enterprises like Craigslist and Netflix in July. Although it only cost them two hours of online business, that minor power blip illustrates how a lack of electricity can render even a tech-savvy company impotent.
Nuclear power also provides a valuable tool for businesses: cost stability. Unlike other power suppliers, nuclear plants buy their uranium at set prices three years in advance. And uranium prices comprise just 26% of production costs at nuclear plants; by comparison, coal accounts for 78% of costs at coal-fired plants. So despite big increases in uranium prices over the past three years, industry production costs have remained low, at less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (a quarter of those at gas-fired plants).
Moreover, many of the management woes that gave the early nuclear business a black eye have finally been overcome. The Tennessee Valley Authority recently demonstrated the industry's ability to manage large capital projects by successfully refurbishing the Browns Ferry 1 reactor in Alabama and returning it to commercial operation. The five-year project was completed on time and very close to budget. Also, U.S.-designed reactors have been built in about four years in Asia, and new nuclear plants on the drawing board for installation here in America will be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a speedier process that should be far more efficient than the one in place when the 104 nuclear facilities operating today were licensed.
But this streamlined process will not compromise nuclear safety and security. The NRC holds nuclear reactors to the highest safety and security standards of any American industry. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that accident rates at nuclear plants are lower than in the manufacturing, real estate, or finance industries.) A two-day national security simulation in Washington, D.C., in 2002--conducted by the Center for Strategic & International Studies--concluded nuclear plants "are probably our best defended targets." And because of their advanced design and sophisticated containment structures, U.S. nuclear plants emit a negligible amount of radiation. Even if you lived next door to a nuclear power plant, you would still be exposed to less radiation each year than you would receive in just one round-trip flight from New York to Los Angeles.
Here's the reality: The U.S. needs more energy, and we need to get it without further harming our environment. Everything is a trade-off. Nothing is free, and nuclear plants are not cheap to build (although costs should drop as we build more of them). But we have a choice to make: We can either continue the 30-year debate about whether we should embrace nuclear energy, or we can accept its practical advantages. Love it or not, expanding nuclear energy makes both environmental and business sense.
By Dr. Patrick Moore
Kiplinger Business Resource Center
September 2007
As global climate change becomes one of the highest environmental and political priorities here at home and abroad, Americans want to know how to react.
Earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- an international group of scientists -- released "Mitigation of Climate Change", a report outlining what the world must do to fight global climate change. The report strongly emphasizes the need to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions and highlighted the use of nuclear power as an efficient source of energy.
Three leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions are our modes of transportation, our home-heating technologies and our means of generating electricity. Americans are, and will continue to be, considerable consumers of electricity. Our way of life is powered by electricity -- from lighting our houses, churches, hospitals and schools to charging our iPods, cell phones, computers and operating our transit systems. In fact, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that Americans will need nearly 40 percent more electricity by 2030.
So how do we meet that growing energy demand without causing further damage to the environment? Conservation is certainly crucial critical to any comprehensive energy plan. Great gains in conservation have already been achieved in electrical use, and more can be done. But even aggressive conservation efforts alone do not provide the solution to future base load energy needs.
And in order to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power, which emits no controlled pollutants, must be included in the mix.
Many people don't know that nuclear energy plays the single largest role in preventing greenhouse gases in the electricity sector. According to the most recent annual report to DOE from Power Partners -- a voluntary partnership between DOE and the electric power industry -- nuclear energy accounted for 54 percent of greenhouse gas reductions reported, the equivalent of taking 100 million automobiles off the road.
Also, nuclear energy has the smallest environmental impact of any clean-air electricity source. For example, a wind farm would need 235 square miles to produce the same amount of electricity generated by a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant. A nuclear plant requires less than one percent of the area used by such a wind farm.
So, it is not surprising that environmentalists like myself, Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue, and environmental groups, such as the Wildlife Habitat Council and the African-American Environmentalist Association, are supporting the continued and increased use of nuclear energy. So, too, is former EPA Administrator and New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman, who cochairs the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition with me.
It is already an essential part of our everyday lives. Nuclear energy alone produces electricity for one of every five U.S. homes and businesses. That means 60 million homes in America use electricity generated from nuclear energy. To continue to contribute to the U.S. power supply at that level, as well as meet our growing energy needs, more nuclear plants should be built. Since it takes eight to 10 years to get new plants licensed and built, we need to begin now.
