NJ Business Matters: The Blog of the CIANJ

Nuclear Power, Meet the Law of Supply and Demand

Business groups across the state continue to show their support bolstering New Jersey's nuclear energy infrastructure. This week, NJBiz tried to gauge their feelings on New Jersey's Draft Energy Master Plan, which acknowledges that nuclear generation will likely be part of our energy future if we hope to meet carbon emission goals and energy needs.

While we here at CIANJ are still digesting the EMP's impact on energy costs, we do have some thoughts on the benefits of adding nuclear capacity,

"We don't believe the state can meet its energy needs and carbon reduction goals without nuclear power," says Paul Tyahla, vice president of government affairs and communications at the Paramus-based Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey. Nuclear power, he explains, is the only available source that can produce energy on a large scale but generate virtually no greenhouse gas emissions. "Anything that can increase the supply is going to help lessen upward pressure on energy costs," he says.

Astoundingly well put, no? Mandatory self-promotion aside, the NJ Chamber of Commerce offers similar thoughts,

[The Chamber] supports the state's goal of using renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power to help meet its electricity needs. But "those energy sources are not going to be able to do it alone," says Michael Egenton, the state chamber's vice president of environment and transportation.

In fact, a report conducted by Polestar Applied Technologies found that New Jersey cannot reach its CO2 reduction goals without nuclear power - and that includes the relicensing of the Oyster Creek Generating Station, which is up for renewal in 2009.

There are plenty of myths about nuclear energy and its risks. It's good to know that at least some in the Administration are not willing to ignore the law of supply and demand when it comes to our energy future. Check out the interview below with Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, on the changing mood on nuclear energy.

Italy to Join Nuclear Revival?

From Forbes.com:

FRANKFURT (Thomson Financial) - Enel SpA. plans to build a nuclear power plant in Italy to take advantage of a possible legislative shift in Italy making nuclear power production legal, Financial Times Deutschland reported, citing chief executive Fulvio Conti....

Some 65 percent of Italy's electricity is currently generated from natural gas, and 20 percent is covered by imported power. Conti said Enel could help 'lower this dependence'.

'The revival of interest in nuclear energy gives us another important opportunity to remove the infrastructure deficit and to reduce the cost of energy,' he said.

A novel idea in a country that has had a ban on nuclear energy since 1987. And if a country that opposed to nuclear power can recognize the environmental and cost benefits of building a new nuclear facility, surely the US and New Jersey in particular can turn the same corner. The hurdle that Italy is in the process of overcoming is a political one, not scientific.

Happy Earth Day, Nuclear Energy

Last week the Corzine Administration released its Draft Energy Master Plan, which sets energy policy in the state, and is re-drafted every ten years. Today's Record editorial picks up on a realization within the Draft EMP that CIANJ fully supports - the benefits of nuclear power, especially in today's energy climate.

All two of you regular blog readers know that nuclear energy is the only technologically available source of power that can both produce energy on sufficient scales, while generating virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions. Without it, New Jersey cannot reach its carbon reduction goals. You also know that CIANJ works with the good people at the NJ Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition to build public awareness about all of our energy options. The Record accurately points out the opportunity for growth in one of those choices,

...fission can contribute substantially to the energy supply without producing carbon dioxide and the other emissions that are changing the climate by trapping more of the sun's heat. Nuclear power is also relatively cheap, another important consideration amid rising energy costs and rates.

A draft of a new energy master plan for the state, released last week, notes that Governor Corzine's ambitious goals on reducing greenhouse gases "point toward the need to produce carbon-free electricity at a lower price per megawatt-hour than fossil-fueled plants." That means renewable energy resources such as solar and wind power, cleaner coal technology and nuclear. Of those, nuclear is the only one already providing a substantial portion of the state's energy (about one-fifth).

There are still plenty of individuals and groups that dismiss nuclear power out of hand because...well, just because. What better day to spread the truth about nuclear power than today?

We Thought Congress Wanted Higher Gas Prices? - Updated

Update at 10:51 a.m. - Check out this post from the good people at the Tax Foundation on the comparison of oil company profits to government tax collections since 1981 - glass houses and whatnot.

Good for the Wall Street Journal's editorial board for pointing out the opposing messages coming from Congress on energy policies. Their cap-and-trade scheme would supposedly have the net effect of driving energy prices higher, thus reducing demand and protecting the environment. Yet yesterday, they put on a dog-and-oil executive show to blast oil companies for high profits at a time of high energy costs.

The oil executives performed a public service by pointing out other economic realities. About 70% of the price of gasoline is determined by the global price of crude, which is rising because of world-wide demand and volatility in the commodities markets, not to mention the Federal Reserve's easy-money policy. Congress might also look to its gas mandates and the corset it has laced around domestic production....

(Committee Chairman, Rep. Ed) Markey also used the occasion to threaten special tax increases, grilling the executives about $18 billion in "subsidies," which are actually a tax deduction that Congress itself extended to all manufacturers, including Big Oil. And he demanded that the companies commit 10% of profits to renewable energy. But as an Exxon vice president put it, fossil fuels are still going to account for at least two-thirds of the world's energy consumption in three decades and whatever scientific progress is made, the practical prospects for alternatives remain "very, very small."

Delaware Must Have Some Super-Secret Power Source

The proposed construction of a liquefied natural gas facility on the Jersey side of the Delaware River needs to find a new home, or we'll have to search for a new source of power for the Mid-Atlantic region. We doubt this is what William Penn had in mind when he helped draw state boundaries.

The project proposed by BP would power the equivalent of five million homes by delivering 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily. Months ago it was the subject of a column in CIANJ's COMMERCE Magazine.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled a boundary map drawn in 1682, and a 1905 agreement between New Jersey and Delaware combined to give our friends across the Turnpike Bridge control of the river basin, extending to the Jersey shoreline in the area of the would-be LNG facility.

Opponents of BP's plan hailed the decision as a clear victory for Delaware and its Coastal Zone Act conservation law.

"It's nice to win," said John A. Hughes, secretary of Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. "Our staff very correctly defined this facility as a bulk transfer facility...unequivocally forbidden under the Coastal Zone Act."

Good for the Coastal Zone Act. Not so good if you're one of the 5 million homes that could have had a clean and reliable source of power, or for those who would have been employed by construction and operation of the $650 - $700 million facility.

EMP Might Not Ignore Law of Supply and Demand

The state's Energy Master Plan (EMP) is a few years overdue, but today's Star-Ledger reports that one of the changes CIANJ has long supported will sorta be included - increasing the Garden State's nuclear capacity.

Part of the EMP has been known for more than a year, such as requiring that by 2020 at least 20% of the state's energy is provided via renewable resources. The trouble with that goal is that it is just that -a goal. Demanding an increase from our current level of 2% to 20% in 12 years does not mean such a leap will be technologically or economically feasible. In the interim, steps such as conservation offer the ability to reduce demand through behavioral changes.

On the issue of nuclear energy, regular blog readers know our position: nuclear energy is still the only technologically available method to generate sufficient electricity while producing virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, we fully support the relicensing of our current plants and increasing capacity.

The EMP, which may be released in April, must acknowledge the reality of supply and demand,

While not explicitly calling for a new nuclear power plant, the plan concludes "the greenhouse gas mandates point toward nuclear energy to produce carbon-free electricity at a lower price per megawatt-hour than fossil-fueled plants."

Public Service Enterprise Group, the state's largest power producer, is considering building a nuclear unit in Salem County, where it already has three nuclear stations.

"We are ready to play a key role in promoting conservation and efficiency and expanding renewable sources of energy," Ed Selover, general counsel for PSEG, said in a statement. "We are also actively evaluating the feasibility of a new nuclear plant in South Jersey."

On a per capita basis, New Jersey is already among producers of carbon emissions, and a primary reason is our higher reliance on nuclear power than other states.

APP Comes Out Against Oyster Creek...Generally Speaking

On the heels of the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial supporting the relicensing of the Oyster Creek Generating Station and a federal panel's ruling that the plant's plan regarding corrosion was sufficient to operate safely through 2029, the Asbury Park Press continues its campaign to have the state government do all it can to close down the plant, and reduce the amount of energy in the PJM grid.

The Press editorial is chock full of the anti-nuclear crowd's talking points about vulnerability to terrorist attack, transporting spent fuel rods and the incentive for profit in the nuclear industry.

We just wish the APP would be honest with its readers. The charges levied against Oyster Creek actually make up a case against nuclear energy, not just the station up for renewal in 2009. There is very little in the editorial unique to Oyster Creek.

It's a pity anti-nuclear activists refuse to acknowledge there is a federal licensing process and that licensing is only granted if a plant is deemed to have met safety and environmental standards as set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. New Jersey already gets more than half its electricity from nuclear power, and nuclear energy produces virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions.

A Polestar report found that the Garden State cannot meet its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals without nuclear power. If the Governor were to follow the APP's lead, he would be setting carbon reduction standards that he himself would make more difficult to attain.

Some day, nuclear power may be obsolete. Solar, wind, hydro-electric and yet-to-be discovered clean technologies may develop to the point where they can produce the energy that has made modern life possible. Until then, if we want to reach the carbon goals we have set for ourselves, nuclear must be part of the equation.

We refer you again to a column penned by Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace and current chief scientist for GreenSpirit Strategies, on the importance of nuclear energy in New Jersey.

The Company We Keep

Our friends at the New Jersey Affordable Clean Reliable Energy (NJACRE) Coalition have announced  mounting support for energy policies which both protect the environment and help grow our economy. NJACRE announced today that former Governor Brendan Byrne and former Senator Bill Bradley have joined the coalition, whose goals include increasing awareness about the importance of relicensing the nuclear generating station at Oyster Creek.

The mythbusting continues. NJACRE's full press release is available here.

"In A Word, Science"

Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace and current chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, took some time to write for COMMERCE Magazine about his views as a pro-nuclear environmentalist. Yup, you read that term correctly and it should be more frequent in the environmentalist lexicon - - if the movement really is about science and not politics, of course. All two of you regular blog readers know that nuclear power already provides New Jersey with more than half of its electricity while producing virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions. 

Moore's entire piece is a must-read, but especially relevant to New Jersey is the relicensing of the Oyster Creek Generating Station.

When asked to analyze the impact of retiring Oyster Creek, the Bates-White consulting firm said the economic consequences would be substantial, including a $200 million jump in electric costs. But, so too, would the environmental impact.

Replacing Oyster Creek’s emission-free power with electricity from coal-fired plants, would result in increased CO2 emissions equivalent to adding nearly one million cars to New Jersey roads, or about half a million if the replacement power were to come from natural gas units.

A Battle 325 Years In the Making

William Penn never imagined the language in his land deal would have these types of consequences.

New Jersey and Delaware are set to square off in Washington today over who controls the basin of the Delaware River and whether or not New Jersey can allow BP to build a liquefied natural gas terminal to ultimately bring power to up to 5 million customers daily. Always topical, COMMERCE Magazine featured the proposed terminal and its benefits in our April edition. The trouble for the 5 million or so customers who would benefit is that the First State claims New Jersey does not have the right to authorize construction. The project starts on the Jersey shoreline.

The fight this time is about a proposed $750 million liquefied gas receiving station on the Jersey side. Its pier would extend almost halfway into the river -- far into waters claimed by Delaware under a deed issued to Quaker Colonist William Penn by the Duke of York in 1682.

That deed described a 12-mile circle around New Castle, which later became Delaware's northern border -- including the river and the soil beneath it.

New Jersey contends it has the right "to control development along its shoreline in the 12-mile circle, without interference from Delaware," said Lee Moore, a spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office.

Delaware says it "is defending its ability to protect the health and safety of residents and the environment ... by controlling and abating pollution and industrial uses in the Delaware River," said Jason Miller, spokesman for the state's Department of Justice.

The US Supreme Court is expected to settle the matter today.

PSE&G To Distribute 100,000 Free CFL's

PSE&G, the state's largest electric provider (and a CIANJ member), will provide 100,000 free compact fluorescent light bulbs to its customers.

The Star-Ledger reports,

The bulbs will also be distributed by PSE&G's service technicians when they make service calls and by electrical delivery employees who interact with customers on a daily basis. The installation of 100,000 CFLs will be the equivalent of taking 9,000 cars off the road for one year, saving about 40,000 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, [PSEG President Ralph] Izzo said.

The bulbs, which will be targeted toward low and moderate-income households, will save customers about $30 per year over their lifetime.

