Recession, Republicans Stymie Nuclear Power

We hippies did not kill the Big Stone II coal-fired power plant. But the recession and the Republican obstructionists who killed climate change and energy security legislation in Congress this year also helped block a renaissance of nuclear power:

One major factor driving the cautious stance of both the industry and the government is the fall in electricity demand, which peaked in 2007. In 2009, demand dropped by more than 4 percent from 2007. So far, it seems that demand in 2010 will be higher than last year, but not as high as 2007. These are big changes for an industry that is accustomed to growth on the order of 1 to 3 percent a year. With slack demand, there is less urgency to build new plants.

...Also weighing on the nuclear industry is the unwillingness of Congress to pass climate change legislation that would put a price of some sort on carbon-dioxide emissions. Since nuclear power produces no carbon emissions, it would gain a competitive edge against coal and natural gas if a bill were passed. But while such legislation once seemed likely, sharp divisions in Congress and concerns about the tottering economy have stalled its prospects [Matthew L. Wald, "Economy Sandbags Plans for Nuclear Reactors," New York Times, 2010.10.10].

We shouldn't be too disappointed by the recession cutting demand to the point where new generating capacity isn't so urgent: that real conservation delays the need for any kind of new power plant, coal, nuke, or otherwise. And there's a big debate over whether nuclear power should play a role in fighting climate change and our fossil-fuel addiction.

But for those of you who dig nuclear power, remember: blocking cap-and-trade and energy security legislation this year means you'll be waiting that much longer for those nice next-generation nuclear plants to come humming to life in your backyard.

Herseth Sandlin vs. Noem: Renewable Energy Standard

Part 6 of the Madville Times' South Dakota State Fair Congressional Debate analysis

Question 5 in Sunday's debate: Where do you stand on the national renewable energy standard?

Herseth Sandlin said she helped get the votes for the renewable energy standard in the 2007 energy bill. She said energy efficiency is the easiest part of meeting such a standard. She said she will support an even higher standard and that our electric cooperatives and investor-owned utilities have led the way in this area. A national renewable energy standard, she said, is essential for our wind industry.

Herseth Sandlin then returned to bipartisanship. She pointed to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's proposal for a broader clean energy standard. She said Graham and other lawmakers from the South want nuclear and hydroelectric power included with efficiency, wind, and solar in meeting any energy standard. Herseth Sandlin says there's a workable bipartisan compromise to be had there.

Kristi Noem agreed that the renewable electricity standard is good. She said she's heard people across the state say it's good for South Dakota. Noem does not support raising that renewable standard to 20% or 25%. She said very few co-ops could meet that high of a standard without raising utility rates, and we can't pass costs on to consumers in the middle of a recession when they can't afford it. Noem said we can't pass any legislation that would take more dollars out of our pockets. (Hmmm... can't take money from Americans, can't raise the debt ceiling... so in terms of paying down the debt, that leaves only one option: shutting down the federal government for six years.)

Assessment: Bipartisanship is one of Herseth Sandlin's favorite talking points. She ties this question to bipartisanship with a specific proposal and lawmaker. Not taking money out of people's pockets is one of Noem's talking points. She returns to it by appealing to an arbitrary number.

(A number of states, including Minnesota, have already adopted renewable energy standards in the 20–25% range. But the debate judge is supposed to judge the round presented, not the facts he can Google later. ;-) )

Herseth Sandlin approves of current measures and offers a roadmap for workable future action. Noem accepts the status quo, criticizes moving further, but offers no vision for the next step. If you don't want a next step, then Noem's your gal. But in terms of using the debate time to lay out specific plans for action, slight advantage Herseth Sandlin.

Solar Cheaper than Nuclear; Ethanol Needs No Subsidy

A couple of energy notes of interest to South Dakotans:

Solar Cheaper than Nuclear: A study by two researchers at Duke (Duke! They've got basketball; they must be reliable!) finds solar power may now be able to generate electricity per kilowatt-hour more cheaply than new nuclear power. Photovoltaic systems have dropped 50% in price since 1998, while construction costs for new nuclear plants have boomed (though the industry guys would prefer we didn't use nuclear and boom in the same sentence). The Duke data looks at costs in North Carolina, which has about the same solar power potential as central South Dakota. The Black Hills have even better PV potential—time for solarpanel hats on Mount Rushmore! Read the full report in PDF glory here.

