iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Administration Pushes Nuclear Energy To Save Climate Bill

DINA CAPPIELLO and MATTHEW DALY   01/31/10 02:18 PM ET   AP

Chu

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is endorsing nuclear energy like never before, trying to win over Republicans and moderate Democrats on climate and energy legislation.

Obama singled out nuclear power in his State of the Union address, and his spending plan for the next budget year is expected to include billions of more dollars in federal guarantees for new nuclear reactors. This emphasis reflects both the political difficulties of passing a climate bill in an election year and a shift from his once cautious embrace of nuclear energy.

He's now calling for a new generation of nuclear power plants.

During the campaign, Obama said he would support nuclear power with caveats. He was concerned about how to deal with radioactive waste and how much federal money was needed to support construction costs. Those concerns remain; some say they've gotten worse.

His administration has pledged to close Yucca Mountain, the planned multibillion-dollar burial ground in the Nevada desert for high-level radioactive waste. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has been criticized for his slow rollout of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to spur investment in new nuclear power plants, and the administration killed a Bush-era proposal to reprocess nuclear fuel.

What has changed is the outlook for climate and energy legislation, a White House priority. The House passed a bill in June that would limit emissions of heat-trapping gases for the first time. But the legislation led to a Republican revolt in the Senate, where the recent election of Republican Scott Brown from Massachusetts has made the measure even more of a long shot.

Obama reaffirmed his commitment to a bill in his State of the Union speech as a way to create more clean-energy jobs, but added that "means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country."

To back that up, he is expected to seek $54 billion in additional loan guarantees for nuclear power in his 2011 budget request to Congress on Monday, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the request has not been made public.

White House officials say Obama's actions reflect his long support of nuclear power. But lawmakers from both parties say the speech reflected a new urgency and willingness to reach out to Republicans who have criticized Obama for not talking more about the role nuclear energy can play in slowing global warming.

The 104 nuclear reactors in operation in 31 states provide only 20 percent of the nation's electricity. But they are responsible for 70 percent of the power from pollution-free sources, including wind, solar and hydroelectric dams.

Several analyses of the climate bills passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate suggest that the U.S. will have to build many more plants in order to meet the 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 called for in the legislation. One of those studies, by the Environmental Protection Agency, assumed 180 new reactors would come on line by 2050.

"I see an evolving attitude on energy by the president," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, who has called for 100 plants to be built in the next 20 years. Alexander, R-Tenn., said Obama's mention of nuclear energy in the address Wednesday night was the most important statement that the president has made on nuclear power.

"Up until now, the administration has been pursuing a national windmill policy instead of a national energy policy, which is the military equivalent of going to war in sailboats," he said.

Well before the speech, three senators cobbling together a Senate energy and climate bill – Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry, Connecticut independent Joe Lieberman and South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham – were pledging to include more in the bill for nuclear energy and offshore drilling to secure the necessary 60 votes to overcome a likely filibuster from opponents.

What's unclear is whether Obama's endorsement will help. It could attract more Republican and moderate Democrats. But nuclear energy and offshore drilling may alienate some liberal Democrats and environmentalists. One environmental group, Friends of the Earth, called it "a kick in the gut."

Graham, in an Associated Press interview, said Obama's speech was an opening that he hoped to take advantage of to court more GOP support. But he said some pro-nuclear Republicans, while pleased with the president's remarks, are nervous about the other part of the bill – a plan to limit heat-trapping pollution, which will raise energy costs.

"The president did a great job putting nuclear on the table in a robust way, as well as offshore drilling for oil and natural gas," said Graham. "I hope Republicans understand we have a once in lifetime chance, but in return we have to come up with emissions standards."

Lieberman praised Obama for "reaching out beyond the Democratic Party base," but said it may not be enough to win the support of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. McCain criticized Obama's stance on nuclear power during the 2008 campaign, but has backed efforts to reduce global warming.

McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said that while the senator was encouraged, the administration needs to address reprocessing and disposal if nuclear power is to be a viable option.

On Friday, the Department of Energy announced a bipartisan commission to investigate alternatives to Yucca Mountain.

The nuclear energy industry is waiting to see what else the administration will deliver. Its wish list includes more financing for loan guarantees, as well as tax incentives for nuclear energy manufacturing and production facilities.

