In Confirmation Hearing, Steven Chu Opposes ‘Hard Moratorium’ On Coal And Nuclear Power
In Confirmation Hearing, Steven Chu Opposes ‘Hard Moratorium’ On Coal And Nuclear Power
Dr. Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee to be Secretary of Energy, enjoyed a collegial confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources today. In two hours, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist answered questions on energy policy and regional issues of concern to the senators on the panel. Several senators, both Democrat and Republican, reaffirmed their allegiance to the continued health of the coal industry, challenging Chu’s previous statement that “coal is my wost nightmare.” Responding to a question by Sen. Jim Sessions (R-AL) on the future of nuclear power, Chu indicated that he doesn’t believe the problems of nuclear waste and global warming should stall the construction of new power plants:
The recycling issue is something that we don’t need a solution today or even ten years from today. We have enough fuel. I think we have to figure out a way to store that spent fuel safely, which is another critical issue in this, and figure out a plan for long term disposition. Having said all of that, it doesn’t mean that you stop everything today. It’s very much like coal. We will be building some coal plants. One doesn’t have a hard moratorium on something like that while we search for a way to capture carbon and store it safely. It’s very analogous in my mind.
Chu’s opposition to a coal moratorium puts him in opposition to the likes of Vice President Al Gore and NASA scientist James Hansen, who believe “the United States must begin a sustained effort to exploit new energy sources and phase out unfettered burning of finite fossil fuels, starting with a moratorium on the construction of coal-burning power plants if they lack systems for capturing and burying carbon dioxide.”
Like Hansen and Gore, Chu has called for a rapid, global effort to dramatically reduce global warming emissions. He began his opening statement by saying:
Climate change is a growing and pressing problem. It is now clear that if we continue our current path we run the risk of dramatic, disruptive changes to our climate in the lifetimes of our children and our grandchildren.
Chu indicated that he believes the more productive focus for the United States government than a coal moratorium is in a heavy emphasis on energy efficiency and conservation, with a commitment to limiting energy demand. He reaffirmed his support for a policy portfolio that includes a federal renewable electricity standard, a low-carbon fuels standard, and a carbon cap-and-trade system instead. The Center for American Progress supports an emissions performance standard to require carbon capture and sequestration at all new coal plants.
6 Responses to “In Confirmation Hearing, Steven Chu Opposes ‘Hard Moratorium’ On Coal And Nuclear Power”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Repeat after me, “low hanging fruit first”.
Dr. Chu is at a confirmation hearing in front of the most parochial group in the world. He manages to finesse the coal and nuclear issue and speak directly to the fruit pickers.
That’s the fruit, the orchard and the farm right there. That’s jobs in every Congressional district, that’s more comfortable houses for the people in the LIHEAP program who have served as conduits for subsidies to the energy industry, and most of all, it sets the table for a lower demand environment in which wind, solar, geothermal, and other technologies can more easily help meet demand.
This is progress in a big way. Don’t underestimate this man or this strategy.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:38 amLow hanging fruit first.
January 14th, 2009 at 11:31 amThe key issue for all people talking about nuclear power is *transport*. Trains or trucks, whichever one it is, the high and low level waste has to travel. Every last policy maker, bureaucrat and politician has to be asked if they want it heading down the freeway in *their* district/by their kids’ school. If the answer is no, then we absolutely cannot build them. It is absolute insanity.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:20 pmThe key issue for coal and nuclear is cleanup. As in, on isle nine. Right now we have these cesspools of ash, they need to be neutralized without releasing the carbon, so, compress and contain them — attempt to solidify. In order to build more coal or nuclear instead of more wind, we have to show that we are solidifying and neutralizing a significant amount of waste without letting the carbon escape into the air, because we can use that for plastics.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:21 pmRotten fruit, I think:
1. Energy effeciency and conservation do not move us off a fossil fuel diet — they keep the cost of fuel down (effectively increasing the supply) which will drive increased consumption.
2. Exactly how is energy demand limited? By rationing? By taxes? How about limiting supply, like, no more coal plants? No more nukes?
Increased energy effeciency and conservation ameliorate the effect of reduced fossil fuel, energy production while the transition is made to sustainable, green energy production — and leaves us a world to live in when (if?) we get there.
As we know, while a candidate may say one thing and do the opposite once in office, the same happens with those subject to Senate confirmation (the present AG?). Probably some of that going on in most of these hearings.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:04 ami love Chu’s enthusiasm and effort into finding ways to save our future. he has inspired me to become just like him one day. the information i looked up for him, for my report is somethin’ else. thank you CHU! :)
January 26th, 2009 at 6:19 pm