The Record coverage notes that PSE&G has other plans for the state, acknowledging that conservation alone will not sufficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions,

It wants state approval to finance customers' installations of solar panels, energy–efficient appliances and other equipment. Its proposals call for rate increases to help pay for the effort.

It also wants to build a new nuclear plant in South Jersey and realizes it needs to promote conservation and renewable energies first to win the public's approval, Izzo said.

"To the extent that we get prompt state action to create that business opportunity for utilities, we'll then show others that you can do well by doing good," he said.

Both you regular blog readers know that while we support conservation efforts that do not put NJ at a competitive disadvantage, there is still only one source of electricity which both generates on a sufficient scale and produces no greenhouse gas emissions - nuclear power.

PSEG President Separates Fact from Fiction on Nuclear Energy

This morning's Record previews the state's revised Energy Master Plan, a directive outlining NJ's energy policy expected to be released in draft form during December. The paper hits on a topic all too farmiliar to readers of NJ Business Matters - the need to promote nuclear energy as a means to meet both our generation needs and greenhouse gas reduction targets. Remember, nuclear energy emits virtually zero greenhouse gases, and already provides more than half of New Jersey's electricity.

"I hope that people recognize that you cannot preserve the quality of life and standard of living that we have just through energy efficiency and renewables. You just cannot make the math work," said Ralph Izzo, president and CEO of PSEG. "Therefore, I would hope that they would leave nuclear in there [the plan]."

For more information on nuclear energy and the importance of relicensing our existing plants, check out the website of our friends at NJACRE.org.

The November edition of COMMERCE Magazine will feature a column by Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, on the issue of nuclear energy. We'll point you to it when the column becomes available on-line. 

234 Economists Warn Against Weakening Energy Supplies and Increasing Prices

The National Taxpayers Union has released a letter signed by 234 economists (including 4 from Rutgers) warning against market-restrictions and higher taxes contained in this year's energy bill. For more than three decades legislation has attempted to ensure Americans use more of the "good" energy which is scarcely available. For more than three decades our blend of energy uses has remained largely unchanged. The last time Congress attempted this with ethanol subsidies, they managed to drive up food and fuel prices with one bill. Pretty impressive.

The letter states,

We, the undersigned economists, write to strongly advise against the inclusion of damaging anti-market provisions in the energy legislation now moving through Congress. History has shown that attempts by the federal government to tax, regulate, and subsidize our way to more plentiful and secure energy have failed miserably. This Congress ought not to repeat those expensive mistakes when considering energy policy.

It is available in its entirety here.

Don't Call It a Comeback

Today's Washington Post features further proof of nuclear power's resurgence in American energy discussions. As always, we remind the blogosphere that nuclear power is the only technologically available capability which both produces energy on a large scale while generating virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions.

The Post does an adequate job in addressing the waste disposal, cost and political concerns while noting that Congress has passed legislation to authorize loan guarantees that have sparked a relative slew of applications to build new reactors.

For President Bush, getting new nuclear plants built has been a priority since his first months in office. "America should also expand a clean and unlimited source of energy: nuclear power," Bush said in May 2001. In a Gallup poll in March 2007, 53 percent of Americans surveyed favored the use of nuclear energy, little changed from the 57 percent who favored it when Gallup first asked the question in 1994.

There are 104 nuclear plants operating in 31 states now, and they provide about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. France, in contrast, relies on nuclear energy for 80 percent of its electricity. But no new U.S. plant has been completed since 1996. (The Tennessee Valley Authority this year reopened one it had closed in 1985.)

With plant construction frozen, U.S. nuclear facilities have boosted output by becoming more efficient. Utilization rates that once lagged around 70 percent now routinely exceed 90 percent. But proponents of nuclear power say that with electricity use rising, the country needs to build 30 or so more plants by 2025 for nuclear to provide the same share of the country's power.

Scientists studying climate change have tossed around even more ambitious figures. To solve one-seventh of the global greenhouse gas problem, Princeton University professors Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala estimate that the world would need to triple current nuclear capacity. The U.S. share of that expansion (including replacement of aging plants) would require building about five nuclear reactors a year for 50 years.

In New Jersey, more than half of our electricity is produced via nuclear power - a major reason the Garden State produces some of our nation's lowest emission levels on a per capita basis.

The full Post article is available here and is a must read for regular blog readers. In the November issue of COMMERCE Magazine, look for a column by Dr. Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) on the importance of nuclear power in New Jersey's energy infrastructure. 

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions "Not Possible" Without Nuclear Power

Our friends at the New Jersey Affordable Clean Reliable Energy Coalition have posted the latest Polestar Applied Technology/Nuclear Energy Institute analysis of New Jersey's future energy needs to their website.

The report details the future of energy in the state, to determine the necessity of relicensing existing nuclear plants or building new ones. The report estimates a demand increase of between 24% and 44% depending on our growth by 2019. Given that, it concludes,

It is not possible to achieve the desired CO2 emission reductions without nuclear power. Even with unprecedented levels of new renewable generating capacity, increased reliance on natural gas and premature closure of oil- and coal-fueled plants, it is necessary to renew the licenses of Oyster Creek and Salem 1 just to meet the RGGI limit in the low-growth scenario. In the high-growth scenario, achieving the RGGI goal will require license renewal of existing nuclear capacity plus the addition of a new nuclear plant.

To view the findings in greater detail, click here.

Restricting Access to Our Own Resources - LNG Island Edition

The Star-Ledger today supports further exploration of constructing an off-shore Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Island off the coast of Sandy Hook. The LNG facility would serve as a way to bring LNG to the Northeast in order to power and heat homes and businesses through an option seen as more environmentally friendly than coal or oil. Of course, if you cannot get the LNG to those homes or businesses, then the trillions of cubic feet which sit off our coastline become useless and energy independence becomes little more than campaign fodder.

In April, when no one was actually reading the blog, we discussed BP's plan to build an LNG terminal in the Delaware River Basin which would provide the equivalent of roughly 15% of the region's power supply. Regarding the possibility of an island 20 miles off the coast of Sandy Hook, the Ledger reminds us,

Ships would deliver LNG every three days or so, and the $1.7 billion installation would then convert the liquid back to a gas and pipe it to shore to supply New Jersey, New York and the Northeast.

Some environmental groups and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-6th Dist.) are already insisting the dangers of this proposal outweigh the potential benefits from a greater natural gas sup ply and the consequent prospect of lower prices for residential and business customers.