And because of its many benefits and proven record of reliability, nuclear power is experiencing a renaissance. As the climate change conversation ramps up from the corridors of power on Capitol Hill to the kitchens of average Americans, many are recognizing that nuclear energy has the necessary clean-air advantages to play an important role in our future.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), once opposed to using nuclear energy, now believes that it should be on the table as an option for future power projects. And during the July CNN YouTube presidential debate, Democratic candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both agreed that the U.S. can not discount the benefits of nuclear energy, specifically with regard to addressing climate change, as well as meeting the country's growing energy demand.
Even Democratic think tanks are warming to nuclear energy. In its October 2006 report, A Progressive Energy Platform, the Progressive Policy Institute urges the nation to "expand nuclear power…It produces no greenhouse gas emissions, so it can help clean up the air and combat climate change."
Clearly, a more diverse mix of voices are taking a positive second look at nuclear energy -- environmentalists, scientists, the media, prominent Republicans and Democrats and progressive think tanks. They are all coming to a similar conclusion: If we are to meet the growing electricity needs in this country and also address global climate change, nuclear energy has a crucial role to play.
Patrick Moore
Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
Patrick Moore, a cofounder and former leader of the environmental group Greenpeace, is the cochair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy Coalition). The CASEnergy Coalition is a nonprofit advocacy group that believes that the increased use of nuclear power is a responsible way to reduce reliance on coal and other carbon fuels that contribute to global warming.
The Boston Globe
August 2, 2007
When "The Simpsons" first aired in 1989, Matt Groening created the perfect hometown for his satirical family - Springfield. It was Anywhere, America, with a convenience store, a pub, a prison, and a nuclear plant that would become a setting for regular and profound social commentary on American industrialism.
Nuclear energy production is depicted by the infamous, gushing green ooze. Some speculate that the show's writers often hint that this uncontained, carelessly handled by-product of the nuclear facility is to blame for Springfield's idiosyncrasies, including Marge's blue hair and the fact that Springfield's inhabitants never age.
However, the evolution of the nuclear industry in the public eye is a marked departure from the Simpsons' debut. Just as it had its place in the premise of "The Simpson's" television show, nuclear must have its place in the national dialogue about the animated family's movie premiere.
Thankfully, the nuclear industry isn't frozen in time like it is in Springfield and the show provides a great benchmark to measure how much improvement in plant performance and in public perception of nuclear has occurred over nearly two decades.
There are now 104 nuclear electric power reactors safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity. Finally, nuclear is being widely recognized as a safe, economical source of energy. And because it produces none of the greenhouse gases believed to be a major factor in climate change, environmental groups are taking a more favorable stance on nuclear energy as well.
Unlike the '90s when energy consumption was an unquestioned way of life, energy conservation is now the hot topic in the United States. A recent Gallup poll reports that Americans rank energy issues as the the Number 4 priority for Washington, coming in behind only Iraq, terrorism and national security, and the economy. As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet the growing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030.
Today, more and more Americans understand that real nuclear by- products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather used nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site. And, as nuclear technology advances, over 90 percent of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again. A survey conducted by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition last year found that the more people learn about nuclear, the more supportive they are of it. After a quick lesson about energy issues and nuclear's capabilities, 73 percent of respondents said that they felt favorably or somewhat favorably about the use of nuclear. Similarly, Bisconti Research found that 86 percent of Americans see nuclear energy as an important part of meeting future electricity needs and 77 percent agree that utilities should prepare now to build new nuclear plants in the next decade.
Even some policy makers who have been lukewarm to nuclear seem to be coming around to its merits. People like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Barack Obama are beginning to understand that nuclear energy needs to be part of the energy mix if we are going to meet our future energy demands safely and cleanly.
"The Simpsons" is almost 20 years old. Although time may stand still in Springfield, it certainly hasn't for the nuclear industry which is experiencing a reported "renaissance" in this country. Nuclear perceptions are finally catching up with nuclear reality as Americans accept nuclear power as a reliable, efficient, and safe source of energy that is also kind to the environment. It's clear that nuclear does, in fact, belong in Anywhere, America.
Gilbert J. Brown - Gilbert J. Brown, a professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at UMass-Lowell, is a member of the CASEnergy Coalition.
