iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Steven Chu: Clean Energy Standard Could Include Nuclear, Clean Coal

FREDERIC J. FROMMER   12/ 7/10 05:20 PM ET   AP

Chu Energy Policy

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's energy chief asked Congress on Tuesday to consider nuclear power and other nonrenewable sources in a mandate for utilities to use more clean energy, which could attract Republicans who have opposed focusing exclusively on renewable energy like wind.

Efforts to pass the "renewable electricity standard" requirement have stalled in Congress, in part because of regional resistance. Opponents in the Southeast, for example, argue that their region lacks renewable sources such as abundant levels of wind.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said his call was an acknowledgment of those differences.

"There's all sorts of other forms of clean energy," Chu told reporters. "Some states would favor something in terms of clean energy like nuclear."

Chu said a clean energy standard, which has been pushed by the nuclear industry, could include clean coal and nuclear along with renewables. A clean energy mandate is just one of several proposals the Obama administration and Congress should look at to curb carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming, he said.

With the death of legislation to cap carbon emissions, the administration is considering other ways to reduce them. Following sweeping GOP gains in the midterm elections, President Barack Obama said cap-and-trade "was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way."

Chu participated Tuesday in a summit on the future of nuclear energy. After the event, Chu's spokeswoman, Stephanie Mueller, stressed that the secretary "was not specifically calling for a clean energy standard." She called it "just one option to consider as America transitions to a clean energy economy."

At the session, Chu said requiring utilities to get 25 percent of their energy from clean energy sources by 2025, and 50 percent by 2050, would be "about right."

By contrast, the chairman of the Senate energy committee, New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman, has legislation which would require utilities to get 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources – such as wind, solar and geothermal – by 2021.

"Bingaman remains strongly of the view that a national standard of this kind should have a strong focus on renewables," said his spokesman, Bill Wicker.

Rob Gramlich, a lobbyist for the American Wind Energy Association, said in a statement that his group is still focused on getting Bingaman's bill passed in the lame-duck session of Congress.

Sen. Tom Carper, a Delaware Democrat who co-hosted Tuesday's summit, acknowledged that most Republicans have opposed a renewable energy standard but added that "we can try to find common ground."

Steven Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group, said including nuclear energy in the standard makes sense because it will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Tuesday's summit aimed to find ways to kickstart the nuclear energy industry, and the Energy Department's Idaho National Laboratory and the centrist-Democratic group Third Way delivered a new report.

The report urged Congress to increase money for loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction and called on the federal government to support nuclear research and development and help export U.S. nuclear designs. It also suggested that new agencies could be enlisted, such as the Commerce and State departments, to help the nuclear industry compete with foreign industries.

Also Tuesday, renewable energy industry groups urged Congress to extend a cash grant program for the production of wind, solar and other renewable energy. The groups say that thousands of jobs are at stake. The program, which was created by the federal stimulus law, is set to expire at the end of the month.

A bird advocacy group, the American Bird Conservancy, urged that grant recipients be limited to those that take steps to protect wildlife.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's energy chief asked Congress on Tuesday to consider nuclear power and other nonrenewable sources in a mandate for utilities to use more clean energy, which...
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's energy chief asked Congress on Tuesday to consider nuclear power and other nonrenewable sources in a mandate for utilities to use more clean energy, which...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 228
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
08:41 AM on 01/27/2011
Many coal burning power plants could reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by using Bahamian aragonite, or oolitic calcium carbonate in place of limestone in the scrubbing process. Oolitic calcium carbonate may cost a few dollars more per ton, but the benefits far out weigh the cost. In addition to reducing CO2 emissions the waste by-product­s (synthetic gypsum and fly ash) would be cut in half. This technology is something both parties could research in about 30 minutes and agree to get behind.

Energy specialist­s at Rutgers and Duke University have the data. Oolitic calcium carbonate is abundant, sustainabl­e, eco-friend­ly and makes its way to the US on a regular basis from the Bahamas. Most recent studies show that one ton of oolitic calcium carbonate treats thirteen tons of coal. On the other hand one ton of limestone treats about six tons of coal. Easy math even for a congressma­n.
08:40 AM on 01/27/2011
Many coal burning power plants could reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by using Bahamian aragonite, or oolitic calcium carbonate in place of limestone in the scrubbing process. Oolitic calcium carbonate may cost a few dollars more per ton, but the benefits far out weigh the cost. In addition to reducing CO2 emissions the waste by-products (synthetic gypsum and fly ash) would be cut in half. This technology is something both parties could research in about 30 minutes and agree to get behind.