LNG importation does raise serious and legitimate concerns. Tankers and the island plant could be tempting targets for terrorists. A fire or explosion, whether deliberate or accidental, would create a massive fireball. Construction of the island could threaten the ocean ecosystem.

But Atlantic Sea Island's proposal merits more than a reflexive rejection. It deserves a thorough scientific and political review before any decision is made to approve or sink it.

The knee-jerk reaction in opposition to the construction of any new plant does not help our policy situation: we have growing energy demand with no way to meet it without new sources. Limiting access to our own (clean) natural resources would make it pretty cold and dark around here; especially given the opposition from enviros to clean natural gas and to emission free nuclear power.

BPU Approves Solar Energy Program with $6 Bil. Price Tag

The Board of Public Utilities (BPU) yesterday approved a plan to promote solar energy in the Garden State. The Star-Ledger reports on the cost of the program, which has a goal of having 2% of New Jersey's energy generated via solar power.

[T]he program, described by advocates as one of most far-reaching solar-energy initiatives in any state, has alarmed some consumer advocates and manufacturing interests who fear it will saddle customers with even higher bills in a state that traditionally has had some of the most expensive energy rates in the country.

The program, if kept in place, could cost up to $6 billion by 2036, according to state officials.

"Is this a perfect program? No," said BPU Commissioner Joseph Fiordaliso, who chaired many of the meetings that led to the plan. "It's really a beginning, a step forward to propelling New Jersey to the forefront of solar energy."

Fiordaliso pledged the program would not be a bottomless pit where government money is wasted to achieve the 2 percent goal.

"If prices don't drop, we'll re-evaluate the program as we go along," he said.

Solar power offers the opportunity to generate electricity while producing no emissions, and therefore may be a worthy avenue to further explore. But $6 billion for 2% of our energy?

Remember, nuclear power already generates 52% of New Jersey's electricity while producing no emissions. The two avenues for reducing greenhouse gases do not need to be mutually exclusive, but some of our environmentalist friends need to recognize that point as well. Remember that point during the ongoing debate surrounding relicensing of the Oyster Creek Generating Station, which if it shut down would drive energy prices up by another $190 million.

Full article available here. 

Slow Go

If we keep agreeing with the mainstream media, life is going to get pretty boring around the worldwide headquarters of CIANJ. Yesterday, the Star-Ledger urged Governor Corzine to advance his wind farm proposals slowly, given the potentially harmful impacts on shipping, ocean life and quality of life for New Jersey's residents. Wind power has not yet demonstrated that it can generate enough power to supply an economy and the quality of life we have come to enjoy. Being in favor of alternative energy is one thing, but sprinting toward it without scientific validation is another. The Ledger proclaims,

The administration should do two things to clear the air on wind power. First, Corzine should say flat out that he won't move forward unless the needed studies show the windmills won't make problems, whether for sea creatures, beach tourists or anyone else.

Second, the Board of Public Utilities, which is putting together the upcoming solicita tion for wind farm proposals, should make the governor's vow of being properly cautious a formal part of the solicitation language. That way, everyone will be on notice that science and economics -- not the dreams of wind farm developers, no matter how well-inten tioned -- are driving the exploration process.

It could take some time for the scientific and economic questions to be settled. The DEP hasn't awarded its environmental study yet, and the effort could take as long as 18 months. But even the governor's blue-ribbon panel on wind power said last year that a test project shouldn't move forward until the studies are done.

Just recently, a top Long Island Power Authority official recommended canceling a proposed wind farm project off the island's south shore because the cost had risen to a stagger ing $700 million-plus. Another wind project in Texas also was canceled for financial reasons, and one off Massachusetts has been becalmed by many of the same questions that wind power critics here are raising.

Oh by the way, there is one source of power which can generate electricity on a large-scale and produces virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions. Yet many of the same environmentalists looking to promote one unproven technology are against nuclear power.

For information on an organization CIANJ has joined to counter some of the myths surrounding nuclear energy (which already supplies NJ with 52% of its electricity), visit www.NJACRE.org.

$190 Million In Energy Prices At Stake At Oyster Creek

Closing the nuclear generating station at Oyster Creek, which can power up to 600,000 homes, would cost more than $300 million - with electricity prices rising by $190 million for New Jersey's homeowners and businesses, according to an analysis released to the media yesterday.

A point emphasized in the Bates White, LLC analysis (sponsored by Exelon) is the role the plant plays in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

If Oyster Creek were retired from service, the electricity it currently provides could not be replaced by generation from other existing carbon-free nuclear plants, which already operate essentially non-stop except for refueling and maintenance outages.  Nor could renewable generation replace a significant amount of Oyster Creek’s power.  Resources such as wind generators cannot produce the round-the-clock baseload output provided by Oyster Creek. 

As a result, replacing the energy produced by Oyster Creek would require increased natural gas-fired or coal-fired generation, producing large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO₂).  We estimate that, if Oyster Creek’s output were replaced with increased generation from coal, the annual increase in CO₂ emissions would be the equivalent of the output of 920,000 cars.  Replacement with natural gas generation would cause annual CO2 emissions equivalent to that of 460,000 cars.  Furthermore, in a carbon-constrained future, the value of a large greenhouse gas-free baseload generation source such as Oyster Creek will only be enhanced by the recent Supreme Court rulings, which may hasten the retirement of baseload coal plants.

The analysis points out what regular blog readers have read time and again here at NJ Business Matters - one day, nuclear power may become obsolete. However, we currently possess one technology that can generate significant power while producing virtually no greenhouse gas emissions. Utilizing that technology is the only way to responsibly reach goals set forth by Governor Corzine in Executive Order 54 and by the legislature through the Global Warming Response Act. Patting yourself on the back for setting goals is far different than actually taking steps to reach them.

Asbury Park Press coverage here.

The complete report is available by clicking here.

Lawsuits: The Last Frontieer in the Last Frontieer

Apparently, we'll be burning a lot of pixels discussing energy today. While our first two posts concerned filling New Jersey's energy needs through a non-emitting technology and the anti's attempts to stop it, this one focuses on national energy needs which could be met in Alaska and (you guessed it) the anti's attempts to stop it.