Affordable, reliable, clean
By Christine Todd Whitman
Charlotte Observer
June 19, 2007
Link Unavailable
Nuclear energy is a vital component of North Carolina's energy portfolio, supplying 30 percent of the state's electricity needs affordably, reliably and without producing any greenhouse gases. Nuclear energy is one of the most abundant and environmentally friendly electricity sources in America, and has served society well for decades. Unfortunately, however, many people lack a real understanding of this reliable source of base power.
By 2030, the Southeast power grid will require 22 quadrillion BTUs of electricity per year, a 26 percent increase from 2006. North Carolina's nuclear power plants, as part of a broad mix of energy sources, can help meet the increased electricity needs of the Southeast region in an environmentally responsible way.
Lowest production cost
In North Carolina and the United States as a whole, nuclear energy is the second largest source of power. It supplies electricity to 60 million American homes each year, but it has the potential to provide much more. The average nuclear plant powers 750,000 to 1 million homes, and the economic activity supports North Carolina's state and local tax revenues, generating $40 million on average. Approximately 500 employees from the local community and an additional 500 jobs in the local area are generated from each nuclear plant. Nuclear plants have the lowest production cost of all major sources of electricity and are the most efficient. Nuclear power plants are able to produce electricity with low cost because they use an enriched form of uranium for fuel, which has no other commercial application. There is enough uranium to meet the needs of existing and projected nuclear power reactors. One uranium fuel pellet -- the size of the tip of your little finger -- is the equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal or 149 gallons of oil.
Highest security standards
People often are worried about the security of nuclear plants and nuclear fuel. However, nuclear power plants are held to the highest security standards of any American industry, and spent nuclear fuel rods are stored safely in either concrete and steel vaults filled with water or steel or steel-reinforced concrete containers with steel inner canisters.
Indeed, actor Paul Newman upon visiting a nuclear power plant in New York last month said: "What I saw exceeded my expectations. No Army or Navy base I've ever visited has been more armored, and I couldn't walk 30 feet inside the plant without swiping my key card to go through another security checkpoint."
Another major benefit of nuclear energy is its clean air benefits. Nuclear energy is the most abundant source of electricity that does not produce any carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- or air pollutants that lead to acid rain or ozone smog. North Carolina's four power reactors have avoided emitting 65,200 tons of nitrogen oxide, which is the same amount released in a year by 3.4 million passenger cars -- nearly all of the cars registered in North Carolina.
Approach with open mind
In combination with wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, nuclear can make up an energy portfolio that helps preserve our environment and meets the future electricity needs of North Carolinians and all Americans.
More than ever, the public is approaching nuclear power with an open mind and is considering its economical and environmental benefits. I encourage you to ask the important questions. You will be reassured by the answers.
By Christine Todd Whitman
Tampa Tribune
May 30, 2007
Summer - a time for vacations, the beach, fun in the sun - and high electricity bills.
When the mercury rises, so does demand on the electricity grid. The problem is one of short supply and growing demand. We are more dependent on electricity today than ever before. Our power needs grow each passing year, driven by an increasingly automated and electronics intensive society, hotter than normal summers, and a national population that has swelled to more than 300 million. And by the way - we want that energy to be clean. And therein lies our current dilemma - how do we fuel our lives without compromising our environment? The answer - nuclear energy. It is the one source of power that can meet our rising electricity use without further contributing to greenhouse-gas levels. In recent national opinion polls, America's concerns about energy issues rank just behind Iraq, terrorism and the economy. That concern is for good reason. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that by 2030 our demand for electricity will increase by 40 percent. Many advocate conservation as the antidote to cure our power woes. Certainly conservation is needed and must continue to be a critical component of our energy policy. For example, the Energy Star program run jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy has led to efficient appliances in our homes and has encouraged millions of Americans to install long-lasting compact fluorescent lightbulbs. This is good progress. Yet conservation and efficiency alone can't keep pace with the increases in our electricity demand. Renewables also have a much greater role to play, but at only 7 percent of our current energy mix even a doubling or tripling of these sources would not come close to meeting our needs.
The reality is we need to bolster our overall energy mix. The best energy policy is a diversified one that doesn't depend on one source as a crutch. Today, our electricity comes from coal, gas, hydro, renewables, solar, biomass, oil and nuclear. About 70 percent of that is carbon dioxide emitting coal and natural gas. The good news is that there are alternative energies that can meet our future needs without further contributing to harmful greenhouse gas levels in the environment.