"The turnaround in the last year has just been astounding and welcome," said Jim Connaughton, the former chairman of the White House Council of Environmental Quality under President George W. Bush. Connaughton now works for Constellation Energy, the Baltimore-based energy company that owns a stake in five nuclear reactors and is seeking to build more.

"There is no question that if you look at the votes, for a majority of them that have been on the fence, restoring America's leadership in nuclear energy is an essential requirement."

___

Associated Press writer Andrew Miga contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Department of Energy: http://www.doe.gov

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov

Nuclear Energy Institute: http://www.nei.org

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Filed by Michael Falcone  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 645
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lloyd Cata
05:44 PM on 02/01/2010
Not So Fast !!!

Before we forget WHY nuclear is not a more prominent component in the mix for American energy independence. After all, we invented the technology!

The nuclear waste issue has become 'federalized' because the nuclear industry failed miserably in cleaning up after themselves. They 'knowingly' dumped toxic waste materials across many communities from sea to shining sea. So before starting on a new round of nuclear promiscuity there should be no question as to the handling, disposition, and storage of nuclear waste. Are the nuclear companies simply allowed to pass this enormous responsibility to the American taxpayers while reaping the profits? After such a prolonged absence from the nuclear construction and certification area "is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission adequately staffed and prepared to oversee an expanded nuclear industry"?

There are many other questions and hurdles before we jump back into the nuclear arena and the waste issue simply must be the priority to prevent the practices of the past.
06:34 PM on 02/01/2010
It sounds like you are mixing nuclear weapons production issues and spent fuel.

These are two entirely different issues. The first is a federal problem because nuclear weapons are a federally controlled issue. So we the taxpayers get to pay for the clean up of nuclear weapons facilities since the contractors who ran the weapons site were working to federal contracts. That problem is not within the realm of the nuclear utilities to pay for or be held responsible.

The spent fuel issues are due to legally binding contracts signed decades ago where the government did not hold up its part of the bargin. Yucca Mt. was supposed to be open by now and receiving fuel. The DOE failed in that effort due to politics since Yucca Mt. was a political solution itself not a true technical solution. However the government still collected billions of dollars of money from the utilities which Congress has been using to balance the budget.

The nuclear industry has been winning court case after court case against the DOE to have the DOE pay for onsite storage. This means the money the utilities and their rate payers paid to the Yucca Mt. fund is coming back to them. Ideally that fund which stands at about $22billion will be used for restarting IFR programs and other similar technology.

So where is this huge waste pile of toxic materials you believe the nuclear industry "dumped"?
06:49 PM on 02/01/2010
Same industry, Same tech, Same scientist, same indrustries, same companies for nuke bomb and power.

To claim that 1000 new reactors will not provide cover for proliferation is just illogical.

Why do you conservatives Love the Danger and threat of Nukes?

I know why.

Because Conservatism was founded to conserve the Monarchy against Democracy and the Enlightenment,

They want the peasant in fear. Real fear, based on real threats.

Nukes work great for that.
05:20 PM on 02/01/2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7117774/Worlds-most-powerful-laser-to-trigger-fusion-reaction-this-year.html

This is the future of all our energy needs, still decades out.
06:15 PM on 02/01/2010
Fusion is neat, but 50 years away minimum.

By then Solar pv wind efficiency and waste bio fuels will have eliminated any terrestrial need for it.

The only possible application is for deep space hydrogen powered fusion rockets.
08:35 PM on 02/01/2010
I disagree not with the 50 years part but the part of solar and wind eliminating terrestrial need. As our society develops and our dependence on energy increases with population growth and higher energy use per person across the globe those things will never keep up. Fusion/fission power is endless along with the potential and possibilities.
02:16 PM on 02/01/2010
If you want to stop Global Warming as fast as possible, then Nuclear Reactors, in particular Breeder Reactors, are our only realistic option.
Solar, Wind, Geophysical, and other "Clean" energies are decades from being able to provide enough energy to support the American lifestyle.
Worried about the waste? We could put it down empty oil wells in Texas. Or drop it into the subduction zone in the Marianas Trench.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
taiwanjohn
02:28 PM on 02/01/2010
Hm... subduction zones... now that's an interesting idea. I hadn't heard that one before. I guess my main concern would be containing the waste reliably, and for long enough for it to get "subducted" far enough that it's no longer a hazard (before the containers break down). '

BTW, I totally agree on the need to start perfecting our breeder reactor tech, particularly as regards IFR. I hope that we can get around to such a discussion before it's too late.

--jrd
04:37 PM on 02/01/2010
the current american lifestyle is pathetically inefficient and we consume so much more than necessary anyway. systems and lifestyles are improving and will hopefully be much better in the time it would take to build nuclear facilities, but it's useless to justify nuclear in order to support the "american lifestyle".
12:55 PM on 02/01/2010
Stephen Chu is the key person in all this. He is deeply respected in the administration and has the unwavering support of the massive physics and science community.

It would not be overstatement to say...Chu *IS* energy policy in this nation right now.

And...Stephen Chu loves nuclear power. Because he's a physicist and because he understands the hard realities of this situation, as do his advisors in the DOE.
12:55 PM on 02/01/2010
Here again is my guess what Chu recently said to Obama:

--------

"Mr. President, the simple fact is that Solar and Wind power will never supply more than 20% of any national grid, including ours. It is a physical and technological impossibility, no matter what the alternative energy promoters say. The only reason Europe has beens so successful with wind and solar is that they have a massive block of nuclear reactors in France, stablizing the entire European grid against the intermittency of wind and solar power. Without the nuclear capacity of France, altnernative energy in Denmark and Spain simplty would not work.

Here are the numbers (he provides a study) provided by the top energy experts in the country, and from many other companies.

Mr. President, we either start back with nuclear power, or this nation is forever condemned to burn coal until our land is black with soot. Or, as another option, we do not survive the next century."

Obama: "But many of our constituency are afraid of nuclear power."

Chu: "Well, my Grandma was wouldn't sit in the driver's seat of a car. She was scared to death of them. That doesn't mean we shut down the whole highway system ."

Obama: "Good point. OK, how do we do this right. Let's set the groundwork. Let's start to pull this issue away from the Republicans, otherwise we'll continue looking like technological fools forever.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
taiwanjohn
10:25 AM on 02/01/2010
It's amazing and frustrating that so few (hardly any) of the mainstream news on this topic give any details about the so-called "next generation" nuclear technology. They mention that next-gen nukes would be cleaner, safer, and more efficient, but that's all. They don't, for example, mention any of the competing next-get systems, like IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) which uses spent fuel rods from old-tech nukes as its fuel... thus making the problem of waste much easier to manage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html

--jrd
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Charlton
11:53 AM on 02/01/2010
thats b/c it doesn't scare people to say that... what gets viewers is fear and fear is drummed up by saying 30 NEW NUKE PLANTS COMMISIONED !!!! ARE YOU SAFE FROM A TERRORIST INITIATED NUCLEAR EXPLOSION?!!?!?! next at 9.

When they know these things are imposible
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
taiwanjohn
02:14 PM on 02/01/2010
True. But I can't help thinking that the "Bully Pulpit" holder is also to blame. If Obama (or even just Sec'y Chu) were to specifically mention IFR in a statement, that would at least force mainstream media to report it, and that could lead to a useful debate. As it is, we keep going round and round in circles, debating the pros and cons of nuke plants built in the 1970's based on 1950's designs.

--jrd
09:56 AM on 02/01/2010
Your looking at this the wrong way. Obama has no intentions of breaking ground on a nuclear facility. He just wants to add it to crap and tax bill, knowing the repubs will vote no, and then say he tried to compromise. This is just politics.
10:02 AM on 02/01/2010
and then what is to be done with the waste
09:29 AM on 02/01/2010
Why do all the "energy efficiency" assessments of nukes ignore all the preparatory stuff?

In order to have your "clean energy" nuke you must...

- construct a giant massive structure literally capable of withstanding a plane crashing into it. To build such an item takes thousands of workers several years. Consider the energy expended to gather the materials & support those millions of commutes of all the workers involved.

- mine and process the uranium. Another massive expenditure of energy which, incidentally, renders the processing site very badly contaminated (see Hannaford).

- now, after years and many billions, go ahead and turn on your nuke.

"Wow, a non-polluting source of energy." Sure, if you ignore everything that had to happen before you threw the switch. Remember the industry's promise 50 years ago? "Electricity too cheap to meter."

