Article Contributed on: 6/25/2009 9:05:31 AM
The SUNDAY POST of 06/21/2009 contained an "Op-Ed" page debate concerning the pros and cons of the proposed "Cap and Trade" scheme for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Amazing to me is that neither column made any comment on the viability of nuclear power generation or supported the imminently achievable task of converting coal fired power plants to natural gas. The "pro" cap and trade article was more concerned with developing alternative energy sources and, so called, renewable energies than in reducing emissions. The "con" article's major point was in portraying cap and trade as a tax in a time when new taxes are unsupportable.
Obviously, reducing CO2 emissions from power generation plants is a worthwhile endeavor. Amazingly, neither article addressed an immediately available solution that would be far less expensive than cap and trade plus subsidizing alternative energy solutions. If the federal government is going to "mandate" something, why not mandate AND SUBSIDIZE the conversion of coal fired plants to natural gas. Natural gas power plants emit less than 20% of the CO2 of coal fired plants. This conversion, alone, would achieve the state and federal emission reduction objectives for 2025 and 2050. Natural gas is abundant and price competitive with coal and does not require subsidies from your tax dollars.
Nuclear energy is even cleaner and is also price competitive right now without government subsidies. The infamous Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear accidents were in plants built in the 1960s and 1970s based on 1950s and 1960s technology. The term "nuclear power" is, unfortunately, tied to nuclear bombs and other "weapons of mass destruction" without much regard for the fact that countries like France derive over 75% of their electrical power from nuclear generation plants. (Actually, the US, safely, generates about 20% of its power from nuclear.)
Supporting a combination of immediate conversion of coal to natural gas and building a new generation of nuclear power plants would provide both short and long term solutions to CO2 emissions. The portion of the, so called, "stimulus" package for infrastructure that deals with the national power grid and transmission facilities could be left in place. The process of converting power plants and building nuclear plants would provide longterm, high paying jobs. All of this could run simultaneously with research on cost competitive alternative energy sources. Any government subsidies could be utilized to deploy currently available clean energy sources such as solar and wind. Unfortunately, the sun doesn't always shine...particularly at night!... and the wind doesn't always blow...except in Wyoming...so the nation will need the base load power providers of natural gas and nuclear.
The aforementioned combination would leave us to deal with the tailpipe emissions from autos...oh, yeah, they run great on natural gas, too.
Compare emissions from energy sources: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2.report/co2report.html