If we are going to seriously address our energy needs as well as our concerns about global climate change, one source stands out - nuclear. It's clean, and it can help to meet our base load power needs - the continuous industrial and residential energy demand. Business leaders, labor organizations, health organizations, politicians on both sides of the aisle and some environmentalists support nuclear power as a necessary component of our future energy policy. When you look at the benefits, it is easy to see why.
We want clean air. Nuclear power plants are the only form of base load power that does not emit greenhouse gases in the production of electricity. In 2004, the use of nuclear power to generate electricity in our country avoided emissions of nearly as much carbon dioxide as was released from all U.S. passenger cars combined. In California, nuclear energy provides nearly 13 percent of the state's non-fossil fuel based energy. With the clean air benefits from nuclear power at the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear plants, California has avoided the emission of 18,300 tons of sulfur dioxide, 11,000 tons of nitrogen oxide and 18.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide - equivalent to taking 576,000 number of passenger cars off the road.
We want to produce electricity dependably and efficiently. Nuclear energy is one of the safest, low cost and most efficient energy sources. Relative to other sources for electricity, nuclear power has the lowest production cost per kilowatt hour. The average fuel cost for nuclear plants last year was 0.45 cents/kwh, compared to 1.36 cents/kwh for coal and 3.44 cents/kwh for natural gas. Nuclear plants in the United States are built with exacting standards that include redundant safety systems to protect public health, as well as ensure plants are able to continue operating in the most severe weather circumstances.
So the next time you flick the light switch, charge your cell phone or adjust the thermostat, stop and think about how the electricity you are using is produced. We're going to need more of it. By building more nuclear power plants, we can generate it in a clean, safe and efficient way - keeping everyone cool for many more summers to come.
Christine Todd Whitman is the former governor of New Jersey and EPA administrator. She is the CASEnergy Coalition co-chair. The CASEnergy Coalition is an advocacy group that believes greater use of nuclear energy is critical to a U.S. energy policy.
The Other Green Energy
By Christine Todd Whitman
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
September 6, 2006
Link Unavailable
America faces a looming energy crisis. Advancements in technology, a growing population and a thriving economy are creating the demand for ever-increasing levels of energy. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy projects the nation will need to produce 45 percent more electricity by 2030 -- the equivalent of 300 large electric power plants. As we struggle to meet this need, environmental concerns and geopolitical realities argue strongly against increasing our already heavy reliance on fossil fuels to generate electricity.
Where do we turn for solutions? Conservation must be one component of a long-term strategy, but it alone will not bridge the energy gap. We need to develop new supplies of energy that are dependable, readily available and as environmentally sound as possible. As a mother and a new grandmother, I am especially concerned about this last aspect of our long-term energy solution. I am encouraged by the growing use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power. America must invest heavily in developing these vital resources.
Unfortunately, they have their limitations. Wind and solar power, by their intermittent nature, can meet only limited demand. Geothermal power is not well-suited for all applications and can be capital-intensive. To complement these sources and help deliver the electricity we will need while maintaining our environmental quality, we should consider an increased role for nuclear power as part of a diverse energy solution.
Not only is nuclear power the cheapest to produce among all major electricity sources, it is also a safe and secure resource thanks to a combination of strict government regulation, improved security features and rigorous and continuous training within the industry. Just as important, nuclear energy has one of the smallest environmental "footprints" in its impact on air, land, water and wildlife.
Nuclear power plants do not produce air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide, which cause ground-level ozone, smog and acid rain. This is particularly meaningful in the summer, when air quality alerts in cities like Pittsburgh have become too commonplace. (Southwestern Pennsylvania has had eight ozone-alert days since May.)
Nuclear energy is by far the nation's largest electricity source that does not emit greenhouse gases. In 2004, the use of nuclear power to generate electricity avoided the emission of nearly as much carbon dioxide as was released from all U.S. passenger cars. To put it another way, if the United States did not produce 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy, 134 million of the 136 million cars would have to be taken off the road to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from increasing.
To be clear, nuclear power presents its own issues that must be addressed. To provide an optimal future for this abundant electricity source, the nuclear industry and the U.S. government must work together to establish a central repository for the permanent storage of used nuclear fuel.
The small amount of used fuel that is created, however, is now being safely and carefully stored on-site at each plant in specially designed containers or in steel-lined concrete vaults filled with water. And because nuclear energy has such a small impact on its surroundings, many energy companies have created natural areas, such as wildlife sanctuaries, around their plants, working with the Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited and the Wildlife Habitat Council.
