Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
BY ALAN J. STEINBERG
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
COMMENTARY
My experiences as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA reinforced my belief that environmental progress is best made when there is a bipartisan consensus for a policy. Such an accord has now emerged at the federal level as to the need to expand nuclear energy production.
During the administration of George W. Bush in which I served, nuclear power was a central component of the President's environmental and clean energy strategy. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a loan guarantee fund in the amount of $18.5 billion for the construction of nuclear reactors. Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Policy (GNEP) initiative was introduced in 2006 to reduce the risk of both proliferation and nuclear waste by the utilization of reprocessing technologies. The Bush administration continued to seek funding for the Yucca Mountain, Nevada repository project for high level nuclear waste.
Barack Obama, fearful of reaction from certain environmental nongovernmental organizations, was noncommittal during the Presidential campaign of 2008 regarding expansion of nuclear power. Upon taking office as President, he cancelled funding for both the Yucca Mountain repository project and the GNEP reprocessing initiatives.
After one year in office, however, the President has recognized clean energy realities. Solar and wind energy are laudable alternatives and should be encouraged. These renewable sources, however, cannot meet the baseload clean energy demands of a growing economy. Only nuclear energy can fulfill these needs.
Accordingly, in February, 2010, President Obama announced 1) his proposal to triple the nuclear reactor loan guarantee fund to $54.5 billion and 2) $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for two nuclear reactors in Georgia. The overwhelming majority of Democrat and Republican U.S. Senators and members of the House of Representatives are in support of this expansion of nuclear power production. At long last, in the United States Congress, we have a bipartisan consensus for nuclear energy.
I disagree, however, with the President's decisions regarding the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain repository and GNEP reprocessing initiatives, the two best scientifically established modes for the disposal of nuclear waste. These Obama decisions constitute the unfortunate triumph of politics over sound science.
In order to deal with the nuclear waste issue, the President established in January, 2010 a Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, co-chaired by former Democrat Congressman Lee Hamilton and Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor in the administration of former President George H.W. Bush. The mission of this panel is to "provide advice and make recommendations on issues including alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste."
I have no idea as to what alternatives for safe, scientifically substantiated nuclear waste disposal the Blue Ribbon Commission can develop other than the Bush administration Yucca Mountain and GNEP reprocessing initiatives. Having played a leading role regarding the waste disposal issues at the Indian Point Nuclear Plant and West Valley, New York reprocessing facility, I know that the least desirable alternative would be to store nuclear waste on-site. Unfortunately, I suspect that is the direction in which the Obama administration is heading.
Nevertheless, President Obama deserves credit for providing the leadership necessary to create national bipartisan support for nuclear energy. His welcome advocacy comes at a time when the need for a phase-out of coal-fired plants appears essential in order to reduce excessive greenhouse gas emissions and health hazardous pollutants.
At one time, we in the Bush administration were optimistic regarding the development of "clean coal technologies", as was candidate Barack Obama. Unfortunately, federal initiatives have failed to resolve the prohibitive economic costs and citing problems associated with the two essential components of any clean coal technology, to wit, coal gasification and carbon sequestration.
Coal-fired plants produce 40% of America's greenhouse gas emissions. In New Jersey, the harmful health effects of coal-fired plants are abundantly clear. With regard to compliance with EPA standards regarding smog, the entire state is in a non-attainment status, and, with regard to soot, most of the state likewise fails to comply with EPA limitations. This non-attainment results from three sources: 1) car and truck traffic; 2) smog and soot pollution carried into New Jersey from upwind states; and 3) coal fired plants.
In contrast to coal, nuclear power is virtually emissions free, both as to greenhouse gases and health hazardous pollutants. It also can provide the substantial baseloads of energy that will be needed if coal-fired plants are phased out over time.
New Jersey's need for expansion of nuclear power, both from an environmental and economic point of view, is abundantly clear. Hopefully, the bipartisan consensus in Washington will facilitate the expansion of nuclear power in New Jersey as well.
Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Region 2 EPA consists of the states of New York and New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and seven federally recognized Indian nations. He currently serves as Public Servant in Residence at Monmouth University.
ALSO BY ALAN J. STEINBERG
Alan Karcher's challenge and Gov. Chris Christie's paradigm shift
Solar and Wind are "laudable solutions." The environmentalists have forgotten a few things. Because of the lack of energy density in these two modalities they will require 10 Trillion dollars and a land mass the size of Mass. to just meet our electrical needs which approximately are equal to our fuel needs.
This is a lot of money and to date solar and wind account for less than .4% of our electrical needs. The energy density here is so low that incredible subsidy is required to maintain production. Further, the developing countries such as India are laughing at us for burning our food to make biofuels and trying to reinvent wind mills and solar panels which have little energy density. France discarded this in their evolution towards energy independence which has resulted in deriving 80% of their electrical power from nuclear sources. They began learning with the energy crisis of '73. They ultimately realized they didn't have large land masses, crops, oil, coal, and gas reserves to make electricity but they did have enough land to make nuclear reactors so that they now export (and make money) selling electricity. Further the "environmentalists" haven't realized how much damage to the ecosystem, plants, endangered birds, etc., will be caused by sequestering land masses the size of Massachusetts. I have seen reports that wind mills are place in horrible locations and cause death to hawks, owls, eagles and falcons. Is there a good place to put them where it is windy all the time and it won't cause death to our beloved birds? We remember how the late Sen. Kennedy didn't want the wind mills out where he sailed as they are an eye sore. Is there a good place to put them? Has anyone done the math on 10 Trillion dollars and why so much subsidy is required?
Assumptions about reprocessing and storage. Are we sure that just like any other refuse that reprocessing, recycling and transmutation can't be of further value? We used to think that we needed land fills and then we figured out that we can just about recycle everything. There is more energy in nuclear waste to be used and what is left can be transmutated into useful industrial and medical products and resources. Are we so sure we need this huge storage facility called Yucca Mountain or are we just refusing to look at intelligent options. This process of assumptions has somehow asserted that we are the cause of climate change which has been doing fine on its own for billions of years. Are we assuming that we can control climate change. I have heard that we have trouble predicting the weather past next week. It is funny how global warming has conveniently shifted to climate change. 97% of the CO2 is not man made but somehow the 3% that is man made is responsible for everything. It used to be that CO2 was necessary for plants, crops, forests, and vegetation to grow. Now it is suddenly lumped in with smog and soot. Soon we will be assuming that Oxygen and Water are some how contributing to our demise. Smog and Soot are bad but this is different then CO2 which is part of the life cycle that helps create O2. Let's at least keep a few things straight or let's not assume anything.
I have heard Dr. Chu indicate that reprocessing, storage and proliferation issues are resolvable. The same as been said by the National Academies. Our Navy seems to have done just fine with Nuclear energy and proudly boasts that there is so much energy available that a sub wouldn't need to refuel for 50 years. We have chosen to be in this mess of energy dependence which increases our expenses, pays our enemies, increases our trade deficit, budget deficit, and national debt. I am assuming that we are dysfunctional, nuts, greedy, self destructive, or have some really great strategy that is being kept very close to the vest. GCF, MD
In my opinion the rules of our constitution and compliance with the laws of the land far over-ride what our officials and media may say. Today's tone appears to be that the authority rests with bureaucrats and politicians rather than the law of the land.
NEPA is the law of the land; yet DOE appears to neglect making nuclear decisions by NEPA. I trust that we can change our opinions on who we can trust to do things honorable and legally. rej 3-15-10