Patriot-News Editorial Board

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

It is clear, for so many reasons, we as a nation must find ways to become less dependent on foreign oil and at the same time increase our green energy supply.

We talk and hear a lot about solar and wind power — in fact there are many government-backed programs providing grants and tax incentives for homeowners and companies willing to use these forms of energy production. But another part of our energy equation that is just as important but discussed far less is nuclear power.

The only way the United States will ever become less dependent on other countries for our energy is to increase our commitment to nuclear energy.

Presently, 104 nuclear facilities are operating nationwide, producing 20 percent of our nation’s electricity. But, as the Nuclear Energy Institute, a pro-nuclear energy group in Washington, D.C., points out, it provides 70 percent of all our carbon-free electricity.

One reactor can replace 19 natural gas plants that burn as much as 86 billion cubic feet of natural gas a year and release 5.5 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to the NEI.

But to meet future green fuel goals, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says we need at least 180 new nuclear power plants built by 2050. This is a staggering number considering how few plants have been built in the last two decades.

That also doesn’t mean we will simply add to the 104 plants we already have operating. By 2050, nearly all the nuclear power plants running today, including Three Mile Island and eight others in Pennsylvania, should be retired after being online for 60 years. Unlike wind or solar energy generation, nuclear power plants operate 24-7, which means eventually they must be replaced.

The need for energy usage is expected to climb by 1 percent every year, meaning we will be even more under the gun to develop new ways to boost our electricity generation.

Building these new nuclear power plants will be an incredible financial commitment for our country and energy companies. But there is a separate issue that also must be addressed if we are to create an increased reliance on nuclear energy in the United States. Our government has yet to deal with the important issue of disposing of the nuclear waste. Incredibly the federal government has not disposed of any civilian nuclear waste and has no plan for doing so. Estimates show the government is more than 10 years behind schedule in its contractual obligations for waste disposal.

Nuclear utility operations pay $750 million annually to the government to cover the costs of disposing of the nuclear waste they generate. This means that during the last 25 years, nuclear utilities have contributed $16.3 billion for waste services they have yet to receive. The facilities are containing the waste themselves right now. Finding a national repository for nuclear waste must be a priority.

When he talks about green energy, President Obama must throw ample support behind nuclear power. This means doing more than giving lip service to its importance in the future. It is a key component to the United States becoming more energy independent and more environmentally sound.

Another reason to support the idea is because it can be a job creator. Many positions at plants are good-paying jobs that aren’t going to be exported.

But before we take on a huge expansion project, the federal government must find a way to transport and store all the waste being generated at nuclear plants nationwide.

Many of the nations with which we compete are way ahead of us in their growing reliance of nuclear energy and subsequently their energy independence. We can’t afford to fall behind.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2010/08/nuclear_energy_its_our_future.html

By Christine Todd Whitman

Co-Chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition; Fmr. New Jersey Governor; Fmr. EPA Administrator

Posted: August 2, 2010 10:48 AM

It has been suggested recently that, in light of the tragic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, America needs to plan for a massive catastrophe at one of the country’s 104 working nuclear reactors.

The concern for safety is critical, but the good news is that preventive safety work is already being done every day at our nation’s reactors. In fact, the United States nuclear energy industry has accumulated an outstanding safety record since the days of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Worker safety in nuclear plants stands above any other American industrial sector, as measured by lost-time accidents. The nuclear power industry has devoted significant resources to continuously improving the safety and reliability of our nuclear power facilities against all manner of potential risks and threats with the result that, for more than 30 years, nuclear plants have delivered about 20 percent of America’s electrical power safely and securely, without major incident.

Every nuclear power plant is designed, constructed and managed to prevent radioactive releases, even in the event of natural disasters, operational accidents or terrorist attacks. Since September 2001, the nuclear industry has spent in excess of $2 billion on enhancements to prevent physical or cyber breaches. In fact, analyses conducted by the independent Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) concluded that the structures that surround U.S. nuclear power plants would protect against a release of radiation if struck by a Boeing 767 jetliner. Steel-reinforced concrete containment structures protect reactors and redundant safety and reactor shutdown systems have been designed to withstand the impact of earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods.

