Clean, Safe, Accessible

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Gresham Barrett delivered the following speech on the House floor today to support the use of nuclear energy as an alternate energy source.

“In the past few weeks, the focus of the energy crisis conversation has been about lifting the offshore ban on drilling to increase oil and gas supply in the U.S., and, offshore drilling is one solution that can help ease our energy crisis and lower gas prices at the pump.

”There has also been talk about using alternative energy sources to solve our energy problem for the long-term.

“The Department of Energy found that the 103 nuclear units in the U.S. supply about 20 percent of the electricity produced in the United States.

“In my state of South Carolina, 52 percent of our state’s power comes from nuclear power plants.

“For years, I have regularly worked with organizations and companies within South Carolina to promote the benefits of nuclear power.

“Nuclear energy is clean, safe, and it’s accessible to us in our country.

“Nuclear energy is an alternative energy source that our country can use to create long-term energy solutions for generations to come.

“It is a real solution that if we invest in now, will bridge us from short-term solutions to long-term ones,” said Congressman Gresham Barrett.

Who is the largest single producer of nuclear energy in the world?

Improbably enough, that would be . . . the United States. Even though the development of new nuclear plants stalled by the early 1980s, the country’s 104 reactors today produce nearly 20 percent of the electricity the nation consumes. This share has actually grown over the years along with our consumption, since nuclear technology has become more efficient. While the fixed costs of a new nuclear plant are higher than those of a coal or natural-gas plant, the energy is cheaper to create: Exelon, the largest nuclear company in the United States, claims to produce electricity at 1.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 2.2 cents for coal.

We have much untapped potential in this area and people are starting to wake up from their Fonda-induced stupor. Even if it's being induced by a Gore-induced stupor...I'll take it.

Nuclear Energy - "Why America Needs It Now"

If you've not considered the importance and safety of nuclear energy, watch this video of Skip Bowman at Fora.tv. Concerning the waste, here's an excerpt:

To put it in a little bit different way, if you and I received all our lifetime electricity from nuclear power from day of birth to age 70, the amount of waste contribution from our use of nuclear electricity would weigh about two pounds and would fit into a coke can. So you have to put this a little bit into perspective. I am not trivializing what must be done with it but it's not bigger than a bread box.

Energy Bill: Comments

In reaction to this post on the energy bill, astute reader markymark says:

One the issues that struck me with Duke Energy (and the US) is this: every single reactor was custom built.

In France there are two basic designs. Thats it. As an engineer I can walk into any French facility and understand the safety system layout within 10 mins. In the US: 2-3 weeks. In some cases 2 months.

Their entire nuclear energy system is close to a perfect model. Even their use of breeder reactors to process spent fuel rods is 10+ yrs ahead of anything used in the US.

This buttresses my point that we've been incredibly lax in developing upgraded nuclear systems and pursuing ways to produce energy on our own. No new plants in 30 years, with the last license granted in 1995 (see graph).

France is way ahead of us as they derive over 75% of their electricity from nuclear energy, while we come in at around 20%. This is one time where I think we should use France as a model.

The federal government, in addressing a national problem, should at the least be encouraging uprates of existing plants - a much more cost-effective and immediate boost to energy production, according to the Energy Information Administration.

This article talks about these issues and sees a possible resurgence of nuclear power on the horizon.

Energy Bill: Higher Costs, Lower Return

The President has said he will sign the new energy bill today. We have needed a new energy policy for years and we're finally getting one...what's not to like? Three things: 1. Increasing food costs with no reduction in fuel costs, 2. Continued foreign oil dependence, and 3. a failure to pursue nuclear technologies.

1. The bill requires additional spending on ethanol which has spiked the demand for corn in the past two years. Simple supply and demand then requires that supply must increase to meet demand. If the supply doesn't increase at the same rate, the mechanism that market uses to level out the disparity is price. Higher priced corn = higher priced food = higher grocery bill. In addition, opportunity cost comes into play here. The farmers have gone all out in producing corn because that is where the money is. What are they not producing now because they switched over to corn. This reduces supply of a particular commodity, thereby increasing price.

2. Continued foreign oil dependence. The omnibus bill passed by both houses last night

prohibits funding for oil shale commercial regulations which makes commercial production of the United States’ 2 trillion barrels of oil shale resources is impossible.

3. Failure to pursue nuclear technologies. Not a word. This is the surest path to energy independence and it is rarely even discussed.

Oh, and grandaddy federal government is telling us we can't use 100 watt bulbs any more...