"I'm fed up with the stand-off between renewable and nuclear which means we have neither – we will have both. We will have low-carbon energy, and security of supply."
Chris Huhne, UK Energy and Climate Secretary
Nuclear Perspective at Halfway Through the Semester
In addition to being a word that former President Bush Jr couldn't pronounce, the term "nuclear" is a word that strikes fear into people's hearts about as effectively as the words "The last of the Democrats have been eliminated, Empress Palin" would strike fear into mine. Quicker to associate the term with a mushroom cloud than a ceramic pellet the size of a large tablet, for most individuals the insidious weaponized use of uranium is the first image that materializes in their minds. As one may imagine, it is therefore difficult to promote the construction of new nuclear plants in beautiful, picturesque rural areas, especially when one's competition is focused on promoting a pragmatic and sensible energy system and has certain advantages such as a fleet of globetrotting ships whose crew members do cool things like save endangered species. I am referring, of course, to GREENPEACE, mighty defenders of the bluefin tuna, valiant champions of the Arctic wilderness, and farsighted vanguards of tomorrow's green world order. Taking GREENPEACE head on is a substantial challenge, but it makes for an interesting assignment, especially for a happily entertained Brussels-based stagier.
Let me be clear about a few things. Firstly, I am not opposed to the majority of Greenpeace's core values, nor to the fact that they exist. My disagreement with Greenpeace is solely regarding the incorporation of nuclear energy into the global infrastructure, a move that I view as being potentially necessary in order to meet the energy needs in the coming years. That Greenpeace advocates the use of renewable sources of energy is not a point which I dispute or oppose; rather it is the capacity of such systems where the distinction occurs. For the record, in my view a future scenario in which all energy is produced exclusively by renewable energy would be ace. At this point, however, we must consider what is feasible, safe, and economically sound in determining the best energy policy, and hold ideological opinions at a lesser degree of importance.
Nuclear energy is not the only viable interim alternative to renewable energy. On 30 October 2010, the New York Times ran an article on Exxon Mobil's aggressive investment in their already considerable natural gas infrastructure. William Colton, Vice President of Exxon Mobil's corporate strategic planning, remains supremely confident that natural gas will undergo a resurgence in usage between the existing energy scenario and the completed transition to a 100% renewable portfolio. Colton expects the cap and tax program, offered under the current administration, to be expanded to a national tax on carbon emissions (with the elections in November projected to heavily favor Republican victories across the board, this hypothetical tax is in question). Though neither nuclear energy or natural gas emit carbon dioxide, in Colton's own view the transition into widespread nuclear energy is unattainable in the short term. Note: he has a point. Current estimates on the duration required to build and operationalize a new nuclear plant is between five to seven years by Western standards. The Chinese have been able to reduce the amount of time required to the detriment of ensuring safety standards, a practice that the United States and Europe, for good reason, do not find acceptable.
With a well-developed plethora of competing ideas that present compelling arguments against nuclear energy, it is impossible to predict nuclear energy's role in the future of international energy infrastructures. In the United States, the two proposed plants that Southern Company intended to build were halted after a dispute over loan guarantees, and a third project at Calvert Cliffs near Annapolis has been jeopardized due to similar causes with Constellation Energy. US utilities are much smaller than European firms; consequently the lack of economically viable financing mechanisms presents a major obstacle to their capacity for new developments in ways that would have lesser effects on European energy corporations. Political opposition is an additional force that cannot be overlooked. Support for nuclear is increasing in Europe, and perhaps the United States, but until it is made a more pressing issue to US Representatives and Senators it will be difficult to stimulate legislation that promotes new developments. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), to cite one example, is on the verge of setting the US nuclear industry back decades of work if he continues to stubbornly refuse to allow spent fuel to be stored at the depository at Yucca Mountain.
Creating a political environment receptive to new developments depends on placing a greater emphasis on the nuclear industry in energy related discourse. The intrinsic hurdle that nuclear faces is not that individuals are quick to associate it with negative effects, but that a larger part of society remains ignorant of the issue and of technological advancements in the field. At present, the issue of nuclear energy's role in the future is the subject of academic, industry related, and political debate, with little spill over into the public mindset. The only exceptions are independent, locally based movements that oppose new construction plans or spent fuel depositories from being built near their community. To effectively ensure that nuclear power is utilized to its full potential, the issue must be one that engages the entire public.
