Jul 13 2009
Nukes are Carbon Cap-and-Trade Deal’s Only Hope
The proposed climate cap-and-trade bill in Congress was always going to be difficult to pass. Republicans just don’t believe in it. And the negative impact of the bill on industrial states shears off important Democratic votes in the Senate. The bill did gain passage in the House, but only by an anemic handful of votes. And the Obama Administration returned home from a global climate change conference without an international deal of which the domestic climate bill would be a part.
So, as things stand, the climate bill is dead. It needs 60 votes in the Senate. And it isn’t even close.
There is, however, one way to change that. And it requires supporters of the climate bill to embrace nuclear power. The New Republic has a nice blog post that suggests a handful of Republicans might be willing to support the climate bill if its renewable energy requirements allowed inclusion of nuclear power. Nuclear supporters are also looking for federal support for plant construction and more favorable regulatory rules.
To me, the argument is compelling. Nuclear power creates only minimal carbon emissions, mostly in plant construction and nuclear fuel extraction. And although the storage of spent nuclear fuel is problematic, it is a manageable problem. And the risks involved with nuclear pale in comparison to the absolute certainty of thousands of deaths from respiratory disease and mercury contamination that stem from coal power production. And the need for large volumes of water in nuclear generation would place Michigan in a competitive situation. We are certainly more capable of producing large amounts of nuclear energy than solar energy.
The big question is whether members of the environmental community can get past their reflexive opposition to nuclear power. But, honestly, there will be no bill without a deal that includes nuclear power. So, by ignoring nukes, environmentalists would essentially be embracing coal. That would be irresponsible. And it would call into question whether the environmental community really believes its rhetoric on global warming. And it seems reasonable that if the Midwest is forced to give up its fossil fuel based industry, then environmentalists should be able to gore a few sacred cows.