Apart from its own self-initiated safety efforts through the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, the industry operates under the watchful eye of a strong regulatory authority, and with significant input from state and local officials. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission holds nuclear reactor operators to the highest safety and security standards of any American industry. Fuel, once used, will continue to be safely stored at reactor sites — as has been the case for decades — until a long-term repository is identified. Furthermore, federal law requires that energy companies develop and exercise sophisticated emergency response plans to protect public health and safety. A comparison of safety protocols governing the nuclear energy industry and other industries provides a stark comparison: Nuclear energy meets a higher standard for safety than any other American industry.

Of course, that does not mean the work is complete. Virtually every form of energy production — coal mining and oil drilling come to mind — involves significant safety risks. But not producing domestic energy represents another risk, in the form of greater dependence on foreign oil and other energy sources.

With our electricity demand poised to rise 23 percent by 2030, we are going to need to expand our portfolio of energy sources, not limit them. What the Deepwater Horizon oil spill has provided us is an opportunity to weigh the risks of each energy source as we seek to meet that growing demand.

Americans understand this, which is why nuclear energy has garnered such a broad-based consensus of support. The latest Gallup poll found that 62 percent of Americans — an all-time high — favor the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity. President Barack Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu have made expanding nuclear energy a linchpin of their strategy to build a clean energy economy and to create jobs. The editorial pages of both The Washington Post and The New York Times have supported the industry’s expansion, most recently in February when both papers lauded the Obama administration’s decision to restart the nuclear power industry with its first industry loan guarantee to build two new reactors in Georgia.

This broad-based coalition of supporters has been drawn to nuclear energy because no other full-time electricity source offers the same kind of impact in addressing America’s environmental and economic challenges. Nuclear plants produce virtually no carbon dioxide or other harmful emissions; U.S. reactors generated more than 70 percent of the country’s emissions-free electricity last year. If the nation’s goal is to curb its emissions in the future, then nuclear energy, the only clean base-load power, is uniquely positioned to contribute.

At a time when the country’s jobless rate is hovering around a 27-year high, nuclear plant construction projections can put thousands of people back to work. In Waynesboro, Georgia, 700 workers have already been tasked with preparing the site for the two new reactors. This, the state’s largest construction project, will ultimately employ up to 3,500 people. Over the past three years, in a period of economic constriction, the nuclear industry has created more than 15,000 new jobs nationally in anticipation of the industry’s expansion.

While we must always be looking for new ways to improve safety, it is important to remember that: nuclear energy has a proven safety record, it is subjected to stringent regulatory oversight, and it is domestically produced and managed. As we look toward meeting our increasing energy needs, investment in nuclear energy, along with conservation and other clean energy sources, should be a priority.

Christie Whitman currently co-chairs the nuclear industry funded Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy), a national grassroots coalition that promotes the economic and environmental benefits of nuclear energy as part of a clean energy portfolio.

To see the op-ed on The Huffington Post website, click here.

By PATRICK MOORE

July 23, 2010

 As the U.S. gears up to develop sustainable methods to meet rising energy demand cleanly, few states are as well-positioned as Washington. Hydropower is a big contributor to the state’s carbon-free electricity supply, thanks to the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Washington ranks fifth out of all states for wind-power production. And the state has vast potential for geothermal energy.

Not as well known is the role that nuclear energy plays in protecting Washington’s atmosphere. Last year, nuclear energy generated in the state prevented 5.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, the equivalent of removing nearly 400,000 passenger cars. And nuclear reactors produce more than 70 percent of the country’s emissions-free electricity every year.

I am back in the Pacific Northwest this week as co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy), meeting with community, business and policy leaders in Seattle and Tacoma to make sure they are fully informed about the important role nuclear plays as part of the nation’s clean energy mix.

CASEnergy is a national grass-roots coalition comprising people from all across the country in business, labor, industry, academia, politics and the environmental community, united in their support of nuclear power as part of the country’s green energy portfolio.

The latest Gallup poll shows 62 percent of Americans – an all-time high – favor the use of nuclear energy. Earlier this month, Washington state Sens. Jerome Devlin and Larry Haler joined the newly formed bipartisan National Nuclear Caucus to demonstrate their support for the expansion of nuclear energy in Washington and around the country.

U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, has also endorsed the caucus and believes it will enable Congress to be better positioned to support new nuclear plants.

The industry’s support extends to the White House, as President Barack Obama has made nuclear energy a key component of his strategy to build a clean energy economy and put Americans back to work.