Enter SOCIAL MEDIA. Yet the domain of the tech-savvy, cyber-active, avant garde, social media offers the missing link in a fully integrated corporate strategy struggling to communicate with its client base. Differing from public relations, which constitutes the formal avenue of discussion between the corporation and consumers, social media offers the corporation to have an active and engaging part in informal dialogue among its users. Social media fulfills a versatile role, representing companies ranging from multinational corporations to family owned SMEs. Even energy utilities can benefit from social media, as I have been attempting to prove for the previous five weeks. Whether our efforts affect the existing outlook on nuclear energy remains to be seen, but regardless of the ultimate role that nuclear power assumes the communications department at Foratom should be proud to have worked hard at representing a politically charged and highly sensitive issue with exceptional dedication and admirable professionalism.
Nuclear energy is not the only viable interim alternative to renewable energy. On 30 October 2010, the New York Times ran an article on Exxon Mobil's aggressive investment in their already considerable natural gas infrastructure. William Colton, Vice President of Exxon Mobil's corporate strategic planning, remains supremely confident that natural gas will undergo a resurgence in usage between the existing energy scenario and the completed transition to a 100% renewable portfolio. Colton expects the cap and tax program, offered under the current administration, to be expanded to a national tax on carbon emissions (with the elections in November projected to heavily favor Republican victories across the board, this hypothetical tax is in question). Though neither nuclear energy or natural gas emit carbon dioxide, in Colton's own view the transition into widespread nuclear energy is unattainable in the short term. Note: he has a point. Current estimates on the duration required to build and operationalize a new nuclear plant is between five to seven years by Western standards. The Chinese have been able to reduce the amount of time required to the detriment of ensuring safety standards, a practice that the United States and Europe, for good reason, do not find acceptable.
With a well-developed plethora of competing ideas that present compelling arguments against nuclear energy, it is impossible to predict nuclear energy's role in the future of international energy infrastructures. In the United States, the two proposed plants that Southern Company intended to build were halted after a dispute over loan guarantees, and a third project at Calvert Cliffs near Annapolis has been jeopardized due to similar causes with Constellation Energy. US utilities are much smaller than European firms; consequently the lack of economically viable financing mechanisms presents a major obstacle to their capacity for new developments in ways that would have lesser effects on European energy corporations. Political opposition is an additional force that cannot be overlooked. Support for nuclear is increasing in Europe, and perhaps the United States, but until it is made a more pressing issue to US Representatives and Senators it will be difficult to stimulate legislation that promotes new developments. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), to cite one example, is on the verge of setting the US nuclear industry back decades of work if he continues to stubbornly refuse to allow spent fuel to be stored at the depository at Yucca Mountain.
Creating a political environment receptive to new developments depends on placing a greater emphasis on the nuclear industry in energy related discourse. The intrinsic hurdle that nuclear faces is not that individuals are quick to associate it with negative effects, but that a larger part of society remains ignorant of the issue and of technological advancements in the field. At present, the issue of nuclear energy's role in the future is the subject of academic, industry related, and political debate, with little spill over into the public mindset. The only exceptions are independent, locally based movements that oppose new construction plans or spent fuel depositories from being built near their community. To effectively ensure that nuclear power is utilized to its full potential, the issue must be one that engages the entire public.
Enter SOCIAL MEDIA. Yet the domain of the tech-savvy, cyber-active, avant garde, social media offers the missing link in a fully integrated corporate strategy struggling to communicate with its client base. Differing from public relations, which constitutes the formal avenue of discussion between the corporation and consumers, social media offers the corporation to have an active and engaging part in informal dialogue among its users. Social media fulfills a versatile role, representing companies ranging from multinational corporations to family owned SMEs. Even energy utilities can benefit from social media, as I have been attempting to prove for the previous five weeks. Whether our efforts affect the existing outlook on nuclear energy remains to be seen, but regardless of the ultimate role that nuclear power assumes the communications department at Foratom should be proud to have worked hard at representing a politically charged and highly sensitive issue with exceptional dedication and admirable professionalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment