A view from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:The Effect of Climate Change on the Nuclear Energy R&D Portfolio
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
NEI Conference Agenda
(Two video clips below)
- Full text of speech (16 min)
- Q&A session on federal support for next generation and small reactors (12 min)
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS THE FUTURE
By Idaho Senator Mike Crapo
For far too long, one of our most promising alternative energy options has been left to languish—nuclear energy. Nuclear power should be a central, key part of our national energy strategy. It is encouraging that the President’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget provides stronger support for nuclear energy through a significant increase in loan guarantees for construction of new nuclear plants. I firmly believe in the benefits of nuclear energy, which can provide energy and economic security to our country’s energy supply, and I have been a strong proponent of nuclear loan guarantees since the program began in 2005.
Despite America’s reputation throughout the 20th century for being at the forefront of science and technology, the United States trails many countries in using nuclear power to meet our growing energy needs. Fifty-six plants are under construction across the globe---21 in China---yet none are currently under construction in the United States. Nuclear energy accounts for less than 20 percent of our electrical supply, a figure that hasn’t changed much since the 1970s. During that same time period, other countries have recognized and increased their use of nuclear-generated electricity: France is at 76 percent, Japan is at 25 percent, South Korea is at 37 percent and Sweden is at 42 percent. The United States is falling behind, and we must catch up.
The tone of the nuclear debate has changed dramatically over the last decade. It is no longer mainstream opinion that more nuclear power will result in environmental and public health disasters. In fact, even some former opponents of nuclear power have come out in support of it because of its value in meeting the President’s ambitious emissions reduction goals. The tide of public opinion is turning toward nuclear power.
The Department of Energy has estimated that each new nuclear unit here in the U.S. would create approximately 2,400 jobs. In addition, a serious investment in new nuclear reactors would provide a proven, reliable source of carbon-free power from the moment that these facilities are open for business. In the debate over the merits of nuclear energy, nuclear wins.
The demands of energy security, economic sustainability and environmental needs require an aggressive nuclear R&D agenda to expand the low-carbon benefits of this proven technology, but neither the government nor industry can do it alone. By working together, we can put this country on the right path toward a low-carbon energy, made right here in America.
Idaho Senator Mike Crapo
Speaking at Nuclear Energy Institute R&D Summit
Washington, DC Feb 22, 2010
Sen. Crapo Q&A session at NEI Nuclear R&D Summit
# # #
1 comment:
I agree, generally, with the Senator's main points.
But a pet peeve: politicians often abuse the term "falling behind".
If an advanced country (and especially the United States, as the world's only superpower), is not doing all it can to advance a technology that is felt to be worthwhile or necessary, then the painful reality is often that, even with some slack picked up by other countries, the technology will not be advancing very much, from a worldwide perspective, to humanity's detriment.
So the phrase "falling behind" creates a false sense of security. It reflects that other countries may be advancing beyond what the US is accomplishing. This is not good, but still partially comforting, as it suggests that real 'advancement' is at least occurring elsewhere in the world.
The perspective is far too parochial.
Too much of the narrative in the United States is about competing with other countries, and not enough about living up to its inherent potential and responsibilities. The REAL problems the world faces (like global warming, and energy food security) are not likely going to be solved if America is content to measure its success by the efforts of China, Russia, France or South Korea. We're batting against Nature and She decides whether our efforts will be sufficient.
Post a Comment