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.

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?

Buying the Enviros Line on Oyster Creek

On Sunday, the Star-Ledger ran a story on the relicensing process of the Oyster Creek Generating Station. The plant powers 600,000 homes and, because it is a nuclear facility, does so virtually emissions free.

Some environmentalists oppose the relicensing (which must occur by 2009), and have made their case to federal panels in the hopes of shutting the plant down. In previous posts, we've detailed those claims, and the government's decision that the containment system is safe to operate another twenty years.

The Ledger story notes,

Opponents' arguments about the safety of the containment shell were persuasive enough to win the first-ever public hearing by the agency's licensing board, which in the end signed off on the safety of the plant. (emphasis ours)

"I fully expect them to relicense the plant. We've always suspected the NRC was a rubber stamp for the industry," said Janet Tauro, a mother of two teenagers in Brick Township who is a co-founder of one of the groups trying to shut the plant, Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety.

To attack the panel as a rubber stamp isn't a surprising position for plant opponents to take. Unfortunately, the paper makes the situation worse by mischaracterizing NJACRE.

Oyster Creek, which sits off Route 9 south, just west of Barnegat Bay, is not without its advocates, who say the station is crucial to meeting the state's growing energy demand. Closure of the facility, they argue, would result in importing more expensive and dirty power from out-of-state fossil fuel plants.

"The costs would go up," said Rick Mroz, a former counsel to Gov. Christie Whitman and a member of the Affordable, Clean, Reliable Energy Coalition, a business group backing the plant. "It would mean importing more costly electricity from power plants in the Midwest."

Just so we're clear, here's a list of non-businesses or business groups involved in NJACRE,

African American Environmentalist Association
Fish Hawks
NJ International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (NJ IBEW and LU 1289)
International Union of Painters & Allied Trades
Plumbers and Pipefitters (Union Local 322 and Local 9)

The truth is that NJACRE is a coalition of individuals, companies and organizations that are dedicated to meeting NJ's increasing energy needs through clean generating methods, which includes nuclear power. It's bad enough that nuclear opponents paint the populist image of a government panel as a rubber stamp for business interests, it is worse for the state's paper of record fails to acknowledge the breadth of support for nuclear energy and for Oyster Creek.

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.

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.

The IBEW Joins NJACRE

A hat tip to IBEW and Local Union 1289 for joining the New Jersey Affordable Clean Reliable Energy Coalition (NJACRE). Both you regular blog readers know that NJACRE seeks to raise awareness about clean energy, including nuclear power, for the purpose of meeting New Jersey's growing energy demands in a way that will reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions while keeping our economy strong.

Remember that Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore believes there is 'no way' New Jersey can meet the emissions goals set forth by Executive Order 54 or the Global Warming Response Act (or the forthcoming Energy Master Plan) without the relicensing of New Jersey's nuclear facilities. Video of that testimonial is available here.

NJACRE's press release quotes IBEW leadership as declaring,

“The men and women of the NJ IBEW are joining NJ ACRE to support the Coalition’s mission to educate the public about the need to keep existing nuclear power plants, like Oyster Creek, operational,” said Chip Gerrity, president of the NJ IBEW.

Ed Stroup, president of IBEW LU 1289, added that, “Our 200 plus members who work at Oyster Creek know first hand that it is a safe, well-managed facility and are keenly aware that nuclear energy helps maintain a strong economy, a clean environment and affordable energy for New Jersey residents and businesses.”

CIANJ is proud to be a member of NJACRE and to help counter myths that have become conventional wisdom among some in the MSM.

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.