An Energizing Debate

FORMER NJ GOVERNOR, EPA ADMINISTRATOR (AND HER CRITICS) CHAT WITH FITSNEWS ABOUT AMERICA’S ENERGY FUTURE

FITSNews – January 25, 2008 – In case you’re new to the scene here at FITSNews, we tend to joke around a good bit. Like the time we speculated that all the hot air coming from John Edwards’ mouth might serve as a good renewable energy source, or the time we lampooned algae fuel, which in its defense didn’t do anything to deserve being made fun of (editor’s note: sorry, algae fuel …).

Anyway, as much as we like to crack jokes about everything, some issues – such as America’s asinine, reactionary and thoroughly-discombobulated energy policy – are no laughing matter. Oh, and as much as we wish Sic Willie’s car really did run off the energy created by his unbridled sex appeal, the truth is it doesn’t. Although scientists are cautiously optimistic.

Seeking to get to the bottom of what’s really going on with our country’s energy situation, we chatted today with former EPA Administrator and New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (above), who in addition to knowing a heckuva lot about this issue also has excellent taste in scarves, people.

Whitman is currently the national co-chairman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, or CASEnergy for those of you in a hurry. The group is seeking an expanded role for nuclear power in America’s future energy generation situation (try saying that five times real fast), citing advances in efficiency and safety technology as well as the fact that nuclear is, according to Whitman, “the only source of base power that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases.”

“Our goal is to get people to start talking in a factual, non-emotional way about the role nuclear energy is playing in our current energy debate, and the role it will play in the future,” Whitman told FITSNews. “Our focus is right now is getting information out there and getting people signed up, because we can’t even begin to solve some of these problems unless we start paying attention to them.”

THE NUCLEAR OPTION – BACK TO THE FUTURE?

Currently, there are just over a hundred nuclear power reactors in America, which are collectively responsible for producing roughly 20% of our country’s electrical power.

That’s a pretty sizable chunk, one even the daftest of industry employees like Homer Simpson (one of the schmoes in Sector 7-G) can probably relate to.

Yet while the construction of these power plants was en vogue back in the seventies and eighties (largely as a result of the 1973 oil crisis), it’s been over a decade since the last new commercial nuclear reactor came online in the United States.

That down cycle is now beginning to pick back up, though, as several new reactors are scheduled to come online over the next few years in Texas and Tennessee, among other states. In fact, there are as many as thirty proposals currently on the table for new reactors – most of them in Southern states – with the vast majority of these planned facilities hoping to become operational within the next 10-15 years.

Once again, uncertainty over the availability of oil is a driving factor in nuclear’s “John Travolta-style” comeback, but as Whitman noted, this time a new environmental wrinkle has also been added to the equation.

Simply put, it’s all about climate control, baby. And while Al Gore may not have invented the Internet, his public awareness campaign against the evils of global warming is certainly responsible for nuclear power getting a second look as an alternative to the “Greenhouse Gas Gang.”

“For a host of environmental reasons, nuclear is something we’ve got to look at,” Whitman said. “It’s interesting, we’re starting to see a change because environmentalists are beginning to recognize its potential. As one (environmentalist) said to me – if you’re concerned about climate change and you’re concerned about things like asthma, you’ve got to start looking at nuclear.”

THE CRITICS

Of course not everybody is buying what Whitman & Co. are selling. We also chatted today with Dr. Stephen Smith, Executive Director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, who called nuclear a “short-sighted and simplistic” answer to the emissions issue. Smith also said there were “high-risk” economic factors to consider.

“Nuclear is a tremendously risky technology from an economic standpoint,” Smith told FITSNews. “The industry wants you to focus on just the last few years because to their credit, they’ve been running the reactors more efficiently, but if you look at it through a broader lens, there have been serious problems.”

Smith says cost overruns continue to plague the construction and management of nuclear facilities, citing recent estimates for new reactors that “are four to five times what the industry originally said.” Taxpayers shouldn’t be saddled with those excess costs, he contends, nor subjected to that sort of unacceptable financial risk.

“Wall Street is very leery of this technology,” Smith said. “And the utilities don’t want their shareholders to carry the risk.”

Whitman acknowledges that there was a “learning curve” associated with the first round of nuclear power facilities in America, but she says that the industry has evolved over the years from a hodge-podge of “as many as seventy different reactor types” to a more integrated method of building and operating reactor facilities.

She also points out that the new plants are safer and more secure.

“People worry about living next to a nuclear facility, but the truth is you could live right next to a nuclear facility for a year and you would get about the same amount of radiation as a dental X-ray,” Whitman said. “If you do surveys, it’s the people living closest to the plants who are the most supportive of them. They know it’s safe, and they know the economic benefits that come to the community.”

PRESIDENTIAL (LACK)LUSTER

One area where both nuclear advocates and opponents are in complete agreement, however, is in the short shrift that the energy debate has received from the 2008 presidential candidates.