Environmentalists in the Last Frontieer are suing to prevent Shell from exploring the Beaufort Sea more than six months after the project was APPROVED by the Department of the Interior. As the Wall Street Journal editorial board aptly notes, Shell was extraordinarily responsible in its approach to this project,

In fact MMS conducts a comprehensive environmental review. Ultimately, it found that the project would have "no significant impact" on the ecosystem. The agency has also spent more than $20 million studying the feeding and migratory behavior of the bowhead whales in the Beaufort Sea. Based on that research, it attached additional approval conditions on Shell beyond the statutory law designed to mitigate any possible effects.

Part of the environmental complaint was that Shell would disrupt the Inupiat Eskimos' annual subsistence whale hunt. But the company brokered a "conflict avoidance agreement" that will stop all work for part of the migration season. As for oil spills, the two drill ships Shell would deploy were specially engineered to operate safely in the conditions of the Beaufort Sea. Plus, they'd be attended by an armada of barges to respond in case of an accident.

Even this painstaking and very expensive process wasn't enough. In short, it's hard to imagine any further precautions that would satisfy the environmentalists--short of a total ban on offshore drilling, which of course is their real objective. The environmentalists are pursuing a litigation strategy against every government agency involved. They have appealed decisions of the Environmental Protection Agency, threatened to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service, among others, and even sued to retroactively roll back all lease sales.

Now, even if Shell is successful, their project will likely be delayed another year as the window for exploration closes with the winter ice that will soon form. An estimated 27 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 8.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil remain untapped as America clamors for energy independence. Being the only nation to restrict access to our own resources and attempts to blitz nuclear energy are curious ways of reaching that goal.

They're Environmentalists, We're Spin Doctors

The Asbury Park Press is running an editorial in today's edition blitzing the New Jersey Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition (NJACRE) for hiring lobbyists who will focus on the relicensing of the Oyster Creek Generating Station.

Apparently nervous that their case for license renewal is looking shaky, the owners of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey have turned to two well-connected hired guns to help bolster it.

Two lobbyists with lengthy resumes in New Jersey government set up a conference call with the media last week to announce the formation of a coalition to advocate for nuclear energy and, more specifically, a 20-year license extension for the aging Oyster Creek plant.

A main thrust of NJACRE is to spread accurate information regarding nuclear power in New Jersey. So few people recognize that more than half of New Jersey's electricity is provided by nuclear energy. That, combined with the fact nuclear energy emits virtually no greenhouse gases makes the case for relicensing CURRENT facilities pretty strong. Those facts rarely make it to the editorial pages of newspapers but they are important during public policy discussions.

For someone such as a former President of the Board of Public Utilities and elected official to help communicate that message seems perfectly rational - ad hominem arguments notwithstanding. 

Oysters, Viewpoints and Darkness

Connecticut officials are gleeful this morning after a District Court judge effectively halted the construction of a natural gas transmission line across Long Island Sound. The project would have helped allow Long Island to meet the energy demands of a population and an economy. You know - things like schools, businesses and heating homes. The objections, according to the Hartford Courant,

Connecticut officials have objected to the project because of concerns about what effect dredging operations would have on water quality and on underwater habitats, including those for oysters and clams. At the same time, they've questioned what benefits the state might get from the project, since the pipeline's main purpose is to increase the natural gas supply on Long Island.

The Islander East project has also incited local opposition in Branford's picturesque shoreline communities of Stony Creek, Juniper Point and the Thimble Islands.

In celebratory press releases, the Connecticut officials rallied against the omnipotent "energy interests", failing to note that if those interests were not around we wouldn't be able to enjoy our modern world. In this case, "modern" means post 16th Century.

Venue Shopping on Global Warming

Your friendly neighborhood blogger spent some quality time at the Jersey shore last week, resulting in some light late-week posting. Well rested and extremely well-fed we return with the usual blogging vigor, starting with a story posted to Planet Gore on Friday...

Advocates of certain causes will jettison the legislative process if they feel it is not working, or if it is doing silly things like gathering the facts about the true cost of legislation.

So, warns Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Attorneys General are working with environmental groups to create public support for lawsuits to advance climate change policy goals. The ultimate goal would be to have the private sector shoulder the burden of something unattainable through the proper legislative vehicles which are comprised of people who have to answer to the general public.

In anticipation of the same manuever seen during the days of tobacco lawsuits, Horner is filing freedom of information requests in states suspected of engaging in the aforementioned abuses. New Jersey is on the short list.

On the National Review blog, Horner writes, 

We'll see how what we know squares with what is produced, and go from there, though I have little doubt that some stonewalling will make this a more energy-intensive effort than it should be; but as the tobacco AGs learned, there's usually one party who coughs up the documents at which point the games must come to an end.

The complete text of the California version of his letter is available here.

CIANJ Joins Coalition for Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy

The Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey today joined fellow business organizations, policy leaders and labor organizations to launch the New Jersey Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Coalition (NJACRE) to educate New Jerseyans about alternative sources of energy and the importance of nuclear power in New Jersey's energy future. Former Board of Public Utilities President, Dr. Ed Salmon, chairs the alliance.

Nuclear energy already generates more than 50% of New Jersey's electricity and emits virtually zero greenhouse gases. New Jersey's reliance on nuclear power is the primary reason the Garden State generates some of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita in the United States.

"There is presently one technology, nuclear power, that both generates significant energy and produces virtually no carbon emissions," said CIANJ President John Galandak. "The need to join other nations in maximizing that technology's potential has never been greater."

Both you regular blog readers know that earlier this year, Governor Corzine signed Executive Order 54 and the Global Warming Response Act, which require the state to reduce greenhouse emissions approximately 20% by the year 2020. To meet those goals while producing the energy required to keep the NJ economy growing, nuclear technology must continue to play a significant role.

As CIANJ President John Galandak noted,

Reaching the energy needs that have made modern life and our modern economy possible, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions must not be opposing goals. It is disappointing that some choose to demand goals be met while opposing the best currently available technology to meet them. NJACRE will be an important voice in spreading the truth about nuclear power and I am proud that the CIANJ will once again, be at the forefront.

For more information, visit www.NJACRE.org

Natual Gas to 5 Million Customers - and Delaware Says No

New Jersey has hired a special counsel to argue before the US Supreme Court that the Garden State has the right to approve a pier on its side of the Delaware River which would be used as a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal.

BP plans to build the terminal in an effort to bring power to up to 5 million customers per day. In April, a court appointed special master found Delaware had the right to veto an application which extends to its side of the river.

COMMERCE Magazine featured the terminal and its benefits in the April edition.

