NJ Business Matters: The Blog of the CIANJ

Jobs and Energy At Stake Today in Lacey

Down in Lacey Township, the NJDEP is holding a hearing on a plan that could result in the shutdown of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.

A year after the NRC issued Oyster Creek a 20 year operating permit extension, the DEP (and some in the legislature) are proposing to require cooling towers be constructed on site. The plant operator says the cost of the towers is prohibitive and such a requirement would result in the closing of the facility.

Just like he did before the Senate, CIANJ President John Galandak is testifying about the ripple effect that would have on the state's economy, and electric rates. From his remarks, as prepared,

Such a closing would immediately result in the loss of 700 jobs, many of which are high paying. In the long term, the plant’s closing would take more than $120 million out of New Jersey’s economy, according to a 2007 report conducted by Bates White. That does not include the impact of energy cost increases resulting from an act that would remove six percent of New Jersey’s energy generation from the grid with no plan to replace this loss, thereby adding to New Jersey’s already high cost of doing business at a time when the state should be doing all it can to create a climate which leads to job creation.

Finally, we believe this permit runs contrary to the public policy goals set by the legislature when it passed the Global Warming Response Act, and by the state’s Energy Master Plan. In order to achieve the CO2 reduction standards set forth by the Act and the Energy Master Plan, nuclear power needs to be part of the matrix of energy systems utilized by the state. At this point in our history, nuclear energy remains the only technology we have that can provide a reliable and substantial baseload while emitting virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions.

Written comments from the public will be accepted by the DEP until March 15.

Germany Meets Energy Reality

Germany is experiencing some buyer's remorse over the government's decision to phase out nuclear power by about 2021. Namely, they are remorseful that they will now be forced to buy energy from a foreign nation.

Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany must reverse plans to phase out nuclear power in just over a decade to limit rising power prices, Reuters reported.

Merkel spoke at an election rally in Bavaria, where voters go to the polls this month. Reactors account for 60 percent of the state's power and switching them off would force it to buy electricity from neighboring Czech Republic, she was cited as saying.

New Jersey's Energy Master Plan has set aggressive renewable resource and CO2 emission goals. Nuclear power is the only technologically available source of electricity that can serve as a base load and produces virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions. Let's not be forced into the same remorseful state as Germany finds itself.

Voters, Once Again, Say They Want Energy

A Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll re-re-confirms that voters want American policy to be one of increased energy production, including nuclear energy.

When asked whether expanding areas for drilling for oil off coastal states was a step in the right direction, 63% said it was, with 44% saying it would accomplish "a great deal." Only 27% said that allowing more drilling off coastal states was a step in "the wrong direction."

Asked about building more nuclear plants, 53% said it was a step in the right direction. Thirty-one percent said it was a step "in the wrong direction."

"Voters are telling us they want everything," said Neil Newhouse, a Republican who conducts the poll with Democrat Peter D. Hart. Mr. Hart.

Congress is still out on its "Summer Work Period" (formerly known as recess). While they're out looking for votes, be sure to ask them where they stand on energy production. If they say they oppose drilling or nuclear power, ask them how they then plan to repeal the law of supply and demand. E-mail us their answers.

Energy Reality Leads to Nuclear Power...In Maryland

Fresh off their lesson regarding cigarette taxes, our friends in the Old Line State are now warming up to nuclear power. High energy prices are causing Americans to look for new sources of power, but also to re-examine sources such as nuclear energy. CIANJ's testimony on the draft Energy Master Plan calls on the State to put greater emphasis on new plants and on keeping current facilities open.

Down in Maryland, more people seem to be getting it. From today's Washington Post,

As Maryland regulators begin hearings tonight on a proposed third nuclear reactor in Calvert County, one element in the historically raucous debate over nuclear power is notably absent: widespread opposition.

The passionate anti-nuclear protests of the 1970s and '80s have largely yielded in Washington and its suburbs to alarm over rising fuel prices, global warming and a lack of quick, easy solutions to quench the thirst for power.

This region could be a testing ground for the so-called nuclear renaissance. As the Public Service Commission starts a month of hearings on Constellation Energy Group's initial application to add a third nuclear plant at its Calvert Cliffs site 50 miles southeast of Washington, Dominion Virginia Power, which supplies all of Northern Virginia's electricity, is pressing ahead with plans to expand its reactors southwest of Fredericksburg.

There is no single solution to our energy challenge. However, a base load that produces almost zero greenhouse gas emissions must be part of that portfolio.

Showing the Love

Regular blog readers know the enthusiasm with which CIANJ supports investing in our nuclear infrastructure. Nuclear power is still the only source of energy that can produce electricity on a large scale while generating virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions. It will be impossible for New Jersey to reach CO2 reduction goals without nuclear power.

Yesterday, author William Tucker took to the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal to discuss the future of nuclear energy and what it would take to get private investment into a sustainable energy future. What it would take is political will and a regulatory system without unnecessary delay.

All over the world, nuclear power is making a comeback. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has just commissioned eight new reactors, and says there's "no upper limit" to the number Britain will build in the future. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has challenged her country's program to phase out 17 nuclear reactors by 2020, saying it will be impossible to deal with climate change without them. China and India are building nuclear power plants; France and Russia, both of whom have embraced the technology, are fiercely competing to sell them the hardware....

But not many [US] investors are willing to put up $5 billion to $10 billion for a project that could become engulfed by 10 to 15 years of regulatory delay -- as occurred during the 1980s. The Seabrook plant in New Hampshire went through 14 years of that before opening in 1990. The Long Island Lighting Company's Shoreham plant began in 1973, but was shut down by protests in 1989 without generating a watt of electricity, and the company went bankrupt as a result.

Demagoguery and spreading fear is not going to generate a single watt of electricity. At some point, leaders in Trenton and Washington are going to have to come to grips with that or they will be doing a disservice to us all.

Enviro Groups Want Fewer Emissions; Say No to Zero Emission Energy Source

The public comment period on New Jersey's Energy Master Plan (EMP) is open, and environmental groups are already demanding more. Remember that the draft EMP calls for a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020 with more than 22% of energy generated by renewable resources. Those are roughly the same goals presented in the Global Warming Response Act. (minor tangent: the Global Warming Response Act directed the DEP to publish a plan for reaching those goals by July 1st of this year. It hasn't happened yet.)

To reach a reduction in emissions while growing a population and economy, New Jersey must utilize nuclear energy. That imperative was detailed in this report, prepared by Polestar Applied Technology. Given that, one would think environmental advocates in the state would be cheering nuclear power. One would be wrong,

Jeff Tittel, of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said the state should not move toward nuclear energy to achieve the plan's goals — something the plan leaves open for possibility. Corzine in the past has said he would be open to using nuclear power.

There is still one technologically available source that can both generate electricity on a large scale while producing virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions. If the state wishes to seriously address its energy needs and environmental goals, then New Jersey needs to expanded its nuclear infrastructure. 

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?

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.