Americans depend on electricity more than any time in our history -- from powering our homes and offices to running our computers and other communication devices to operating our transit systems. This demand will only continue to grow.
We can and should do all we can to conserve energy, develop alternate sources and make our fossil fuel-powered plants run cleaner and more efficiently. But it would be foolhardy, both economically and environmentally, not to increase our country's nuclear energy capacity as an affordable, reliable, readily available and clean component of our energy mix in the years ahead.
Christine Todd Whitman is co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition ( www.cleansafeenergy.org). She is a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator and former governor of New Jersey.
By Christine Todd Whitman and Patrick Moore
The Boston Globe
May 15, 2006
FROM THE minute the alarm clock goes off in the morning to the moment we adjust the thermostat before bed, our lives are fueled by electricity.
We are amazed at the seemingly endless parade of new, life- improving, and life-saving technologies, but too little attention is paid to the looming shortage of energy needed to power them. America takes for granted that the lights will come on or the air conditioning will comfort us at the flip of a switch.
It's wonderful that we feel so confident in the reliability of our electricity supply. But there are concerns on the horizon.
The US Department of Energy projects that the nation will need 45 percent more electricity by 2030. Where is this going to come from? Energy conservation, greater efficiencies in the production of natural gas, oil, coal, and hydro power, and a genuine commitment to renewables such as wind, solar, and geothermal power will be needed. Across America today companies are reducing their demands for power without slowing their growth, but those efforts won't be enough in and of themselves. We will continue to need a mix of power sources, and nuclear energy must play an increased role in supplying our nation's growing demand for electricity.
Nuclear energy offers numerous benefits and advantages over other sources.
It's cleaner. Nuclear energy has the lowest impact on the environment air, land, water, and wildlife of any major energy source. It produces no harmful greenhouse gases or controlled air pollutants, its waste byproducts are isolated from the environment, and it requires less land to produce the same amount of electricity than any other electricity sources.
It's safe. Strict government regulations and continuous training by the industry ensure that the safety of operations and the security of facilities exceed the highest standards of any American industry.
It's cheaper. Nuclear plants are the most efficient on the electricity grid, and nuclear power has the lowest production cost of all major sources of electricity other than hydropower.
Public support for nuclear energy has never been stronger. A recent nationwide poll by Bisconti Research found that 86 percent of Americans see nuclear energy as an important part of meeting future electricity needs and 77 percent agree that utilities should prepare now to build new nuclear plants in the next decade.
The business and manufacturing community is supportive, recognizing the value of a cost-effective, reliable, and predictable energy source, and the numerous indirect benefits nuclear energy offers, such as economic growth, job creation, and technology innovation. And nuclear energy has garnered solid backing from policymakers, evidenced by the desire to host new nuclear plants among state and county officials and bipartisan congressional support for new nuclear plants in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Americans don't pay much attention to energy issues beyond the cost. It still comes as a surprise to many Americans that nuclear energy already powers one of every five US homes and businesses, and that some states, including New Jersey, Illinois, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, rely on nuclear energy for more than half of their electricity.
The world's finite supply of natural resources requires that we focus on a diverse energy portfolio that includes clean, affordable, and sustainable solutions. Nuclear energy, right here and right now, is one of those solutions. We have joined together to lead the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition to ensure the United States embraces nuclear energy as part of a diverse energy plan for our future. The CASEnergy Coalition will help raise awareness of the benefits of clean and safe nuclear energy and continue to build policymaker and public support for nuclear energy as a component of a comprehensive plan to meet America's future electricity needs.
We must plan today to meet our energy needs of tomorrow in a manner that protects the environment. Building new nuclear plants and expanding existing facilities takes time. Working together, we must broaden and advance the national dialogue to include the issues of rising electricity demand, energy conservation, and efficiency. We must educate the public about the merits of nuclear energy, including both the benefits of nuclear plants and the challenges that remain, including a federal facility for managing spent nuclear fuel rods. We will have this dialogue with community leaders, academics, environmentalists, businesses, and policymakers at every level to set the stage for the next generation of nuclear energy.
We must act now to secure our energy future. 2030 is closer than we think.
Christine Todd Whitman and Patrick Moore Christine Todd Whitman is a former Environmental Protection Agency administrator and the former governor of New Jersey. Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is now chairman and chief scientist at Greenspirit Strategies. They are co-chairs of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition.