Exelon CEO Asks Senate to Put Nukes in Renewable Portfolio Standards

By Michael Kanellos

A very interesting tidbit in the WSJ's Environmental Capital blog today:

John Rowe, CEO nuclear power plant operator Exelon (EXC), suggested in a hearing in the U.S. Senate that nuclear be included in renewable portfolio standards.

That's one way to hit the 20 percent by 2020 mark in the typical RPS standard. Nuclear already accounts for nine percent of the total energy consumed in America, including petroleum, and 20.6 of the electricity generated. That 20.6 percent, by the way, comes from 104 plants. Done.

He also wants $50 billion in loan guarantees.

If anything, the hearings and debates over the energy bill may prod the long awaited showdown on nuclear to occur. Nuclear proponents and opponents have jousted over several topics in the past few years and several companies have begun to suggest new technologies--such as modular nuclear plants--to reduce some of the planning and financial risks associated with nuclear. Unfortunately, it will also be a debate where the known unknows far outweigh the facts. A nuclear plant hasn't been built in the U.S. in years and since then the safety, proliferation and expense issues have become more complex. And the solar and wind companies have this going for them: they will be able to put massive amounts of capacity continue to put capacity in the ground before the first permits to build a new nuclear plant are even granted.

Comments

[Senan:]

Saw a docu the other day that said China would be building 300 nuclear power stations in the coming years! That's growth!

Oct 30 02:58 PM

[DLB40:]

We shouldn't worry. Pretty soon wind power will leap to almost 1% of our needs, and when you add in another 1% for solar we're almost home free. Our future energy needs will be met as follows. We will all have electric cars powered by Chinese built batteries. That'll teach OPEC. We need to stick by our new Asian friends. What could possibly go wrong?

Oct 31 10:01 AM

[lonc1943:]

We need to use all currently available energy sources while the technology is perfected for new energy sources.

Oct 31 10:25 AM

[jerrydd:]

Nukes already have got far too much subsidies nor are they CO2 free as building the plants and mining, making the fuel is far from CO2 free. You really can't call nuke fuel anything but fossil fuel.

I agree the regs need to be lowered some but they saved our butts a decade ago when 3 plants were found to be a hair from meltdown because of shoddy maintaining with the reactor caps almost corroded through. I don't think the Chinese can run a lot of plants without one melting down.

I'm not against especially 4.0 smaller, safer nukes but they need to pay their way.

And by the time they are built will be too late vs RE which we can ramp up fast for far less money, putting in 3-4 x;s as much capacity. As here wind on the east coast and solar happen at peak power times it's far more valuable than nuke which can't be turned off. Nor do you have to worry about fuel costs rising.

Here in Fla they are raising Progresses, FPL customers rates 30% to pay for plant they won't see any output from for 10+ yrs thanks to our repubs. At least FPL is putting in solar, wind of which the largest US solar plant was dedicated the other day by Obama.

Oct 31 10:25 AM

[co sam:]

Am I the only one who doesn't want to do business with china?!
From toys,seafood,drywall,t... knows what else,all harmfull! Can we
just pay our debt with the stimulas money being paid back,and
not be indebted to them and bring jobs back to the U S,develop
our resources.No nukes

Oct 31 01:04 PM

[NEOCON47:]

Adding to the comments above.

If they decide to build nuclear reactors, they should use THORIUM as the fuel; it is safer and more efficient.

Oct 31 07:42 PM