A few weeks ago Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) called for a new energy solution. A solution that came in the form of 100 new nuclear power plants. That vision has not left the republicans’ eyes. And on Tuesday, Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) added his two cents.
During a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Crapo stated that “any successful plan to reduce carbon emissions must also involve nuclear power…Nuclear power is the best and quickest way to increase our clean energy options.” And mentioned that it should be included in any legislation, including the democrat-backed cap and trade legislation currently on the table.
Crapo said the Idahoans are skeptical of the cap and trade deal due to the possibility of increased energy costs. “A better option may be to ramp up the use of clean, nuclear technology, and existing energy sources so that we may transition to new sources without the damage to our economy we would see under a cap and trade scheme,” he added.
He urged the exploration and advancement on the United States’ nuclear energy infrastructure, calling nuclear power “the best solution on climate change.”
Photo Credit: huntz via flickr under Creative Commons License
As a French I have nothing against nuclear as 80% of the electricity powering our country come from nuclear reactors.
But even if I am a supporter of nuclear energy, I believe the best solution for the United States of America to tackle climate change is energy efficiency.
It seems I am not the only one as several studies pointed to the same conclusion. For more please check an article I recently published for my blog.
I hope you will like it and am looking forward to reading your feedback. Meanwhile, Keep up the good work. I really appreciate Green Options' work.
I THINK THAT THE "GREEN OPTION" CONCEPT IS A GOOD IDEA. HOWEVER, THOSE THAT WISH TO NOW CLOSE THE DOOR ON THE OUR OTHER RESOURCES, SUCH AS COAL, NATURAL GAS AND NUCLEAR, PORTRAY THE SAME TUNNEL VISION THAT HAS BROUGHT US TO THIS, NOT ONLY NATIONAL, BUT WORLDWIDE PROBLEM. I THINK THAT ALL OF OUR NATIONAL RESOURCES SHOULD BE UTILIZED, WITHIN REASON. NOW WHEN I WRITE "WITHIN REASON", I MEAN THAT GOVERNMENT CANNOT JUSTIFY OPPRESSIVE TAXISTATION ON IT'S CITIZENS BECAUSE IT WISHES TO CHANGE THE FORM OF ENERGY IT WISHES TO DEVELOP. NOR SHOULD IT ENTER INTO ANY BINDING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT, WHICH MIGHT RESTRICT OUR GOVERNMENTS AUTOMONY OR BE UNFAIRLY BURDENSOME TO THE TAXPAYER. WHETHER ONE WISHES TO CALL IT, "CLEAN OR GREEN ENERGY" IT WILL COME AT A COST TO THE ENVIROMENT IN SOME WAY. FINDING THE BALANCE WILL REQUIRE,I BELIEVE, PERSONS OF AUDACIOUS CHARACTER, FORTHOUGHT, HUMILITY, COMMON SENSE AND INTELLECT. I AM DISAPPOINTED TO OBSERVE THOUGH, OF LATE AT ANY RATE, THAT THIS PROBLEM IS BEING ADDRESSED IN THE SAME FASHION AS THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CRISIS, HEALTHCARE AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. GREED, SPECIAL INTEREST, SOCIAL-ENGINEERS AND POWER MONGERS ARE AT THE FOREFRONT, WHILE THOSE WHO TRUELY WISH TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS ARE PUSHED TO THE BACK BY IGNOBLE LEADERSHIP.
Please don’t type in all caps.
I have to agree with Edouard from France on this comment about increasing energy efficiency.
Natural gas power plants have the benefit over coal that there is no ash to deal with and it would reduce emissions by aprox. 50%.
Nuclear still has the spent rod disposal or storage issue.
Natural gas is this countries "clean burning fuel", there is a lot of it available, and it is reasonably cheap.
What our governments and industries have to learn yet is to use this natural gas efficiently. It does not have to be blown into the atmosphere up all these chimney's across the country as HOT exhaust. There is a technology called "condensing flue gas heat recovery" that is designed to recover that waste energy. These natural gas appliances can be then operated at over 90% efficiency.
The only thing that is left after this technology is applied is COOL exhaust and water. And the water can also be utilized.
The DOE states that for every million BTU's recovered from these waste exhaust gases , and used back in the facility where it was combusted, 118 lbs of CO2 will NOT be emitted into the atmosphere.
This same technology can be used at power plants. The recovered energy could be sold to a neighboring food or beverage facility, or it could be put into a district heating and cooling system.
It's time to include "high efficient use of natural gas" into the Clean Energy Act.
Many base their opinion of Nuclear power on plants that were designed 50 years ago. In the past 50 years we have learned a lot. And also many people have no concept at to the small amount os waste a modern Nuclear plant needs create.
One golf ball size fuel rod can power a Nuclear sub for 25 years.
that is equivalent to 2170000 gallons of diesel oil. So the and it does not require much to dispose on one golfball size fuel rod ever 25 years. Granted the nuclear reactor on a sub is much smaller the a power plant but the power plant also produces much more power. That same power produces with oil, coal or even natural gas still wold have a much bigger environmental impact then the disposal of the spent Nuclear fuel. And those who bring up the radiation impact of a meltdown also are forming that opinion on old reactor designs.
There are legitimate concerns and issues with nuclear power and they should be addressed but they should not rule out nuclear power we just need to address those issues and find solutions not reject a great source of clean power. The only other source that can provide the amount of power we need is solar but at the moment the sun still does not shine at night and the manufacture ad disposal of batteries has a greater environmental impact then nuclear waste.
There is certainly certainly a lot to know about this. I consider you created some great points in Attributes also.
i think there is no solution to avoid climate change for it is a humankind done.