Earlier this year, he extended the first loan guarantee to the industry to help attract private financing for two new reactors in Georgia in what will be the state’s largest construction project, employing up to 3,500 workers. Over the last three years, in a period of dramatic economic constriction, the nuclear industry has created more than 15,000 jobs nationally.

Federal support has been critical to winning over investors who still remember the cost overruns in the 1980s. Fortunately, many of the conditions that led to past cost increases and construction delays no longer exist.

Nuclear reactor designs have become more standardized, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has developed a new approach that enables it to approve designs and sites up-front under a single license. The process has been restructured to ensure that design, safety, siting and public concerns are settled before a company starts building a new plant.

Nuclear plants may be more expensive to build than coal or gas, but they more than make up for their construction costs by providing consumers with one of the lowest-cost options for emissions-free electricity. At 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, nuclear-sourced energy is about 30 percent cheaper to produce than carbon-heavy coal, and about 60 percent cheaper than natural gas.

Washington is also primed to address the issue of spent fuel storage. Members of the president’s Blue Ribbon Commission were in Washington last week meeting with Gov. Chris Gregoire. One promising area they are exploring: recycling spent fuel in advanced reactors, as is done in France, Japan and Britain, which will greatly reduce the volume and radioactivity of the byproducts requiring disposal by reusing up to 95 percent of spent uranium.

Until a long-term solution is found, used fuel will continue to be safely and securely stored at each of the nation’s 104 reactor sites, as it has been for the past 30 years without incident.

Washington’s energy mix is a snapshot into the nation’s clean energy future – and with the state actively involved in supporting the nuclear industry’s growth, that picture is getting brighter every day.

Patrick Moore, Ph.D, is the co-chair of the nuclear industry-funded Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and co-founder of Greenpeace. Moore spoke Thursday to Tacoma Rotary #8 at the Landmark Temple Theatre.

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/07/23/1274042/nuclear-power-an-important-part.html#ixzz0uoQSUFQV

July 26, 2010
By Christine Todd Whitman and Thomas D. Peterson
Special to Roll Call

By implementing policies that jointly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve homegrown and advanced energy solutions, and save precious energy and capital, Congress could move us toward a cleaner and more secure energy future, while creating jobs and growing the economy.

A study released last week by the Center for Climate Strategies identified 23 major sector-based policies that, if implemented as part of national policy, could add as many as 2.5 million net new jobs and $134.3 billion to the economy by 2020 while holding down energy prices and reducing harmful greenhouse gases to meet national targets.

The specific actions recommended in this report were identified after examining 16 comprehensive state climate action plans that the center helped develop through consensus building and input from more than 1,500 technical experts and stakeholders across the U.S. over the past five years.

This bottom-up strategy ensured that all available options were considered, that they were carefully analyzed, and that the most effective and acceptable were implemented.

The 23 actions the center identified include new clean energy sources for heat and power; improved energy efficiency and industrial processes; transportation and land use improvements; agriculture and forestry conservation; and expanded recycling and waste energy recovery. They were chosen because they have the potential to reduce pollution, they are cost-effective and improve energy, health, environment and economic development. They would be implemented through federal, state and local action under a national framework that sets the stage for longer-term strategies.

The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition’s “Policy Roadmap for Clean Energy” takes a similar broad-based portfolio approach to supporting clean energy technologies — including wind, solar and nuclear energy — while placing a premium on each industry’s potential for job creation and broader economic development.

The road map makes broad policy recommendations to chart a viable course for a sustainable clean energy policy, including the following:

1. Enact policies to take control of America’s energy security.

Ninety-five percent of the country’s transportation infrastructure is powered by oil, and more than half of it is imported. Federal support for electric and hybrid vehicles is a good start to avert this dependency, but those vehicles will only be as clean as their electricity source. The current electric grid won’t be able to handle large volumes of renewable energy technologies unless it’s modernized.

2. Ensure access to financing for clean energy projects.

Access to capital is the biggest hurdle for clean energy developers. Credit is still tight and private investors are leery of financing large infrastructure projects without guaranteed rates of return. Federal incentives, such as clean energy loan guarantees, help ease access to capital markets and ultimately reduce the cost of electricity to consumers.

3. Increase investment in clean energy jobs.

Training a new generation of workers is vital because much of the clean energy industry’s work force will be eligible to retire during the next decade. Tens of thousands of clean energy jobs could be created if all the clean energy projects are supported. Nearly 1,000 workers are engaged in pre-construction activities for new nuclear reactors in Georgia and South Carolina alone. Federal job-training grants are critical to ensure that eligible companies in the clean energy supply chain will be able to fill high-paying jobs with American workers.

If state and local leaders and thousands of their stakeholders across the nation can find a pathway to a comprehensive energy and climate policy at the subnational level, surely Congress can do the same for our nation.

Both the Center for Climate Strategies report and Clean and Safe Energy Coalition policy recommendations conclude that a broad-based energy portfolio, with a focus on low-carbon sources, is essential to America’s energy, environmental and economic transition. Without policy direction now, we will cede U.S. leadership in developing these clean energy sources to other nations and miss an opportunity to begin implementing game-changing energy technology.

Christine Todd Whitman is the former Republican governor of New Jersey and former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. She is a co-chair of the industry-funded Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. Thomas D. Peterson is the president and CEO of the Center for Climate Strategies and a teaching fellow in governmental studies at Johns Hopkins University.

To read the full story on Roll Call’s website, click here.

SENATE MAJORITY Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) intends to bring an energy bill to the Senate floor the week of July 26. It will feature four key elements — a response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, promotion of energy efficiency, a boost for clean-energy production and a cap on carbon emissions from power plants. This is not ideal, but it would be a useful start.

The carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels adds to the greenhouse effect that threatens to bring destructive changes to the planet. Decreasing those emissions demands innovation — the development of greener and cheaper sources of energy such as wind, solar and nuclear power — and the use of economic incentives to wean industries off cheap coal and oil. To provide such an incentive, we have has long favored putting a price on carbon, either (most simply) with a gradually rising tax or with a cap-and-trade system. By gradually increasing the cost to companies of the carbon dioxide they produce, the United States can generate revenue and marshal market forces to encourage businesses to invest in greener technology. To this end, even a limited cap — like the one on utilities emissions proposed in the Senate bill — is better than none. Once a structure is in place, a cap can be expanded to encompass more industries and adjusted to drive innovation in the right direction.

Moreover, power generation is the right industry to target: Power plants account for 40 percent of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, and many utilities already have gotten on board with the concept of a cap. Rather than simply opposing the cap out of hand, as many have in the past, Republicans should help make sure that it works sensibly. Much will hinge on how the carbon allowances are allocated. The best model would auction the allowances and use the funds generated to provide rebates to consumers and encourage research and development of improved green technologies. Such a model would make the measure more palatable to taxpayers and drive more responsible energy use. Some utilities already are lobbying Congress, in exchange for accepting the carbon cap, to delay or loosen Clean Air Act restrictions on other forms of pollution, including smog and mercury poisoning. That’s a bad deal. Fixing the long-term problem of carbon emissions should not come at the cost of worsening short-term environmental problems.

The Reid proposal is less ambitious than the stillborn bipartisan attempt of Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), and far less ambitious than the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House. But in the current economic and political climate, it offers a reasonable compromise that could lay the groundwork for a sensible carbon policy.

To see the story at www.thewashingtonpost.com, click here.

Christine Todd Whitman and Juan C. Zapata, SPECIAL CONTRIBUTORS

Updated: 5:49 p.m. Friday, July 9, 2010

Published: 5:34 p.m. Friday, July 9, 2010

This week, the nation’s leading Latino and other community leaders are meeting in San Antonio for the National Council of La Raza’s annual conference. The conference will provide special focus needed on economic challenges, especially those affecting Latino communities. The national unemployment rate among Latinos is 12.4 percent, higher than the national average of just under 10 percent.

One of the opportunities we have to kick-start job creation is by focusing on how we produce, use and conserve energy. America’s electricity demand is poised to rise 23 percent by 2030 and the need in Texas will be double that at 48 percent. Meeting that demand responsibly is going to require an investment in a diverse range of clean energy sources.

Of the clean energy technology options available now, none is better-suited than nuclear energy at supplying large amounts of electricity that does not pollute the air, together with creating thousands of badly needed jobs. That’s particularly the case in Texas, where two proposed reactors at NRG Energy’s South Texas Project in Matagorda County will put some 6,000 people to work building those power plants.

