Decision ‘08

Rudy G. Seizes On Energy

I’ve felt for at least three years that the answer to a good part of our energy problems has to be the embrace of nuclear technology. ‘No Nuke’ activists, movies like The China Syndrome, and Three Mile Island and Chernobyl made nuclear plants, well, nuclear in political impact as well, but we no longer have the options to ignore this largely safe and largely clean technology.

I’m glad to see Rudy Giuliani talking up the prospects of nuclear plants:

…[T]he policy speech…found the former mayor in full-on Ross Perot mode with a series of charts and graphs detailing 1) how U.S. energy demand has far outstripped domestic production since 1960 and 2) how countries like France and Belgium are far outstripping the United States in their use of nuclear power.

Drawing on his experience managing New York City’s power problems, Giuliani spoke of the government red tape that makes it virtually impossible to build power plants, oil refineries and (especially) nuclear-power facilities. Summing up U.S. energy policy since the 1970s, he was blunt: “We haven’t done anything.” We haven’t drilled in Alaska. We haven’t built oil refineries. We haven’t ordered a nuclear power plant since 1978.

We need to start doing these things, he said, to diversify. Energy independence, he said, is simply the “wrong paradigm,” despite the idea’s popularity in quarters of both the Left and the Right. Instead, in a global economy, “We have to diversify, that’s our strength . . . You can be independent by being diversified.”

And there’s room to reach out to the Left on building more nuclear plants now. The technology has grown safer - and nuclear use could reduce emissions that lead to global warming. Giuliani cited support for the idea from the liberal New York Times columnist Tom Friedman and Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore (though, to be fair, Moore has been something of a pariah on the enviro Left since he left that group in 1986).

He also plugged clean coal technology and, yes, ethanol, both of which can be harvested at home, as well as natural gas, which is less geopolitically dicey than petroleum.

I don’t how much political resonance this issue has (energy policy is not the most thrilling of topics), but it’s good policy made somewhat inevitable due to declining alternatives. The sooner we embark on new nuclear plants, the better…

9 Responses to “Rudy G. Seizes On Energy”

1 Hokie Explorer Says:
June 14th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Not necessarily, you have to factor in the construction and regulatory costs. There is a very good reason why no new nuclear plants have been built in this country in a long time. It is wayyyy too expensive. Private companies and even government corporations like TVA simply can’t afford to drop 6 billion dollars on a single nuclear plant when they could build 20 coal-fired power plants for the same price. Getting the operating permit for these things from the NRC is super hard. It took TVA years and years and years to finally get Watt’s Bar online. Not to mention massive public opposition from wherever they want to build one which leads to lots and lots of political hurdles at all levels of government.
2 Hokie Explorer Says:
June 14th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Oh, just as a side note about Watts Bar nuclear power station… it is a single reactor plant because they had to abandon construction of the second unit because it simply became too expensive. It was 80% complete.
3 Gwedd Says:
June 14th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Comrades,

For 3 decades now, I have been writing to my Senators, the DoD, the NRC, and anyone else who might listen to argue for turning over construction and operation of Nuclear Power facilities to the US Navy.

The US Navy has a near sterling record in the design, construction, operation and disposal of small nuclear power plants.

My own plan is simple: Build small but efficient nuclear plants based upon one or two designs, and build them locally to provide power for a demographic region, not a geographic one.

Use a cookie-cutter approach to the whole thing, varying the design(s) only enough to fit local demands and situations.

By allowing the US Navy to run them, and using a unified set of designs, it means that someone trained to operate or maintain them can go anywhere to work and fit in with little or no additional training.

The achilles’ heel of our current nuclear power planys (civilian) is that no two are alike. Each one was custom built and designed so that, as a result, anyone seeking to transfer from one plant to another had to undergo a rather lengthy and costly training program. Additionally, maintenance costs were astronomical because their was little commonality parts-wise.

The US Navy has demonstrated competance in operating reactors, and with their training and disciplie, would add much viability to a new national nuclear power program. By nationalising these plants and their power production, the profit element could be severely reduced, no stockholders needing to be paid, after all, with the result that the promise of inexpensive nuclear power may well be within our grasp.

To those who would argue against nationalised power production (at least nuclear power production) I would offer this: The utilities are already heavily subsidised by fixed-priced power, that price being fixed in order to gaurentee a profit to shareholders. Competition, government bloviating to the contrary, is already discouraged through preferential state utility commissions. It is my belief that a single, national, well-regulated nuclear power system is far preferrential to what we currently have, offering both the promise of lower costs, higher power availability and better public accountability than the corporate model currently employed.

Respects,

Gwedd
4 peter Says:
June 14th, 2006 at 10:52 am
interesting idea, Gwedd –
5 mikebdot Says:
June 14th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
That is a good idea Gwedd.