BP plans to significantly expand its current investment in New Jersey through the construction of a $700 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal in Logan Township.The Crown Landing project is expected to deliver 1.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, or enough natural gas to supply approximately five million homes per day in the Mid-Atlantic region. That's roughly equivalent to 15 percent of the region's current average energy demand of 7.8 billion cubic feet per day.

The facility will be capable of storing more than 9.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas (450,000 cubic meters of LNG)—a significant supply buffer against unforeseen
supply problems such as hurricanes or pipeline outages.

If plans such as this continue to be rejected based on parochial interests, it's going to get pretty cold and dark around here.

House Passes Energy Restricting Legislation

chaThe White House has released its Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) indicating a strong possibility the President will veto legislation that would make energy more expensive for American consumers - both individual and corporate. The full SAP is available here and worth reading a line-by-line rebuke of some of the demagoguery being generated on Capitol Hill. Of particular note,

The stated goal of energy reform by the new majority in the House of Representatives was “to achieve energy independence, strengthen national security, grow our economy and create jobs, lower energy prices, and begin to address global warming.” The Administration is disappointed that the House has produced no such legislation, and instead is planning to consider H.R. 2776 and H.R. 3221, two bills that are not serious attempts to increase our energy security or address high energy costs. In fact, the combination of these two bills will result in less domestic oil and gas production, higher taxes to disadvantage a single targeted industry, and duplicative energy efficiency and R&D efforts that are largely underway already.

On Saturday, following twenty-four hours of maneuvering that included closing a vote EARLY to ensure a desirable result on a procedural motion, the House passed both measures on Saturday. Roll call votes available here and here. The latter will impose $16 billion in energy taxes on the American people.

Hold Your Breath

Our legal system has plenty of entry points for "creative" plaintiffs looking to benefit themselves. Given that, and the fact global warming is all the rage these days, UCLA Law professor Stephen Bainbridge warns of the slew of lawsuits directed at business which he expects to be filed based on climate change.

Earlier this year, Texas trial lawyer Stephen Susman told the Dallas Morning News that "You're going to see some really serious exposure on the part of companies that are emitting CO2." He added, for good measure, that "I can't say for sure it's going to be as big as the tobacco settlements, but then again it may even be bigger."

Indeed, trial lawyers are gearing up to turn global warming into their next pot of gold. A coalition of environmental groups and cities are suing the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank of the United States for making loans to finance oil pipelines, oil drilling, and similar projects that supposedly result in a net emission of billions of tons of carbon dioxide. After Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans trial lawyers Gerald Mapes and Timothy Porter sued dozens of energy companies, claiming they had contributed to global warming.

More than 2 percent of America's GDP is spent on litigation, and Bainbridge warns settlements on tobacco, obesity may have paved the way for global warming suits. Breathers beware.

Gov. DuPont on Limiting Access to Our Own Resources

Congress, once again, had the opportunity to have an impact on America's highest-in-the-industrialized-world natural gas prices. Unfortunately, they once again failed to pass legislation which would codify a moratorium on off-shore drilling to a distance of 50 miles, while allowing states to choose whether they wish to explore their own coastlines after that point. Before America decided to become the only nation on Earth to restrict access to its own resources, we paid the lowest natural gas rates in the industrialized world. Now we pay the highest - while sitting on 420 trillion cubic feet of it. That pesky law of supply and demand just refuses to abide by Congressional efforts of repeal.

Today, former Delaware Gov. Pete du Pont uses his space in the Wall Street Journal to make the case for increasing energy production through oil and natural gas exploration, and for the addition of non-emission producing nuclear plants. As the current chair of the National Center for Policy Analysis explains,

[T]he Senate voted in June to mandate a reduction in projected future oil usage of 10 million barrels a day, or 35%, which, since our domestic oil production is declining, means less imports. In other words, Congress wants to block drilling for more American oil while at the same time blocking the importation of oil--not a rational energy policy.

On the other side of the coin is the need for more refineries to produce the oil products we need: gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and plastics. Twenty-five years ago we had 254 oil refineries; today there are just 145 (although they are a bit more productive) since we haven't built a new refinery in America for 30 years.

Then there is nuclear power, America's largest pollution-free source of energy. One hundred four nuclear plants supply about 20% of our electricity, and we could build many more. As President Bush pointed out two weeks ago, "Our country has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s." He recommends that we build three new nuclear plants a year to meet our energy needs. But new nuclear plants have been continually opposed by the liberal establishment that now controls Congress.

All of this done without a way to address our present and future energy needs. As we have noted time and again, nuclear power, oil and natural gas may someday become obsolete. However, they all meet our present energy needs and nuclear power is the only option available which both produces significant energy and results in nearly zero emissions. Rather than hampering America's technological advancements in these areas, Congress should allow American industry to flourish. It may not make for flashy photo-ops, but it does keep the lights on.

Rudy and Energy Independence

Earlier this week, we blogged on the YouTube Democratic Debate and the candidates' answers to a question on the need to reinvigorate America's nuclear infrastructure. That entry, with the video, is available here. Today, Mayor Giuliani writes about part of his plan for America's energy independence. The mayor stresses some themes developed here at NJ Business Matters - including the necessity to remove regulatory burdens to ensure we do not limit access to our own resources, and the need to promote nuclear technology. Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record (or a short-circuited iPOD - depending on your age), but nuclear technology already provided New Jersey with more than half of its electricity while producing virtually no emissions.

Just like Brazil is ahead of us in ethanol, France is ahead of us in nuclear power. Eighty percent of the electricity in France comes from nuclear power. Only twenty percent of electricity in America is generated by nuclear power and it's going to go down to fifteen percent in the future if we don't do something about it. We invented the peaceful use of nuclear power, but we've let other countries get ahead of us. There is no reason for that. No one's ever died from nuclear power in the United States. Despite that fact, we haven't licensed a new nuclear power plant in the United States in 30 years.

America has more coal than Saudi Arabia has oil. If we can compete and make cost effective the process of carbon sequestration, clean coal, we can rely on coal to a much larger extent. And we can rely on it without harming the environment.

We also must increase our use of solar power, wind power and hydro-power. We can reduce energy costs and reduce pollution through conservation. And if we can figure out how to change our electrical grid to a digital grid we'll be able to use our energy on a much more efficient and consistent basis.

