While the world keeps its attention on the nuclear problems in Japan, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has been making the rounds in Congress talking to lawmakers about the future of American energy policy.
Nuclear has been on his mind; but not just because of the ongoing Japanese issue. Chu was on Capitol Hill to discuss energy issues within the context of the President’s budget plans for the Department of Energy. Diversity is key, said Chu. In his speech, he made sure to include nuclear, fossil energies and renewables.
But what the President and Chu really want to do is make stuff.
“President Obama has a plan to win the future by out-innovating, out-educating and out-building the rest of the world,” Chu said.
So can we build our way out of an energy crisis? Well, you can spend your way out of a financial crisis. So, I guess it’s technically possible, depending on what, exactly, you want to build. The President, it seems, wants to build lots of clean energy projects, manufacturing facilities and R&D centers – enough to get 80 percent of our power from clean sources by 2035.
Biofuels, the smart grid, R&D and carbon capture are all mentioned in this long-term goal, along with loan guarantees for renewables and energy efficiency tech. Nuclear got a push, too – up to $36 billion to help deploy a “new generation of American nuclear reactors.” Whether that will be in the final budget is hard to say. It likely depends on how the Japanese situation plays out in the coming weeks and months.
This push for renewables and nuclear loan guarantees is potentially balanced by the elimination of some fossil fuel subsidies that have been deemed “unnecessary.”
This plan of Obama’s is lean and green, but is it mean?
I get where he’s going. But to get to 80 percent penetration is quite a lot of building. And the one area that might have helped bridge that gap – nuclear power, which doesn’t emit greenhouse gases – may be sidelined.
While it’s very nice to see the Administration taking a long-haul look at energy, I’m still left wondering exactly what we’re going to build to go from our current energy portfolio (with coal leading at 45 percent and renewables – not including hydro – at 4 percent, according to the Energy Information Administration) to that whopping 80 percent clean energy.
With Secretary Chu still in support of nuclear energy, it will be interesting to see if the Administration and Congress continue supporting the industry as part of that ambitious goal.
Email
Bookmark
Print
Share
Add to my network
1 of 19
Then I read that there really wasn't that much waste produced and that due to it's density, that it really didn't take up that much space.
After driving through Nebraska, I changed my mind about what could be done with the waste! While I'm kidding there, it's not by very much! It does seem to me that there should be someplace that we could store this stuff on a permanent basis that it wouldn't be a danger to the population.
I have to admit that the fact that the folks who had a nuclear power plant located on the coast hadn't taken into account the effects that a tsunami would have on the generators that powered their cooling units, has me a bit concerned. But, to me, that only means that we need to go back to the drawing board and plan better for disasters.
In the long run, I think that renewable energy is the way to go, but in the short run, I don't see how we can replace fossil fuels without nuclear.
Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell