CEO of biggest U.S. nuclear-power producer touts "cheap" natural gas as energy solution

[jpak]

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/barnett_shale/2011/03/ceo-of-biggest-us-nuclear-power-producer-touts-cheap-natural-gas-as-energy-solution-.html

The U.S. should use more natural gas to generate electricity and shun new “clean-energy” subsidies given for nuclear reactors, wind turbines, solar panels and coal-fired plants that capture carbon dioxide, Exelon Corp. CEO John Rowe said in prepared remarks for a speech today, according to a Bloomberg News report.

Higher U.S. production of natural gas “has already jump-started the transition to clean energy” and there is “no need for expensive mandates and subsidies” to support other technologies, Rowe said in remarks for a talk at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

Chicago-based Exelon is the largest U.S. nuclear-power producer. The company says on its website that its owned power generation breaks down this way: nuclear, 93 percent; coal, 5 percent; oil, 1 percent; natural gas, 1 percent; and renewables (wind, solar, hydro), 1 percent.

While natural gas is a tiny part of Exelon's generation portfolio, the company has two natural gas-fired generation plants in the Dallas-Fort Worth area--the Handley plant in east Fort Worth, on the north edge of Lake Arlington, and the Mountain Creek plant in southwest Dallas.

<more>

[Vincardog]

1. The poisoned water from fracking is of NO consequence. NOT

[PoliticAverse]

2. Exactly. The reason for increased cheap natural gas production is reliance on fracking. n/t

[Vincardog]

3. Where is this cheap natural gas coming from?

[PoliticAverse]

5. See...

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/about-the-film

[kristopher]

4. "...for a talk at the American Enterprise Institute"

That says it all.

[Nihil]

6. Ha!

That's really going to upset certain posters around here ...
their anti-nuke angst has to be offset by their pro-gas adoration!

:rofl:

[kristopher]

7. Let's get you set straight

In the 2003 MIT paper that defined the nuclear industry by their own terms the nuclear industry insisted that with a certain set of supports they could, by 2010, PROVE that nuclear power was a viable competitor in an open market electric generating sector.

In 2005 they were given EVERYTHING they asked for AND MORE.

By 2009 it became clear there was no way that nuclear could compete in spite of transferring to the public nearly 100% of the economic risk associated with building new nuclear. For you see, despite the industry's rosy 2003 cost claims to MIT, it was simply too expensive. After several tens of billions of dollars thrown at the goal and even more backroom deals to help the industry by the Obama administration, the renaissance was not going to happen.

Forecasts now dismiss nuclear power for at least another 10 years.

In a talk to a group of hard right political propagandists, the chief nuclear executive of the nation NOW says that we should shift our focus on generation to just building natural gas by removing subsidy support for nuclear power AND all other (read renewable) energy sources.

Now why would he do that? Two reasons, first nuclear can't compete - it's dead in the water. Second and more important, he knows that natural gas is at best a stopgap measure in the fight against global warming. The REAL solution is the renewable energy and he *knows* that *IF* current trends for renewable deployment and energy efficiency continue, in 10 years there will not even be a false argument the nuclear industry can make to promote its wares.

Their only hope is to sandbag the renewable industry by again trying to tie nuclear with renewables; only this time he want to extend the general antinuclear sentiment of the public to renewable by leveraging the Republican push for "fiscal discipline" and painting both sectors with nuclear power's failure.