• GAZLO
• CLASS
• JOBS
• AUTO
• HOMES

Nuclear must replace natural gas in power plants

FLINT, MICH. — If ever there was a question about the need for nuclear power, it has certainly been dispelled now with the rising cost of fossil fuels.

The high price of oil, natural gas and coal should be a wake-up call to all regions of the country that the era of boundless use of cheap fossil fuels is over — and that nuclear power will need to play a larger role in supplying electricity to homes, business and industry.

Although natural gas is now the fuel of choice in electricity generation, its price has quadrupled in recent years and supplies are extremely tight. Not too long ago, the expectation of rising imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) led many to conclude that more abundant gas supplies and greater use of alternative fuels would end the long run of soaring gas costs.

But the pause in increased gas costs proved temporary. Natural gas prices are once again rising rapidly — 93 percent since last August. Major industries that require large amounts of gas for space heating and as a feedstock in making consumer products are once again in crisis.

So now is the time to point out that one-quarter of the gas supply is wasted on electricity generation. Since 1990, virtually all of the new electric-power capacity in the country has used natural gas, and that has driven up the price of natural gas.

Natural gas is a finite and dwindling commodity. North American production has been at a plateau in recent years. Canada has told the United States not to expect additional shipments of natural gas, because it now requires a larger share of its gas reserves to meet its own domestic needs.

Another thing: Congress has yet to lift the ban on drilling for oil and natural gas along 85 percent of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf as well as the Alaskan wilderness.

The surge in gas prices is also being fed by increased global competition for LNG. Today, an LNG tanker pulling into port in Japan or Spain can get almost $20 per million BTUs — far higher than the U.S. price.

Most Americans probably don’t realize the effect all of this is having on some key industries. In the chemical industry, a big natural gas user, more than 118,000 American jobs have been lost since 2000.

For U.S. manufacturing overall, about 3 million jobs have been lost in that time due in large part to energy costs. Particularly in the fertilizer and chemical industries, plants are shutting down and reopening abroad to take advantage of lower natural gas prices overseas. Today there are about 120 major chemical plants — each costing more than $1 billion — being built around the world, but not one in the United States.

The economic problems with natural gas buttress the case for switching to nuclear energy for electricity production. Seventeen companies are preparing license applications to build and operate 31 new reactors. John McCain wants 45 new reactors by 2030, followed by another wave of plants.

Although Barack Obama says nuclear energy is „not a panacea“ for U.S. energy problems, he says nuclear is worth investigating for further development. A number of governors have called for expanded use of nuclear energy — most notably California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.

This support for nuclear energy is a hopeful sign, because the problems it has encountered have never been technological; they have been primarily political and institutional.

The United States pioneered the development of nuclear energy, and had the first major nuclear program. Most other leading industrial countries have continued developing their nuclear programs since the last nuclear plant order in the United States — primarily using U.S. technology.

Today we have the means — and more important, an urgent need — to bring that technology back home.