Posted on Tue, Jan. 29, 2008
Legislators' feint doesn't justify nuclear power
By Ann Timberlake
It should come as no surprise that energy generated by nuclear power plants has a polluting byproduct. Just like when gasoline burns, a lump of uranium produces waste. But in the case of nuclear energy, the waste is so dangerous that the government has special landfills to store it so it does not radiate the public.
Last year, our state Senate approved a measure that would classify a host of energies - solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, hydrogen - as "renewable." But the classification also included nuclear power, which does not make sense because uranium fuel comes from a finite source just like oil and coal does.
Last week, to avoid a battle over the word "renewable," House Agriculture Committee members substituted the word "clean" and pressed conservationists to embrace nuclear as a clean energy source. Unfortunately, this action diverts attention from the original intent of the Energy Efficiency Act, which was to promote South Carolina's emerging, homegrown energy economy.
Furthermore, amending the bill to include power generated from nuclear plants as "clean energy" will create loopholes so power companies can more easily meet future energy efficiency production standards. Allowing power companies to boost their "clean" power ratings by using nuclear-generated power provides less incentive to make serious investments in real renewable production and efficiency.
Despite the diversionary tactics of the big utilities, efficiency and renewable programs work
Vermont and California, for example, have tax rebate programs that have saved consumers millions and reduced power consumption dramatically. With newly passed net metering laws, North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia all have the jump on South Carolina. Indeed, North Carolina has a renewable portfolio standard requiring that its utilities obtain a modest percentage of their electricity from renewables.
The sad irony is that South Carolina has vast potential for energy conservation. South Carolina is one of the least energy- efficient states in the country, consuming per capita more electricity than all but a few states and twice the amount of California.
If efficiency is low-hanging fruit elsewhere in the country, it is a freshly baked apple pie sitting on the kitchen countertop in South Carolina. Are we going to let it rot? Most conservationists are like most South Carolinians: They are waiting for a comprehensive national energy plan that weighs the true costs, both environmental and economic, of different energy options. Our position is that efficiency and renewables are not only the cleanest and cheapest means of meeting immediate demand, they buy us the time we need to develop technologies that will make our country energy-independent and secure.
State government can be the catalyst for attracting new investments in wind, solar and other renewables. It can create programs for financing and incentives for increasing efficiency. But the good news is that the private sector will provide the delivery system and the jobs. Any rush by South Carolina to nuclear, or especially to coal, is premature because billions of dollars of energy are leaking out of our windows and through our ceilings and floors every day. Instead of letting big power companies run roughshod over
strategies to boost energy efficiency and promote renewables, legislators should focus on the real point of the Energy Efficiency Act - creating ways to meet demand, and save money for consumers, by being more efficient.