Nuclear energy facilities act as economic hubs in local communities by luring new businesses and increasing a tax base that provides good schools, libraries and other critical infrastructure. NRG estimates the two new reactors at South Texas Project will generate more than $15 billion in follow-on business activity, along with $600 million in local and state tax revenues.

And because nuclear energy is emissions-free when producing power, each additional plant prevents carbon emissions from fossil fuel plants that would otherwise fill the air. Texas’s four reactors prevented 29 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere last year – the equivalent or removing nearly 1 million passenger vehicles from the road. That’s a significant environmental benefit given that four Texas cities fall below Environmental Protection Agency standards for air quality and Austin teeters on the brink of falling below those standards.

Nuclear energy’s economic and environmental benefits have helped the Clean and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition, a group to which Rep. Zapata belongs and which I co-chair along with Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, form a broad-based coalition of more than 2,400 members who support the industry’s expansion. That support is especially strong here in Texas, where CASEnergy members include local Latino leaders such as State Senator Leticia Van de Putte and Ramiro Cavazos, president and CEO of the San Antonio Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

Support is growing in Texas and across the country. A recent Gallup polled showed that 62 percent of Americans – an all-time high – favor the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity. This favorability is due, in part, to the industry’s excellent safety record in recent years. South Texas Project, for example, recently logged its 10 millionth labor hour without a significant worker injury or accident. This commitment to worker safety also extends to safe operation of the plant, which generated 22.4 million megawatt-hours of electricity in 2009—enough to power 2 million homes and more than any other dual-reactor power plant in the country.

President Obama has recognized the importance of nuclear power to the nation’s energy portfolio. In May, he asked Congress to approve $9 billion in additional loan guarantee authority so that proposed new reactors such as the two at South Texas Project could move forward quickly and put Americans back to work.

Consideration of nuclear energy in Congress has drawn bipartisan support in part because of the tremendous job creation potential of reinstating America as a leader in this industry. As President Obama said in April: “Make no mistake: whether it is nuclear energy, or solar or wind energy, if we fail to invest in these technologies today, we’ll be importing them tomorrow.” We should be taking a leadership role and creating jobs, not moving more American jobs offshore.

Of course, nuclear energy alone can’t meet all of our electricity needs. As Texas has discovered as the nation’s leader in wind power, America will have to develop a full suite of clean energy sources, including wind, solar and geothermal. Natural gas must continue to be a bridge fuel to this cleaner energy portfolio. We must conserve more energy as well.

CASEnergy members here in Texas and elsewhere are meeting with other stakeholders to find common ground on our energy future. Our coalition recently joined with leaders from the manufacturing, economic development and wind energy sectors to release a “Policy Roadmap for Clean Energy,” which makes the case for a diverse U.S. clean energy portfolio that places a premium on job creation.

One area on which we are keenly focused is investment in workforce training. New nuclear power plants have the potential to create as many as 70,000 jobs in the coming years, and we need to act now to ensure our workers are adequately trained to take those jobs.

Nothing lifts a community like good-paying, stable jobs and industries. Today, Texas has the opportunity to strengthen its communities, meet its growing electricity demand, and improve its air quality. Nuclear energy is poised to help deliver on these goals.

Whitman is a former administrator of the EPA and governor of New Jersey and co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy), a national grassroots coalition that promotes the economic and environmental benefits of nuclear energy as part of a green-energy economy. Zapata, a Florida state representative, serves as chairman of the NALEO Education Fund and Board of Hispanic Caucus Chairs (BHCC)and is a member of CASEnergy. To read more about the “Policy Roadmap for Clean Energy,” visit www.cleansafeenergy.org.

Lansing State Journal (Letter-to-the-Editor)

June 16, 2010

The LSJ’s June 2 editorial (“Michigan is pivoting away from coal“) neglected to mention one of the most efficient sources of clean energy: nuclear power.

As Michigan grapples with the challenges coal and oil pose, we should recognize that nuclear energy produces virtually zero carbon emissions and, as a 24/7 baseload power source, can help address climate change concerns by cleanly meeting rising electricity demand. Nuclear power also uses less land than any other energy source and costs less per kwh to produce the same amount of electricity.

More nuclear plants will create tens of thousands of new jobs. The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy), of which I am a member, recently joined with leaders from the manufacturing, economic development and wind energy sectors to unveil a “Policy Roadmap for Clean Energy,” which calls for investment in nuclear energy jobs and training across the U.S. Details are at www.cleansafeenergy.org.

