What We Are Reading & Listening To

"Wind Power and Wanderlust: A Hands-on Approach to Management has Helped the Head of Vestas Weather the Recent up and downs of Renewable Energy," Financial Times, March 21, 2011

"Business & the Environment: Special Report," Financial Times, March 22, 2011

"Italy Freezes its Nuclear Plan After Japan Crisis," National Public Radio, March 23, 2011

"Banyan: The Worth of Water, An Encouraging Model Suggests Urban Asia's Water Problems Could be Easily Fixed," The Economist, March 26, 2011

"Briefing: Nuclear Power, When the Steam Clears," The Economist, March 26, 2011

"Highly Charged: A Powerful Experimental Battery That Can be Recharged Completely in Minutes," The Economist, March 26, 2011

"In Tour, U.S. Nuclear Plant Opens Doors to Make Case," The New York Times, March 26, 2011

"Nuclear Think Tank: Nuclear's Future is Okay," National Public Radio, March 27, 2011

Financial Times' Lex Column Asks do Recent Events in the Middle East and Japan Portend a New Lease on Life for Renewable Energy?

Yesterday's Lex Column (March 16, 2011) in the Financial Times raised a thought provoking point about the impact of unrest in the Middle East as well as the nuclear power plant crisis in Japan: Will this perhaps herald a new "lease on life" for the renewables sector?

Lex, one of the oldest and most highly-respected business columns in the world, suggested that there is great value in "public sentiment and political goodwill," both of which seem clearly on the decline in the case of Middle Eastern oil and nuclear power in general.

"With nuclear, the largest carbon-free source of electricity, suffering a mortal blow to its reputation, it will now be harder to say 'no' to pricier alternatives," the Lex Column argued.

It seems a pretty broad statement to say that the nuclear industry has suffered a "mortal blow to its reputation" and, of course, it's worth remembering that many countries generate a huge amount of electricity from nuclear power -- for example, France generates about 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. But on the other hand, as governments begin to pull back on generous "aid" packages for renewables it may well be that politicians and societies in general will look more favorably on the higher costs traditionally associated with renewable energy.

This is probably not the best time to make any final declarations one way or another, but at least at this moment what Lex is suggesting is worth keeping in mind.

Don C. Smith
Director
Environmental and Natural Resources Law & Policy Program

New Nuclear Power Projects Experience Renaissance in Nordic Countries

In recent weeks, the parliaments of Finland and Sweden have given their approval to the development of several new nuclear power plants in the Nordic countries. The grant of parliamentary approval does not necessarily mean that the plants will be built, but it does suggest that the two environmental leaders are --for the time being at least -- finding that nuclear power is an acceptable generating vehicle in the context of worries about carbon emissions and continued reliance on Russia for gas.

The newly approved plants underscore the continuing interest in the European Union in nuclear power. Despite what many may think, the European Union -- one of the greenest political entities in the world -- does not prohibit nuclear power. In fact, France now generates upwards of 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and the U.K. has given indications of being interested in more nuclear power installations.

Spokesman for the World Nuclear Association Ian Hore-Lacy said the nuclear power industry is finding greater acceptability generally. "Over all, opinions are firming and more positive. People are less concerned about waste because they've seen it's not a drama, and it's been well managed."

What does this portend for U.S. response to new nuclear facilities? No one is sure, but if two of the EU's most environmentally green member states have chosen to go ahead, can the U.S. be far behind?

Nuclear Power on the Way Back?

This week, two influential publications -- The Wall Street Journal in the U.S. and the Financial Times in Europe -- published separate analyses about nuclear power. The headlines give a snapshot of the coverage:

"Split on the Atom: In the fight to secure fuel supplies and cut carbon emissions, nuclear power looks increasingly attractive -- but it is also generating concern over proliferation." Financial Times, Sept. 9, 2009.

"The New Nukes: The next generation of nuclear reactors is on its way, and supporters say they will be safer, cheaper and more efficient than current plants." The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 8, 2009. (It is also worth noting that this issue of the WSJ included articles about energy efficiency and solar energy.)

Anyone interested in the future of nuclear power should read the coverage in both of these publications.

U.K. Government Report Says Nuclear Power Should Provide 35-40% of Country's Electricity Beyond 2030

The U.K. government says that from an aspirational perspective, the country should generate 35-40 percent of its electricity by 2030 from nuclear power.

The potential target, set forth in a report, "Energy Security: A National Challenge in a Changing World," commissioned by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, noted that by 2020 the U.K. will import between 45 and 80 percent of its gas.

Malcolm Wicks, member of parliament and the prime minister's special representative on international energy issues, said, "Complete energy Independence is an unrealistic goal, but there is much we can do to insulate ourselves from the risks, in large part by driving climate policies even further, quicker. We must be far smarter with the energy we use and invest in home grown energy sources, such as new nuclear and renewables without delay."

Today the U.K. generates about 15 percent of its electricity from nuclear power.

The opposition Conservative Party cautioned, however, that the government was in effect leading nuclear power firms to seek development subsidies. Shadow energy minister Charles Hendry said, "If you set an aspiration like that, the danger is that the industry will say, 'If you want that, we have to have a subsidy," according to the Financial Times ("Tories Warn on Nuclear Power Plans," Aug. 5, 2009).

For an interesting look at the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority perspective on nuclear power in Britain, click here to see an interview on E&ETV with Lady Barbara Judge, the authority's chair.

U.S. House Republicans Unveil Their Own Energy Bill

Not to be outdone by U.S. House Democrats, who have -- more or less -- rallied around the Waxman-Markey energy bill, U.S. House Republicans have unveiled their own version of an energy bill, and it could not look more different from the Waxman-Markey proposal.

The American Energy Act, as proposed by Congressman Mike Pence, Indiana Republican, emphasizes the development of nuclear power. The Pence proposal envisions "a national goal of licensing 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years." The key to achieving this goal, in Mr. Pence's mind, is "by streamlining a burdensome regulatory process and ensuring the recycling and safe storage of spent nuclear fuel."

The proposal also calls for increasing domestic supply of oil and gas by "lifting restrictions on the Arctic Coastal Plain, the Outer Continental Shelf, and oil shale in the Mountain West. Revenues generated through domestic exploration will support innovation in renewable and alternative energy sources, like wind and solar technologies," he said.

While the Waxman-Markey measure calls for a national cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions the Pence proposal is silent on this idea.

To watch a video of Mr. Pence announcing the proposal, click here.

The chances of the Pence measure as proposed passing? None. But it might attract the attention of some Democratic congressman -- particularly from rust-belt and farming districts -- who are having second thoughts about Waxman-Markey.

More U.S. Nuclear Power on Deck?

As the U.S. government moves closer to some type of carbon management regime, one industry player -- nuclear power generators -- is very interested in the eventual outcome.  For example, J. Wayne Leonard, Chairman and CEO of Entergy Corp., the number two generator of nuclear power in the country, is fully in support of a cap and trade or tax on carbon emissions.

In a recent Wall Street Journal interview ("The Carbon Cap Dilemma," March 28, 2009), Mr. Leonard says that America sees itself "as a market economy, and that's created great wealth for society over time.  But we're a market economy that doesn't have price signals for carbon dioxide."  As such, Mr. Leonard supports the Obama Administration's goal of an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

The catch, and not surprisingly since this was published in the quintessential pro-business Wall Street Journal, of course is what to do with the waste generated by nuclear power plants.  Are there lessons that could be learned from France, where nearly 80 percent of electricity is generated from nuclear?  Perhaps so, but it's worth noting that in France the government largely owns and operates the nuclear plants while in the U.S. the private sector has taken on that role.  As a Frenchman once said, "We're comfortable with the nuclear industry since the government runs it and what benefit would the government possibly have from cutting corners.  In America, with your economic system, private businesses are constantly looking for ways to lower their costs and in some instances this means cutting safety-related corner."

Stay tuned. The role of nuclear in a carbon managed economy is only beginning to be debated.