Energy specialists at Rutgers and Duke University have the data. Oolitic calcium carbonate is abundant, sustainable, eco-friendly and makes its way to the US on a regular basis from the Bahamas. Most recent studies show that one ton of oolitic calcium carbonate treats thirteen tons of coal. On the other hand one ton of limestone treats about six tons of coal. Easy math even for a congressman.
12:12 PM on 12/29/2010
Colorado struggles with key environmental and economic considerations in looking to open up the first new uranium milling plant in the US in 25 years. The legacy of contaminated lands and new employment opportunities for a depressed rural economy loom over the decisions of local residents. The environmental impacts of nuclear fuel-cycle spill far and wide beyond the power plant, and this recent story is a good example of this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/science/earth/27uranium.html

And for an excellent video segment that accompanies the story:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/12/26/us/1248069481755/the-uranium-conundrum.html
03:15 PM on 12/09/2010
Neither are anywhere near clean. Nuclear is the worst. The waste stays radioactive for 100's to 1000's of years and is above 1000 degrees (F) for 100's of years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
04:47 PM on 12/09/2010
@Monk2001 I don't know where you get your information, I calibrate the temperature detectors on our spent fuel pool and the temperature is well below 100F Please don’t make statements when you have no knowledge to back it up.
04:51 PM on 12/09/2010
How hot are the rods themselves? How long will they stay radioactive for? IF there was a mistake and a fallout occured, how big of a area would be affected? How long would that last?

You know the answer to each question. Please answer them finally instead of dodging them.
05:01 PM on 12/09/2010
Still around yet dodging the questions at hand. Not surprised.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
05:58 PM on 12/09/2010
The fuel rods aren't even above 1000F in the reactor, never mind when they're spent. They might just be discernibly warm - if held for long enough - after 100 years.

And the waste reduces quickly enough in radioactivity that you could handle it safely with gloves within fifty years, and probably lie on a heap of it in a couple of hundred years.

You are talking nonsense, and yet you have the gall to demand answers to your ignorant assertions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jsgaetano
Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus
01:41 PM on 12/09/2010
"Clean Coal" and a "Conservative Intellectual" walk into a room and see Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy...
08:24 PM on 12/09/2010
Where is Chu? :)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
12:39 AM on 12/09/2010
I seem to get a lot of my comments blocked. Thanks for at least letting them show up on my facebook account.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
12:37 AM on 12/09/2010
What criteria does the Huffington Post use to block comments? I seem to get a lot of my comments blocked.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
04:45 PM on 12/09/2010
It seems sometimes if the community moderator doesn't agree with your point of view it is blocked, sometimes they come, sometimes they don't. The rules can be found by clicking on "Comment Policy" at the bottom of this screen. If you disagree with the call "screenshot" your comment and send it to the paid reviewers on staff, they are overworked but eventually you may recieve an answer.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
demar
05:12 PM on 12/08/2010
What a disappointment Mr Chu. Bowing to the corporate masters who wish to maintain their tight control over the energy grids cash flow. Decentralize the grid. We need energy democracy not more centralized coal and nuclear filth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
03:10 PM on 12/08/2010
Nuclear power must be included in any Clean Energy Standard; we cannot let fear mongering and ignorance guide policy. Know Nukes! Education is key, I have 30 years experience with nuclear power in the USA, I know nuclear power is safe, reliable, sustainable and environmentally friendly.
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/why.htm
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter1.html
http://us.arevablog.com/2010/04/22/a-journey-from-myth-to-fact/
10:39 PM on 12/08/2010
And where is your long term storage link since Yucca Mountain and the $9 billion spent there went down a rat hole? Environmentally friendly boy is that a laugh!
10:59 PM on 12/08/2010
The current policy on withdrawing the NRC application for Yucca Mountain is just that policy, which can change depending on political winds. When the economy continues to tank in Nevada as more and more people take their gambling money to other locations around the world, the citizens of Nevada are going to want their leaders to look elsewhere for economic development and jobs. Bringing spent fuel to Nevada for reprocessing and the storage of unusable radioactive waste will be a big money-maker for Nevada. The US will want to bring spent fuel from all over the world to ease concerns over proliferation and the already-contaminated Nevada Test Site (now the Nevada National Security Site) is a good place to handle the stuff.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
12:08 AM on 12/09/2010
@Ozarks Have you ever visited a nuclear power plant site? The plant where I work has been operating for over 40 years, producing over 500 Mwe, all the fuel used in that time fits safely into a 40ftx40ftx40ft pool. The site is home to a working apple orchard, deer, fox, musk rats and many other plants and animals. We have hiking trails, it's an environmental haven for wildlife. In it's operation it produces virtually no damage to the environment, get some first hand knowledge before you make statements.
12:52 AM on 12/09/2010
I agree, education is key. There is a long history of plant shutdowns, tritium leaks, uranium hexafluoride accidents, steam explosions, coolant failures, leaky valves, transportation accidents, lost source incidents, enforcement actions, and much more. It's an endless list, actually, and right up to the present. You can find event reports at US Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/