When planning Michigan’s clean energy future, expanding nuclear energy is a necessary step toward economic expansion, reducing greenhouse gases and maintaining a reliable electricity grid.

Larry Stone

Lansing

To see Larry Stone’s letter-to-the-editor on LSJ.com, please click here.

The Post and Courier (Op-Ed)

Friday, June 18, 2010

Business and policy leaders in the U.S. and South Carolina have the chance to generate substantial, long-term economic benefits, protect the environment, and address long-term energy needs, all by supporting innovation and expansion of clean energy industries.

One such clean energy source is nuclear energy, which generates over 70 percent of all carbon-free electricity in America. The nation will need 23 percent more electricity by 2030 — and more nuclear energy will be needed in order to meet that rising demand without producing air pollution or greenhouse gases.

South Carolina is already a national leader in nuclear energy. The state is home to seven reactors that produce more than 50 percent of the state’s power. Two more reactors are being developed by Santee Cooper and SCANA at the Summer plant in Fairfield County and Duke Energy has filed license applications for two additional reactors in Cherokee County. Today more than 600 workers are already engaged in preconstruction work on-site. And when these reactors are built, the construction phase alone could employ approximately 3,000 people for three to four years, with 600 to 800 additional fulltime jobs for South Carolina workers after construction is completed.

These jobs aren’t limited to the plant — for every permanent job created at a nuclear plant, two to three jobs are created in the surrounding community. These are permanent jobs that can’t be shipped overseas — welcome news for a state with 11.6 percent unemployment.

However, in order to remain on a sustainable path, continued investment in new nuclear energy facilities — and the reliable electricity and jobs that these new plants produce — is needed. The good news is that nuclear energy technology is poised for dramatic growth. The nuclear energy industry stands ready to provide thousands of long-term, high-paying jobs at new plants, and due to retirement rates for the current industry work force, thousands of new jobs will become available at existing plants.

Thirty-five percent of the current nuclear industry work force may be eligible to retire within five years, and

almost half of the nuclear engineers in the Carolinas will be eligible for retirement within three years. Nationally, the industry will provide opportunities for approximately 19,600 workers to replace retirees and 6,300 to account for other attrition before 2012.

This expansion would also boost the state’s economic base, as each of the more than 100 nuclear reactors in operation around the country contributes an estimated $430 million a year in goods and services for the neighboring area, along with nearly $40 million in total labor income, according to the Clean and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition, a national grassroots coalition that I co-chair along with former EPA administrator Christie Whitman. The coalition supports new nuclear plants on both economic and environmental grounds.

Last month, the CASEnergy Coalition joined leaders from the manufacturing, economic development and wind energy sectors to unveil a ‘Policy Roadmap for Clean Energy,’ which advocates a diverse U.S. clean energy portfolio that places a premium on job creation.

The roadmap makes four broad policy recommendations:

1 – Enact policies to take control of America’s energy security

2 – Ensure access to financing for clean energy projects

3 – Increase investment in clean energy jobs

4 – Address storage needs for used nuclear fuel

There’s no reason that such economic development, energy security and clean air benefits should be limited when so many state economies stand to benefit from building new nuclear energy plants.

Energy companies are motivated and ready to hire, creating thousands of new jobs that will help the country meet its growing electricity needs while preserving the environment. With targeted policy support, we can help ensure that nuclear energy’s economic and environmental benefits are enjoyed in South Carolina and around the country.

Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace and co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy), a national grassroots coalition that promotes the benefits of nuclear energy as part of a green-energy economy.

A link to Dr. Patrick Moore’s opinion editorial on postandcourier.com can be found here.

“At a critical time in the energy policy debate, faced with the twin concerns of climate change and rising energy demand, the Obama administration and environmental organizations such as the Pew Center for Climate Change and the Environmental Defense Fund have reached a surprising consensus. Despite past reservations about nuclear energy, they now acknowledge that the nation’s most significant carbon-free electricity source has a role to play in an economically sound, low-carbon energy policy for America.”

The Co-Chairs also cite various independent polling that demonstrates a new majority support for nuclear – 59 percent of Americans nationally, as well as 61 percent among women.

To read the full op-ed, please click here.