The Nuclear Option
By E. Ralph Hostetter (01/12/07)
Getting rid of most of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caused by the combustion of fossil fuels may be one of the best economic moves America could make. Why? It could eventually put the equivalent of $1,600 to the use of every man, woman and child in the United States. Read on.
America is paying an unbelievable penalty for the use of fossil fuels to generate electrical energy.
The United States has been identified as the No. 1 emitter of CO2, producing some 25% of all CO2 emissions in the world.
The threat is high that America could become the victim of the draconian provisions of the Kyoto Protocol. The United States has avoided being dragged into the Kyoto Protocol, particularly through the efforts of President George W. Bush. President Bush said: "This [reduction of CO2 emissions] is a challenge that requires a 100% effort, ours and the rest of the world’s. The world's second largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China, yet China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India is among the top emitters, yet India is also exempt from Kyoto. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility."
The United States has the technology to provide an alternative replacement for fossil fuels used in the generation of the nation's electricity.
That alternative source is the safest, environmentally clean, efficient and lowest cost for energy production in the world. It is atomic energy, proven over 50 years to be the most reliable source.
After years of the spread of misinformation and outright lies by radical activists about the safety and efficiency of atomic energy, the entire world's attention now is being directed to atomic methods.
THE FINANCIAL TIMES, an highly respected publication, reported in November 2006: "For the first time in its 32-year history, the International Energy Agency (IEA) will urge governments around the world to help speed the construction of new nuclear power plants.
"Fatif Birol, IEA chief economist, said, 'We need a decision almost tomorrow if we are going to act before we reach a point of no return in climate and security of supply.'"
Mr. Birol added, "The IEA calculated the world needs to invest 17 trillion dollars in energy until 2030. Nuclear power is indicated for the lead."
The report continues, "We are on an energy path that is vulnerable, dirty and expensive." Mr. Birol concluded the goal was to "prepare an alternative path ... to a cleaner, safer, less costly system."
China has eight atomic plants under construction with another 27 in the offing, all being built by Westinghouse Corporation, formerly the largest builder of U.S. atomic plants, now owned by the Japanese. Many nations are building or intend to build atomic plants.
While the rest of the world has finally seen the light, the far left in America is leading the United States, under the guise of environmentalism, on to a path of darkness and the trap of the Kyoto Protocol.
America can yet escape the forces of darkness which deal in fantasy and falsehood, into the light of a new era.
The new era has a reward waiting in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars in energy savings.
The United States generates a total of 15.43 trillion kWh per year with fossil fuels. Coal generates 6.74 trillion kWh; gas, 5.51 trillion kWh and oil, 3.18 trillion kWh. To produce these amounts, at 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour, generation using coal costs 148.9 billion dollars per year; using natural gas, at 7.51 cents per kWh, amounts to 412.8 billion dollars per year; using oil, at 8.09 cents per kWh the cost is 256.7 billion dollars per year.
The total costs for generating U.S. demand of 15.43 trillion kWh from fossil fuels amounts to 818.7 billion dollars per year.
The price of the fossil fuels themselves adds volatility to the market, inasmuch as raw material costs fluctuate radically. For example, the cost of natural gas increased 88% from January 1999 to July 2000. The price of crude oil increased by 50% in the past several years and coal keeps up a slow but steady increase in price. From 1990 to 1999 nuclear fuel costs decreased by 46%.
By converting to atomic energy the production of 15.43 trillion kWhs per year at 1.72 cents per kWh for nuclear power would cost a total of 314 billion dollars in the entirety, with stable to decreasing raw material costs. A savings of 504.7 billion dollars per year would result.
By comparison, the Department of Defense budget for 2005 was 495.5 billion dollars. A 500 billion-dollar windfall savings could build 50 new atomic energy plants per year; balance the federal budget deficit two times over and be directed to the American household to assure substantial reductions in the home electrical bill.
None of this is possible until the day we get the far-left millstones from around our necks.
E. Ralph Hostetter, a prominent businessman and publisher, also is an award-winning columnist and Vice Chairman of the Free Congress Foundation Board of Directors.
(Printer friendly version) 
Send Feedback