Although, I’m very excited about this as well. This is one thing for which Bush deserves at least some credit (for appointing decent people at the DOE). Of course, at the very bottom of the article someone says it’s all hogwash…
6 megapotamus Says:
June 14th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Yeah, in this realm economies of scale really rule. There may well be a place for boutique nukes but it is not going to save us across the board. However, that said, any nuke is better than no nuke, in my view. The Atomic Age dawned more than half a century ago, why have we realized so few of the visions of the fiction of that time? It ain’t because the physics/science is unsound, quite the contrary. The barrier to our atomic future has always been political and it has always been the Leftists standing in the breach. Atomic power, atomic flight and atomic industry are an inevitiblity. These ARE progress which is exactly why the “Progressives” oppose same so vitriolically. The Yucca repository is a vital necessity, again, exactly why it is opposed so ignorantly. This is why I have little verve for opposition to Kyoto. The Greenies may yet coerce us past the obstructions of their brothers in reaction and make nukes inescapable. Are you ready for the great atomic power? Ya shouldabeen back in ‘58.
7 Gwedd Says:
June 14th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Comrades,

mikebdot, I whole-heartedly agree. Fusion is the grail standard, and if it can realistically be achieved then that is certainly the way to go. My concerns are purely physical in nature, inthat i don’t know if we have the technology in hand to industrialise fusion. certainly the technology FOR fusion is tantalizingly close at hand. We always seem so close.

Yet, it is one thing to be able to produce a viable fusion power source, and another whole ballawax to replicate it on a scale that is both financially and engineeringly doable.

Please note that I am NOT trying to pour cold water on the idea. As I said, I am a BIG supporter of the idea. I am just trying to look realistically at it and figure that replicating fusion is one thing, industrialising it another.

Nuclear power, Hydrogen, Wind and Water are the big 4, power-wise. We need to use wind and water where reasonably doable, look seriously at hydrogen for daily home and vehicle use, and Nuclear for everything else. We CAN do it, but it will require something akin to the effort we put into the Manhattan Project, and given the state of the MSM today, that disaster-driven entertainment division feeding off of national misery, that may not be possible.

Respects,

Gwedd
8 Hokie Explorer Says:
June 15th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
The opposition to the Yucca Mtn storage facility is primarily from the people of the state of Nevada. I certainly don’t oppose building such a facility on the other side of the United States. I guess I might have different feelings however if it was my next door neighbor.

Gwedd your idea is sound as far as naval reactors goes. The navy has a very good record for safety and the people who operate them are well trained. However, there are a couple of problems I’d like to point out. Throwing up small reactors all over the country presents a security nightmare. You probably want the navy to guard them as well which is another problem because that would involve stationing a LOT of security people all over the country at a time when the navy is being downsized (they’ve been bleeding ships since the late 1980s).

Also, who is going to pay for all of this? The taxpayers? The current government is cutting taxes like it is their job. Not only that, but we are spending more than we were before EVEN after slashing entitlement programs. You can’t keep spending more while cutting taxes it simply doesn’t work. Currently, every American family owes something like $90,000 to the national debt. Nationalizing power would effectively be another entitlement program slapped onto an already bloody-red ink budget. Sooner or later deficit spending is going to come back to bite everyone in the ass.
9 Gwedd Says:
June 15th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Comrades,

Yeah, My idea is not without flaws, but I would offer the following two points:

1.) Regarding security, the US Marines provide seciruty for US Navy nuclear facilities already, as well as the majority of USN security needs. With a growing cadre of veteran, combat-trained Marines on hand, that force would be very difficult to mess with, and I’d be very comfortable knowing the USMC was guarding our Nuclear Power stations. As a former Navy Aircrewman, I’ve been stationed alongside many of them and I can attest to their professionalism. I never feared for my aircraft’s security or for our weapon’s bunkers when those fellows were around.

2.) Regarding nationalising the power plants and becoming an entitlement program. There is always that danger, but consider this: You’ll still be charged for the power you consume, it’s just that the Ownership of the plants will be the feds and not some state-sponsored utility. Since that utility likely has a monopoly anyway, the biggest difference is that their will be no added charges to the bill to ensure that stockholders get a return on their investments. the biggest little secret has been buying stocks in public utilities. In almost every state, public utilities are regulated by state commissions, who set the price the utility may charge. However, this price also includes enough to pay a return for stockholders, a GUARENTEED return, which basically eliminates any requirement of the utility to be cost-effective or efficient in any manner. the state has basically agreed to pay the returns to the stockholders regardless of what the company is going through financially, so there is virtually no risk for the shareholder in this venture.

Thus, having the plants owned and operated by the feds cuts out the profit margin, and does away with the guareteed returns to shareholders. That means that you are buying energy basically at cost. Since the government sees electricity as a basic NEED, and takes steps to regulate the industry, why not go ahead and simply take over the production and distribution anyway, passing the savings along to the customers?

One other point regarding security, having more but smaller power plants actually increases security, since losing one only results in a localised area of loss. That’s not to say that a reactor accident is negligible, because it’s not. It simply means that you won’t get the same catastrophic result as you would from a Three-Mile island or Chernobyl when a small GE reactor gets hit. Dangerous, yes, but not the disaster footprint as with the big ones.

Respects,

Gwedd