“Everybody looks at each issue through the prism of what’s going to benefit me – or what’s going to benefit my party,” Whitman said. “The tough questions don’t get asked. (The candidates) get away with just offering the soundbytes.”

Whitman was especially critical of Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who spoke out recently against the establishment of a permanent nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

“When I am president, Yucca Mountain will be off the table forever,” Clinton said – campaigning in Nevada, of course.

“It’s pure politics,” Whitman said of Clinton’s position. “It’s because of (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid. He’s too important to the Democrats. Not only is there a federal law that designates Yucca Mountain, but you’ve also got a number of states that have actually passed laws saying they will not consider nuclear generation until there is a national repository.”

Dana Beach, President of the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, agreed with Whitman that the 2008 presidential contenders have failed to adequately address the issue.

“The candidates have been very superficial about it, but then again they’ve been superficial about everything,” Beach says. “All they’ve offered is the soundbytes.”

Beach told FITSNews that his group is “not categorically opposed to any source of energy,” but proceeded to rank nuclear and coal in the lowest rung of options that should be explored.

“We believe there is a hierarchy of energy options that range from the most desirable to the least desirable, and at the very top of that list are conservation and efficiency because the money we put into those efforts goes directly into the economy,” Beach said. “The question is, can we meet our energy needs using energy and conservation? If you ask someone like (Santee Cooper CEO) Lonnie Carter, he’s going to tell you ‘no.’ He doesn’t have a clue.”

Beach points to states like California and Vermont, which have dramatically reduced their electricity demands in recent years, as examples that South Carolina should follow before committing to new coal-fired or nuclear power plants.

“Those states have aggressively pursued market-based incentives that encourage efficiency improvements in housing and industry,” he said. “Now they use half as much energy per capita as the rest of the nation does.”

According to Beach, South Carolina currently sits at 10% above than the national average, which makes us the fourth-largest per capita consumer in the country.

OTHER OPTIONS

Beyond stepping up conservation and efficiency efforts, Beach says there are numerous other renewable energy sources that should be tapped ahead of nuclear or coal options. Unfortunately, in what’s becoming a pattern here, he says political considerations are dictating a fundamentally flawed government approach.

“There are good renewables and there are bad renewables,” Beach says. “Sadly, the worst renewable we could possibly be promoting is the one that Congress is currently promoting – which is corn-based ethanol. Of course, we’re only doing that because politicians are courting votes in the corn states.”

Beach says native South Carolina “switchgrass,” wood waste and offshore wind are three examples of renewables that ought to be explored here. For example, he says that Denmark (which has the same offshore wind availability as we do) is currently producing 20% of its electrical power from wind farms in the North Sea.

Robert Cleaves, Chairman of the USA Biomass Power Producers Alliance, agrees with Beach.

“The South has tremendous renewable energy resources that need to be further developed, especially the use of biomass, that is electricity made from wood waste and forest thinnings,” Cleaves told FITSNews.

But no one was more outspoken on the subject than Dr. Smith, our friend from the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

“South Carolina’s utilities have not aggressively pursued renewable energy,” he says. “They are happy for people to use energy inefficiently because it makes them more money. California, on the other hand, has flatlined its energy consumption demand because it aggressively pursued energy efficiency. South Carolina is missing out on a golden opportunity to take advantage of its biopower potential, whether that’s from the agriculture industry or offshore wind technology.”

NATIONAL INSECURITY

Another issue all sides seem to agree on is that establishing renewable sources of energy is critical to America’s national security - which is perhaps why pretty much every single Republican and Democrat running for President has said something closely resembling that statement at one point or another during the current campaign.

Seriously, how many times have you heard a presidential candidate say we must “reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil” within the last year? We haven’t been counting, but our guess is that eleventy kabillion would be lowballing it.

Of course, if you’re having trouble remembering what came after that sentence, relax – you’re not having a senior moment. Sadly, that’s pretty much the extent of what the candidates have had to say.

S.C. Rep Thad Viers (R-Horry) says the national security component of America’s energy debate is just as important as any economic considerations. He also chastised the presidential contenders for their lack of vision on the issue.

“Its amazing to me that the presidential candidates – especially the Democrats – want to demonize the energy companies and only offer solutions of taxes and more government regulation on the respective industries,” Viers told FITSNews. “Instead, they should be investing in energy efforts within the United States through oil exploration, increasing nuclear power, and tax cuts for research and development (of renewables) so that no country or oil cartel can hold the United States’ energy outputs and consumption hostage.”

While differing dramatically from Viers’ perspective in terms of what should be done, Beach has a similar opinion of the situation as it relates to America’s position in an increasingly unstable world.

“Renewables don’t put money into the pockets of people like Chavez in Venezuela, so it’s not only a better deal from an environmental point of view, it’s a better deal from a national security point of view,” he says.

Anyway, until we figure out a way to harness this sexy beast’s electric magnetism, America will continue to struggle with a solution to its energy woes.

Until then, stay tuned for more on the great energy debate from FITSNews … coming soon.

Comments