The "Nuclear Renaissance" may not be the resolution to foreign dependence of oil

"Nuclear energy is not just another way to boil water," said Charles
Ferguson, Phillip D. Reed senior fellow for science and technology at
the Council on Foreign Relations. Ferguson was part of a panel at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace discussion addressing
concerns about the "Nuclear Renaissance" being "glamorized" in the
next administration.

Sharon Squassoni, a senior associate in the Nonproliferation Program,
said, "to reduce dependency on foreign oil, nuclear power is not the
way… Nuclear energy only produces electricity, for now. This
inherently limits its ability to substitute for oil. In the U.S., oil
is only used for about 1.6 percent of electricity generation. When you
look at oil producing nations in the Middle East, a lot more of their
electricity generation comes from oil---it's about in the 30 percent
range."

Squassoni argued that in order to pursue nuclear energy, we'll have to
live with foreign dependence. Squassoni said this is due to "the
location of uranium and the structure of nuclear fuel supply. It's not
just uranium mining and milling. Its conversion, fuel fabrication, and
enrichment, so the structure of the nuclear supply industry is very
much concentrated in a hand full of suppliers. "

Dr. Alan Hanson, Executive Vice President of Technologies and Used
Fuel Management of AREVA NC Inc., believes we need to diversify our
fuel supply between countries around the world. When we build nuclear
plants in foreign countries, Hanson said we should "B.O.O.: Build,
Own, Operate," meaning until we can train their workers adequately and
with environmentally friendly culture, we should maintain operation.
This cooperation would require global interdependence on nuclear
energy.

Hanson said since a large portion of the funding for nuclear energy
comes from financing, our economy might make it hard to accomplish
such measures. He said we won't really know the cost, competitive or
not, until after they're built. This requires a lot of confidence in
the next administration, whose leading candidates have somewhat
similar policies on the matter.

Ferguson explained that while Obama and McCain have rather similar
policies on the need for constructing and renewing more nuclear
reactors in the next couple of decades, McCain has more specific goals
of how many reactors and where. Ferguson said the main factor they
differ on is finding nuclear waste repositories. While McCain supports
the nuclear waste repository in the Yucca Mountain ridge, Obama does
not. Ferguson also said McCain supports a market based decision on
fuel supply, while Obama wants to put funding into diversifying fuel
sources.

Shades of green: Obama, McCain advisors on energy policy

The energy policies of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) were discussed at a conference hosted by the National Journal. In addition, panelists discussed their views of the political climate for legislative action in the coming congress.

Elgie Holstein, senior adviser to the Obama Campaign on energy, stated that both McCain and Obama have endorsed a cap and trade approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions, believing it to be the most economically friendly way to meet strict greenhouse gas emissions limitations that the campaign is hoping will become a part of national policy. However, the candidates differ in how aggressive they plan to be. Obama hopes to see a reduction of 80 percent below 1990 levels in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, while McCain would aim for a 60 percent reduction. In addition, Obama plans to auction off credits to companies that choose to continue polluting. Money from these auctions would be used to develop clean-energy technologies and underwrite the labor costs of transitioning to this new technology. McCain would not charge for these pollution credits, though would consider following a plan similar to Obama's years from now.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, domestic policy adviser to the McCain campaign, described McCain's intention of focusing on the vulnerabilities to our economy, environment and national security that our nation's reliance on foreign oil has caused. Holtz-Eakin stated that this reliance puts us at the mercy of leaders who do not share the same values as the United States, including Vladimir Putin and Hugo Chavez. As such, McCain advocates new oil and gas development on US shores, though not in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He also favors research into new technologies to ease this dependence. Conversely, Obama is opposed to offshore exploration, favoring higher auto emissions standards along with a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Despite their different policy preferences, Holstein noted that for the first time both Democrats and Republicans have acknowledged that environmental issues can no longer be ignored.