YouTube Debate on Nuclear Energy

If you watched last night's YouTube Democratic debate, you saw a question posed by Shawn from Ann Arbor about nuclear power as part of the matrix used to address global climate change. Regular blog readers already know that nationally, 20% of America's electricity is provided via nuclear power and that number is 50% in New Jersey - a prime reason NJ has some of the lowest per capita carbon rates in America. The candidate responses are available here. The answers range from being in favor of exploration, to opposed to being agnostic on the issue. Of course the latter two answers want an investment in renewable resources (which we're not opposed to), but never get to how we can meet our increasing energy needs in the interim. As we've said, nuclear power may some day be obsolete, but it is a presently available answer to our present problem.

In NJ, license renewals are nearly due at most of our reactors, and, as NJ.com is reporting, there may be a proposal for a new one to help meet our energy needs.  As a the organization that works to deliver power to all our homes points out,

Paula DuPont-Kidd, spokeswoman for Valley Forge, Pa.-based PJM, which operates a wholesale electricity market and power grid serving customers in the region, said an array of energy sources are needed to keep up with demand.

But especially in New Jersey, she said, new generation or construction is crucial.

"In the eastern region there are a number of plants that are 40 years old and older, and plants are deciding: Is it economically viable to make upgrades, or does it make sense to retire it?"(emphasis ours)

With the time required from application to operation, and the goals set forth by NJ's Energy Master Plan, Executive Order 54 and the Global Warming Response Act, the time to explore this avenue is now.

Update at 9:58: A hat tip to the Nuclear Energy Institute's "Nuclear Notes Blog" (now part of our blogroll) for posting the video clip of the debate, viewable below.

Then What?

One of our gripes with some in the environmental movement is their swiftness in pointing out the problems with coal, and oil as they supposedly contribute to global warming, without offering much in terms of solutions. Of course, there's a technology which we presently possess that produces zero carbon emissions and can supply sufficient energy to meet our needs - nuclear power. Presently, 52% of New Jersey's electricity is produced by nuclear energy, which is why we are one of the best states in terms of carbon released per capita. That's not good enough for some, and it's facts like these that make the following story so interesting.

PSEG is committed to being environmentally friendly. They're one of the first utilities to use hybrid vehicles for their bucket trucks and are committed to meeting the goals of the Global Warming Response Act. Today The Record reports,

PSEG Power will spend more than $700 million to cut pollution from its big Jersey City power plant -- a move that should improve air quality in Bergen County and beyond.

A $700 million investment in cutting pollution impresses environmentalists, but

One environmental activist welcomed the health benefits the cleaner air will bring. Still, he noted the changes at the Hudson Generating Station will do little to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. The plant is one of the region's largest sources of that pollutant, which scientists blame for raising temperatures worldwide.

Tackling global warming "will necessitate an end to reliance on coal and it would have been easier to meet that goal if PSEG had more vision on this particular site,"

Yet when it comes to nuclear energy, and the Oyster Creek Generating Station, the same environmental group is against that as well.

Just wondering how folks plan on meeting NJ's, America's and the world's increasing energy needs in the near-term. Maybe one day nuclear power will be obsolete, but it is one of the present solutions to our present problem, and NJ has already benefited immensely from it. We should continue investment in this technology, or it's going to get pretty cold and dark around here.

Windmills Turn, Tempers Burn

It's easy to take the stage at Live Earth and rail against businesses, calling them "traitors" in one of the most extreme examples. However, as we have been pointing out time and again (and again...and again) addressing climate change is going to involve real trade-offs - and our political leaders are not being honest with us.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal editorialized about "cap and trade" schemes that put direct costs on businesses, who then pass them on to consumers. Rep. Dingell (D-MI) is willing to propose a carbon tax to drive home the point about the true costs of having a significant impact on the world's temperature (what is the proper temperature of the Earth anyway?).

Today, the sleepy town of Long Beach Island is coming to grips with the same reality. Enter Michael Mercurio, who was able to reduce his electric bills to near zero through the windmill in his yard and solar panels on his roof. On the other side of the picket fence are Mr. Mercurio's neighbors, fed up with the noise the windmills generate and who have taken their case to the town and the courts. As today's New York Times reports

“People have a right to use any resource on their property, just like oil, coal,” [Mercurio] added. “I don’t understand why they are against this. I really don’t.”

Maybe because, as Mr. Mercurio’s neighbors Patricia Caplicki and John Miller say in the lawsuit, in a 14-mile-per-hour wind, the three fiberglass blades produce noise greater than 50 decibels, the rough equivalent of light traffic or a noisy refrigerator.

The suit also says that the spinning blades throw “strobe-like shadows” on their property from noon to sunset.

“It’s not that we’re doing anything to stop the world from turning green,” said George M. Cafarelli, a lawyer for Ms. Caplicki and Mr. Miller who said he had asked them not to discuss the suit with a reporter. “We’re jousting at windmills which have been put up in inappropriate places.”

Richard J. Shackleton, the lawyer for the township, said that officials here were cognizant of environmental concerns and encouraged the use of alternative energy sources like solar panels. (Mr. Mercurio already has 56 solar panels on his home.)

But on a 21-mile-long barrier island that is home to about 9,000 people, Mr. Shackleton said, windmills present a safety hazard and disturb the aesthetics.

Maybe you think Mr. Mercurio's neighbors have a legitimate gripe and maybe you think they are utilizing the grand logic of NIMBYism. What should be absolutely clear is that there is going to be a cost paid somewhere and by someone if we are going to address climate change. Once we've accepted that reality - and it would help if we got some honesty from Trenton and Washington - we can begin to make sound decisions.

An Inconvenient Tax

An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal pats Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) on the back for pointing out what should be obvious: you cannot greatly reduce carbon emissions at no cost to consumers. To drive his point home, Rep. Dingell will introduce a tax on carbon emissions, effectively increasing gas prices at a time Members of Congress are busy blasting oil companies.

Mr. Dingell knows all this. His point is to force his colleagues--and the voters--to be more honest about the cost of their global-warming posturing. It's one thing to pay 100 bucks to hear Madonna at the "Live Earth" concert, or impress your girlfriend by wearing an "I reduced my carbon footprint" T-shirt. It's quite another to accept that energy prices would have to rise by many multiples to make even a degree's worth of difference to the world's climate. "I sincerely doubt that the American people will be willing to pay what this is really going to cost them," Mr. Dingell said on C-SPAN last week.