With economic downturn, pressure on greater fiscal austerity and accountability, bleeding government of spending priorities, and ideological attachments to less regulation … the regulatory environment for nuclear is getting far worse (not better). If Chu wants to accomplish anything, he's going to need a huge helping hand from those on the Right, and a major change in our political culture towards big government solutions, large spending initiatives, and large scale government intervention in energy markets and regulatory agencies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
05:03 PM on 12/09/2010
Nuclear power plants have been the safest industrial sites for the past 40 years there is no reason they won't be the safest industrial sites for the next 40 years. Safety is no accident!
02:32 PM on 12/08/2010
A Clean Energy Standard would spur investment in renewable and nuclear energy technologies -- our best way of removing greenhouse gases from our power sector. Today nuclear energy produces about 70 percent of our CO2-free power -- trying to reduce our emissions without nuclear energy would be like trying to paddle across the ocean but first throwing away one oar. (Or rather three out of four oars.)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
04:22 PM on 12/09/2010
Jarret Adams,

What a simple over simplification of the world electrical energy situation? You worked really hard to help us understand how simple it all is. I would ask you to read my links in the post directly above your post and see if you can answer some of the troubling issued raised in them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
02:07 PM on 12/08/2010
Ask yourself some simple questions:
1. Do you want elctrical power 24/7?
Much of the world considers this a luxury, your food wouldn't last long without power for your refridgerator. Do you want the light to come on when you flip the switch or only during your 2 hour allotment of power?
2. Do you want to not breath smoke?
Thousands die every year from particles produced in coal fired power plants.
3. Do you believe in global warming?
Use of fossil fuel produces CO2

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, then you should be a nuclear power advocate.
Nuclear power is clean, safe, and reliable.
06:36 PM on 12/08/2010
Before uranium gets anywhere near the power plant, it must be mined, refined, transported, and enriched. Large amounts of fossil fuels are needed to enrich uranium for use as a power source. These emissions are not inconsequential. We still don't have very good processes for mining uranium (predominantly strip mining). More fossil fuels. And how about transporting the stuff around the country. You guessed it, fossil fuels.

The nuclear industry is built on the back of the fossil fuel industry. Don't be fooled. Only with the highest of grades of uranium (in conventional power plants) do you get anywhere near significant reductions of carbon emissions (for the high expense of these plants). And we're running out of high grade ore to make this energy calculation work.

http://www.energyscience.org.au/FS02%20CO2%20Emissions.pdf

and

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Mann
Nuclear Educator
07:07 PM on 12/08/2010
The fuel to run the construction and mining machines for nuclear power plants can be made to run on electricity. Today more fuel is burned mining and making windmills per megawatt produced than nuclear power. Are you calling for windmill production to stop as well? Does the material for solar panels magically appear? What is used to mine those materials? Nuclear power plants have already displaced almost all the petroleum based electrical production in the USA. (look at historic records of electrical power) The US Navy seems to think it is possible to create jet fuel from seawater using nuclear power.
None of your arguments have any exclusivity to nuclear power production. In fact you make good arguments for the expansion of nuclear power to save the fossil fuels still used to produce electrical power for future non-electrical needs.
02:02 PM on 12/10/2010
Yes the emissions from uranium mining is inconsequential. Compare the power produced in LWR's from the power consumed in Rossing mine, one of the lowest grade mines currently operating, and you get 500 times the power from LWRs as is consumed in the mine.

As for fossil fuels required for uranium enrichment, first its meaningless as new centrifuge enrichment requires tiny amounts of power relative to the energy produced, second enrichment plants often already use nuclear power to power them.
11:21 AM on 12/08/2010
Clean renewable energy, such as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power, can provide all of the energy we need practically forever.  They can also make us fully energy independent.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
06:02 PM on 12/09/2010
flagged for flooding.
11:19 AM on 12/08/2010
The south east may not have enough wind, but they have plenty of sunshine and tidal power which they could take advantage of.
11:18 AM on 12/08/2010
The fact that the government continues to talk about clean coal as clean energy means that the government is solidly in the pockets of big coal.  Clean coal is NOT CLEAN!  There is no such thing as clean coal!  Clean coal is a lie invented by the coal industry.
11:17 AM on 12/08/2010
CLEAN COAL DOES NOT EXIST!  I am furious at the government for continuing to spread that GIGANTIC LIE.