Nuclear Needs a Bigger Role in Energy Bill

The energy bill that narrowly passed the House of Representatives last month is an environmentalist’s dream: lots of social engineering, visions of conserving our way to a brighter future and no solid data of the legislation’s ultimate economic impact.

While “cap and trade” and goals to the elimination of carbon emissions have garnered the most press, the American Clean Energy and Security Act touches virtually every segment of the American economy: national goals for the percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources, caps on carbon emissions, the creation of “emission permits” that can be traded on newly created commodities markets.

And fees. Lots of them.

New Feature

Sign up for our newsletter e-mailed to you at 8 a.m. each day Monday through Friday.

Click here

As initially crafted by Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman, of California, and Edward Markey, of Massachusetts, HR 2454 contained no mention whatsoever of the role of nuclear power in America’s energy future. For a major piece of legislation designed to plot America’s 21st century energy roadmap and address concerns about climate change, that omission was shocking, to say the least.

The final bill that passed the House 219-212, however, did make passing reference to nuclear energy, due in no small part to the efforts of House Majority Whip James Clyburn, of South Carolina. Clyburn, who represents the state’s Sixth District, heads up a group of representatives from districts where the nuclear industry has a major presence; Democrat Tom Perriello, who represents Virginia’s Fifth District, is a member of the caucus and pushed for mention of nuclear power in the bill.

The caucus worked hard to raise nuclear energy’s profile in the bill, succeeding to a moderate degree. Their most important successes for the industry include the extension of loan guarantees for nuclear plant construction and exemption from offset requirements.

Still, so far as nuclear energy is concerned, the bill is woefully lacking. Many people in the environmental community become apoplectic at the very mention of the word “nuclear,” with visions of Three Mile Island in their heads.

The bill is now in the hands of the U.S. Senate where, perhaps, more rational thinking will emerge.

For America to reach the energy goals set forth in the bill, especially those on carbon emissions and renewable generation, more power will have to be generated by nuclear plants. It’s that simple. The nation’s generating capacity is stretch to the limits today, with coal doing much of the heavy lifting. But coal is also the biggest source of carbon emissions.

Conservation, wind generation, biomass generation and any other niche source of power simply will not meet the nation’s growing needs. Nuclear has to be the linch pin of America’s energy future.

The radical environmental movement’s bogeymen — the specter of Three Mile Island and fears about nuclear waste — are just that, bogeymen. Glimpse behind the curtain of fear, and there’s nothing there.

Technology, some of it being developed right here in Central Virginia at Areva and B&W, takes nuclear power generation well into the 21st century. B&W, in fact, just unveiled its “mini” reactors that can be added easily at sites and quickly scaled up in size to meet demand. Areva is in the running for the contract to build a reactor for Dominion Power at North Anna, the nation’s first new reactor in 30 years.

So start calling and e-mailing Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb (warner.senate.gov and webb.senate.gov). Tell Virginia’s two U.S. senators that the energy bill needs some serious revisions and that nuclear power needs a bigger presence.

Time’s a’wasting.