No Need for Ethanol Subsidies: Here's South Dakota's big chance to get off the government teat! Iowa State University econ prof Bruce Babcock finds that ending the ethanol blenders credit and the import tariff would "have neither the dramatic, adverse effect U.S. ethanol producers claim, nor create the export bonanza Brazilian producers hope for." Professor Babcock says ending these industry subsidies would result in the loss of maybe 300 jobs, not the 112,000 to 160,000 the ethanol industry claims. Without subsidies, ethanol production would still increase, while we would save a few pennies per gallon at the pump and shave a several billion dollars off the deficit each year (just as all of our Congressional candidates want to do).

Of course, Babcock's study was funded by the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association. Brazil produces 7 billion gallons of ethanol from sugarcane each year, behind only the U.S., which makes 12 billion gallons of corn ethanol annually.

But note that U.S ethanol producer Valero—you know, the nice folks who bought VeraSun's ethanol plants after VeraSun went broke, and the third-largest ethanol producer in America—says it wouldn't reduce ethanol production one bit if we cut subsidies.

Green Notes: Dump Coal, Cap Carbon, Create Jobs...

All sorts of green notes!

1. A new report from the Civil Society Institute and Synapse Energy Economics maps a feasible path to meeting all of America's energy needs and use zero coal and nuclear power by 2050. The "Beyond Business as Usual" plan also saves money.
2. Badlands Blue notes that a majority of Republicans and conservatives "would back a comprehensive energy policy that both boosts domestic energy production and caps carbon emissions." Such a policy even has more Teabaggers for it than agin' it. Of course, the poll was conducted by a bunch of Republicans....
3. Don't let those temporary Knight & Carver layoffs get you down; Howard is still working to be a leader in green jobs. Howard's Rural Learning Center is getting a $99K grant from the state Department of Labor to train wind turbine technicians. MDL reports that, thanks to this grant, traning can start in September and reach 325 workers.
4. And how about some more green jobs... green bean jobs. Mike Knutson cites evidence that local food production—the novel concept of farmers growing real food for their neighbors to eat—"could produce $882 million in sales and add 9,300 jobs in the Midwest." Of course, Rebecca Terk and the South Dakota Legislature already know we should buy fresh and buy local. Dennis Daugaard, are you listening?
   

Oil in Elk Point or Wind in Howard: Pick Your Energy Future

Bob Ellis probably wants these environmentalist extremists in Howard to "take a hike", too:

Most of the talk about green job development has focused on urban areas, especially depressed, inner cities. But yesterday the conversation turned towards Rural America, and what’s already been accomplished there.

The conversation was initiated by Repower America, who held a press conference in Howard, SD to show their support for The American Clean Energy and Security Act. The organization believes the legislation could help bring 5,000 new jobs to South Dakota.

Because it is home to two wind energy companies, Howard (pop. 1071) was the perfect community to showcase this potential. Those two companies, Knight & Carver Wind Group and Energy Maintenance Service, offer good paying jobs that have helped diversify the town’s economy [Mike Knutson, "Green Jobs in Rural America," Reimagine Rural, 2009.08.21].

Conservatives like Bob Ellis cheer the potential construction of an oil refinery that will pollute the air, water, and land around Elk Point. I'm glad that Ellis can enjoy a little state affirmation of his worldview this morning, but that doesn't free us from the tarpit old-energy thinking that will only perpetuate our addiction to a dwindling resource.

Fortunately, some rural visionaries are looking for ways to change how we produce and use energy in hopes of creating real energy independence. The folks in Howard have been able to draw two energy businesses to town that have made actual progress toward producing domestic energy and jobs without big environmental impacts. Asking such visionaries to "take a hike" is the epitome of short-sightedness.

------------------------
p.s.: Have you noticed how the KELO graphic of the proposed Hyperion refinery is all smoky and brown? Think about it. (I wonder if Perry Groten chose that image....)

pp.s.: Another Hyperion, Hyperion Power Generation, and some other companies are looking at a possibly greener energy solution that oil refineries: micro-nukes! Hmm... would small nuclear reactors give us greener power... or just a nice green glow?

ppp.s.: Hat tip to eager reader Tony Amert: If we really want to break oil addiction, maybe we could fire up some nuclear reactors next to the ocean and make jet fuel out of seawater.