And of course, there's that pesky deadly poison produced by nukes, but we are working on that...
09:43 AM on 02/01/2010
Everything you just mentioned can be said of the Prius. Strip mining of lithium, disposing of the batteries, etc etc.
Or, of constructing hydro electric dams, say.....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Charlton
11:51 AM on 02/01/2010
+1 no body wants to look at the energy forms they like. Simple math, how many sq miles of land would we have to convert into wind and solar farms to get the same amount of energy from 1 nuclear power plant.... *hint it's a lot
07:59 AM on 02/02/2010
Last time I checked, nobody was proposing that Priuses are the answer to our energy demands. And there is no uranium used in the building of hydroelectric dams, unless it is the source that powers the construction.

Nuclear energy is neither clean, safe, nor cheap.

The Manhattan project should teach Americans that we can do whatever we set our minds to with proper funding--it was a feat even bigger than the moon shot. From one experimental explosion in Chicago to a uranium and plutonium bomb destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki in only five years.

Tell me that we can't put that ingenuity to work creating sustainable energy instead of going down the nuclear road. The nuclear industry is still a powerful lobby--tied to the military-industral complex. This is about meeting our energy needs by using the same old political power structure that keeps average Americans beholden to utility corporations and government.

There is no reason that with the same investment, we couldn't create a sustainable energy future--a future that allows for private ownership of our energy needs. Imagine how grand life would be if we could go off the grid. Solar, wind and geothermal energy development opens that door for each of us.

The last thing the major players want is for us to be self-sufficient--green energy technologies open up that possibility. Nuclear energy does not.
10:03 AM on 02/01/2010
well said
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Charlton
08:35 AM on 02/01/2010
Pros-
*not including current breakthroughs on fusion technology*

Fully contained pollution
Super Efficient
Safe
non volatile
cheaper than all renewable resources
pays for itself in 15-20 years

Cons-

Scares people who don't understand the industry
waste disposal issues
have to guarantee LOANS
09:31 AM on 02/01/2010
Every single one of your "pros" is an untruth.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Charlton
11:47 AM on 02/01/2010
orly? do tell
04:58 PM on 02/01/2010
i really doubt nuclear is economical. the amount that would have to go into following through on your "pros" border on tyranny.

the solutions for one generation create the problems for the next, and i am yet to see how nuclear is not the worst example of such.

real slick "waste disposal issues" con, while trying to maintain those pros.
08:34 AM on 02/01/2010
Would the U.S. government poison the Mid East with Nuclear Reactor Uranium Waste?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4043305848200162460#
08:13 AM on 02/01/2010
ROUTINE RADIOACTIVE RELEASES FROM NUCLEAR REACTORS - IT DOESN’T TAKE AN ACCIDENT
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/routineradioactivereleases.htm

Nuclear Power
http://www.energyjustice.net/nuclear/
photo
SEQUOIABISON
President of the Sequoia Bison Society a non profi
07:41 AM on 02/01/2010
Promoting Nuclear Energy was the most disappointing remark made in the State of the Union address.

Signed:
Former residents of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JimR
10:46 AM on 02/01/2010
If you are against it, fine. But don't claim to speak for other people.
06:27 AM on 02/01/2010
new nuclear power plants would create thousands of jobs if the EPA stays out of the way...
06:57 AM on 02/01/2010
Just think of all the jobs we could have if no one ever tried to protect workers or the environment.

Thousands of jobs, but millions of deaths from leaked radiation and billions of dollars in needed cleanup that will never be done. The present strategy for dealing with the very toxic waste - denial!

In fact, cleanup is so expensive the plan for cleaning up the nuclear mess we have already made is to just let it rot and spread. I honestly think our use of nuclear technology has already killed us, we just don't know it yet.
03:49 PM on 02/01/2010
as would it's better alternatives.

you don't have to be an environmentalist to be against nuclear.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:05 AM on 02/01/2010
Phillip Taylor. These are powerful, protean ideas and suggestions. You are a man of wide, fruitful experience. You are a man of study and learning. You are a man of wisdom and patriotism to our Constitution and Republic. You are a citizen to be emulated by all Americans.
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
06:01 AM on 02/01/2010
Please make a pro and con list on nuclear energy (in itself kind of a weird oxymoron) and you will find that the cons will scare a normal, rational thinking person so much that they will find it hard to even consider the pros.