Entries in Policy (2)
Clarifying Al Gore's Position on Nuclear Power
Saturday, July 26, 2008 at 11:02AM 
Several readers have asked me to clarify Gore's position on nuclear power in his new 10-year carbon-free electricity plan. (I really wish you folks would post comments instead of sending me emails!)
Gore announced his plan July 17th at Constitution Hall, and like other politicians, Gore selects his words carefully. In fact, his 3200-word speech doesn't include the word "nuclear" at all. Katie Couric at CBS interviewed Gore after his speech, but let him off easy on his answer about nuclear power. Gore said, “We have a lot of nuclear plants in the U.S., and … I'm not anti-nuclear. I'm a little skeptical that's it's gonna play a much bigger role than it does now. I think it'll continue to play a role.” Hmmm. Way to go, Katie.
The group “We Can Solve It”, founded by Gore, reports that his plan includes a mix of energy sources, including “existing nuclear”. That’s vague but also misleading, appearing to mean existing “power plants” rather than the existing “percentage of the electricity mix”, which is around 20 percent.
Fortunately some reporters from Associated Press questioned him in more detail. World Nuclear News reported, “He later admitted, however, to the Associated Press that his plan relies on nuclear power for the 20% of US electricity it currently produces.” Even that statement could be misinterpreted, but the Arizona Star reported it solidly: “Gore told the AP his plan counts on nuclear power plants still providing about a fifth of the nation's electricity…”.
So I maintain that in order for nuclear to still be contributing one fifth of the nation’s electricity ten years from now, we will need to build a lot of new nuclear power plants. According to the EIA, we need to add about 120 gigawatts of new generation over the next ten years to meet projected growth and to replace retiring power plants. (The nuclear fleet alone is 26-years old, on average.) So if nuclear is still going to make up one fifth of the mix, an estimated 24 gigawatts of that new generation will need to be nuclear.
If all this is too much of a bummer, check out Harvey Wasserman’s great post today at CommonDreams telling how unlikely the nuclear revival is.
Depletion-Tax Policies Need to be Strengthened
Wednesday, July 9, 2008 at 02:01PM 
The State of Pennsylvania could reap nearly a billion dollars in additional tax revenue by implementing a natural resource depletion tax. That, according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which recently completed a national survey of depletion tax policies in use in the United States.
Their study was prompted by recent sharp increases in the value of mineral resources, and recognition that the State residents who own the resources are not benefitting from their newfound wealth. Adding a depletion tax, which is paid by the company that extracts the resource, or updating an out-of-date tax structure, would increase tax revenues in Pennsylvania by $840 million dollars annually. New Mexico could enjoy another quarter billion in tax revenues by updating it’s severance tax policy, and California could balance its state budget with the $2.3 billion it would raise.
The report appears on the company’s website at www.ilsr.org
The video newscast containing this story is posted here.