That's why most politicians prefer policy artifice that disguises the cost of raising energy prices. These policy tricks include higher automobile mileage standards and a "cap and trade" regime for swapping "credits" for carbon emissions. These schemes shift the direct costs onto businesses, which then pass them along indirectly to unwitting consumers. These policies still amount to taxes on energy use, but they allow politicians and green lobbyists to pretend that you can "save the world" for the price of a concert ticket.

As part of New Jersey's Global Warming Response Act, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) must develop a plan by 2008 for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels (a 20% reduction) by 2020. Some policies attempted by the federal government have proven ineffective,

As it happens, neither cap and trade nor higher fuel mileage standards would reduce emissions all that much, if at all. Most of Europe has been busting through its carbon limits under the Kyoto Protocol, while the mileage mandates imposed in the U.S. in the 1970s didn't stop Americans from purchasing SUVs and trucks. The only thing that has slowed those sales is $3 gasoline--thus the policy logic of Mr. Dingell's tax proposal....

Speaking for ourselves, we don't favor a carbon tax. In theory, such a tax might make sense if it were offset by lower taxes on income tax rates and capital investment--which would be a net plus for economic growth. However, there's not a chance in melting Greenland that the current Congress would offset any new carbon taxes; it would merely pocket the extra revenue to permanently increase the government's share of GDP.

No word yet on the Vegas line on whether the DEP will choose to attempt the same policies here in New Jersey or move toward an energy source such as nuclear power - which already generates 52% of our electricity and produces zero emissions.

New British PM OK's New Nuclear Plants

While some in New Jersey are looking to deny the relicensing of the Oyster Creek nuclear facility (remember that more than 50% of NJ's electricity is provided by non-carbon emitting nuclear power), Britain's new Prime Minister is moving forward with a new generation of nuclear plants.

Mr Brown said it was vital to safeguard the UK's power supply, and warned the country would be reliant on foreign energy sources if it did not look to replace 16 power stations due to be decommissioned over the next 20 years.

The permitting process in New Jersey takes as many as ten years and the state's energy demands continue to rise. Cell phones, laptops and the other tools each of us have become accustom to drain energy. The time to begin advancing our nuclear capability is now.

Serious Ways to Address Global Warming Now

Assemblyman Michael Carroll and PSE&G President Ralph Izzo are splashed across the print media and blogosphere with practical ways to address climate change through current technologies.

While environmental "advocates" are often quick to point out flaws in the current system, there is a sometimes pathological denial that trade-offs will exist and an inability to offer viable solutions. For his part, Assemblyman Carroll offers up some practical solutions available right now to help NJ reach the goal of having more of its energy be produced by sources that do not generate carbon emissions,

[W]e could eliminate the sales tax on all high mileage vehicles. Instantly, everyone gets a $2000 price break on a Prius...Eliminate the tax on ethanol, rendering it more competitive. Aggressively promote the solar energy fund, and provide income tax credits for those who convert their homes. Amend building codes (if necessary) to provide for better solar alignment of homes and installation of energy saving devices, such as "geothermal", radiant heating/cooling systems. IMMEDIATELY CEASE all efforts to deny relicensing of Oyster Creek and, indeed, encourage more nuclear plant construction, both in NJ and regionally. Encourage use of personal wind turbines, where practicable, by exempting them from zoning regulations. Link heavy rail with light surface rail and ultra-light surface rail (exempt construction thereof from cost-generating rules like prevailing wage), eliminate parking fees at stations, and cut transit fares. Explore opportunities for additional hydroelectric generation along smaller rivers, and, if we think big, perhaps even exploring reinvigorating projects like Tocks Island.(emphasis ours)

Ralph Izzo, the President, Chairman and CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group (which owns Public Service Electric and Gas) authored an op-ed in today's Star-Ledger offering his company's take on the issue. Remember that PSE&G SUPPORTS the goals set forth by the Corzine administration to reduce carbon emissions 20% by the year 2020. From the perspective of a large utility, Mr. Izzo offers,

Utilities should be allowed to invest in innovative ways that help customers save energy inside as well. These efforts may include assistance to customers when purchasing energy efficient refrigerators, lighting, air conditioning systems and other appliances.

Expanding renewable energy resources is the next critical step in addressing climate change. We at PSEG have made a start with a proposal to commit $100 million for a solar energy loan program. This, too, requires state regulatory approval, and is designed to help the state meet half of its near-term renewable targets. The program has the potential to be expanded much further.

The third avenue is through clean central station electric generation. This is essential because conservation and investment in new renewable sources of energy will not be sufficient to satisfy society's energy needs over the long term -- at least not at prices everyone can afford.

Nuclear power remains the only large power source in New Jersey that emits no global warming gases. We are exploring the feasibility of additional nuclear capacity at our generation complex in southern New Jersey, the best site for a nuclear plant in the state. However, a new nuclear facility will take more than 10 years to build and place in operation. The thinking around new nuclear needs to begin now. It will also require state and federal support to help overcome regulatory risks.

As noted on this piece of cyber real estate multiple times - if we wish to seriously address climate change and do more than feel good about ourselves, we must consider all practical options, including a re-dedication to nuclear energy. The state already gets more than 50% of its electricity from nuclear plants such as Oyster Creek, and those plants do not produce carbon emissions. No other alternative source of energy has proven to provide sufficient energy without producing emissions.

All of the solutions offered in both pieces are available to New Jersey right now, if policy leaders wish to consider them. Windmills and solar panels may be the energy source of the future, but the technology does not yet exist to produce energy sufficient for our state and economy's growing needs.

A hat tip to Assemblyman Carroll and PSEG for moving the discussion forward.   

 

On Leadership and Global Warming in New Jersey

Today's Philadelphia Inquirer covers the recently-passed Global Warming Response Act and gathers reaction from multiple sides of the issue. The legislation would require the Department of Environmental Protection to take an inventory of state emissions and submit a plan to bring the level of CO2 emissions to 1990 levels (a 20% reduction) by 2020. This is similar to the goals outlined in Governor Corzine's Executive Order No. 54 and goals outlined in the state's Energy Master Plan, which will be released later this year.

The paper chatted with CIANJ President John Galandak, who pointed out the benefits of incentives over mandates, along with the tremendous business opportunity available with green technology.

John Galandak, president of the New Jersey Commerce and Industry Association, which counts utilities among its members, said he was concerned that the law might wind up imposing s