Resource swap: Uranium for Oil
Developing an effective naitonal energy policy isn't just a Western concern, as editors at Zimbabwe's Sunday News demonstrated in
an editorial on June 18. Word that the country's government had forged a $1.3 billion (U.S.) deal with China for thermal power stations and coal mines prompted editors in resource-rich, energy-poor Zimbabwe to call for a comprehensive plan, because "by diversifying the energy options at our disposal, we enhance economic security." The paper sees no hope in recruiting "London or New York" as partners in energy development, and recommends turning instead to "Shanghai, Kuala Lumpur, Tehran, or Moscow" for assistance.
While the paper suggests that solar and wind -- along with higher capacity factors at existing coal plants -- could fill the gap in the short run, the editors say that Zimbabwe's uranium deposits may be the key to the future.
But, rather than trying to find investors willing to building nuclear plants in the country, the Sunday News recommends a trade: "For instance, an oil-producing country with enough resources to develop a nuclear power reactor could easily supply Zimbabwe with petroleum in exchange for uranium shipments."
No wonder they see the future in partnership with Tehran.
Meanwhile, one concern that never appeared the editorial: the environment. Right now, Zimbabwe, which continues to face international economic sanctions for political and human-rights abuses, is concerned almost exclusively about economic growth. As the editors said, "Companies and individuals with the capital and willingness to produce goods and provide services must not be bogged down by shortages or electricity, coal, and diesel."
Point taken, but it leaves any would-be Western support over a barrel: Drop the sanctions and start investing (while ignoring Zimbabwe's offenses), or stand by and do nothing as a rogue uranium-for-oil, emissions-be-damned economy takes off in Africa.
Ethanol and water use in Illinois
The Associated Press ran a story on June 18 about
ethanol's water demands in Illinois, reporting that some city officials in Champaign and Urbana are concerned that production of the corn-based fuel could strain local water supplies. The story quotes the
Iowa Renewable Fuels Association as saying that it takes about 300 million gallons of water to produce 100 million gallons of ethanol. New plant technologies continue to improve this ratio.
The story also cites some downstate residents' concerns about chemicals and wastewater from ethanol plants contaminating local water supplies. An Iowa RFA spokesman quoted in the story rejected the notion, adding that the water that "comes out of the plant may be cleaner than was pumped into it."
Does this story sound a bit familiar? It should -- the local concerns about energy-industry plants taxing the water supply or contaminating local groundwater are similar to the issues anti-nuclear activists often raise with regard to neighboring plants. If this matter continues to mirror anti-nuclear battles, expect to hear questions about clean water leaving ethanol plants at a slightly heated temperature endangering local aquatic systems.
But, before Illinois ethanol producers write off the controversy as an annoying chapter from the anti-nuclear playbook, they'd be wise to remember that Illinois residents may be super-sensitized to this issue -- earlier this year, the Braidwood nuclear plant was in the news for several weeks after Exelon disclosed finding tritium in on-site groundwater after a small leak.
Blair says energy prices trump nuclear worries
Reuters is reporting that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is standing by his position that nuclear energy must be a part of Britain's future energy strategy.
Responding to questions in Parliament on June 14, Blair said that rising energy prices, as well as concerns about global climate change and energy independence, mean that new nuclear power development will be part of his new energy policy.
Blair plans to announce the findings of an energy-policy review his government has been conducting since last year. The review will mark the first major energy-policy statement from Blair since a 2003 paper that raised concerns about nuclear economics and high-level radioactive waste disposal.
News that Blair is determined to keep nuclear power in the mix continues to confound some British policymakers and environmentalists, including a few of Blair's own advisors.
The Scotsman reported on June 14 that the government's Environment Agency believes the energy review is "biased towards the nuclear options."
Most of Blair's recent comments about nuclear power over the past year have focused on the technology's potential to mitigate global warming. But in recent weeks, Blair has cited high energy prices as being the determining factor.
On May 17, he told the
Confederation of British Industry that high prices and reliance on oil and gas suppliers in turbulent regions make both nuclear and renewables essential. "These facts put the replacement of nuclear power stations, a big push on renewables, and a step-change on energy efficiency...back on the agenda with a vengeance."
He echoed this theme in his comments to Parliament today: "I certainly can tell you what has changed [since the 2003 report]...Energy prices are rising the entire time, which is the whole issue to do with nuclear energy is back on the agenda -- not just for this country, but in many other countries around the world."
Giuliani plants energy policy flag
In an address to the
Manhattan Institute on June 13, possible Republican presidential candidate and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani tweaked the Bush administration's current energy policies and staked his claim to being out front on energy and environmental issues -- issues some of his prospective Democratic presidential rivals are also mulling these days.
The
New York Times reported that Giuliani said the Bush administration "lacked an energy policy and that greater reliance on nuclear power, ethanol-based fuels and hybrid vehicles was more realistic than President Bush's goal of independence from foreign energy sources."
Focusing more on the political overtones of Giuliani's speech than the energy-policy substance, the Times also noted that Giuliani "did not criticize Mr. Bush by name." Small wonder, considering that Giuliani's broad proposals are very close to the measures Bush is promoting.
In the
2006 State of the Union, in addition to calling for less reliance on oil, Bush specifically mentioned investment in nuclear energy, hybrid and electric car development, and new technologies that could make "ethanol practical and competitive within five years."
At least one environmental group noticed the similarity between the two positions. The Times quotes the Natural Resources Defense Council's Ashok Gupta as saying of Giuliani's speech, "There's not a lot here that's different from what Dick Cheney would say."
Meanwhile, one of Giuliani's highest-profile potential presidential rivals, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), is set to receive the Energy Leadership Award from the
Energy Efficiency Forum, an annual event that the United States Energy Association and Johnson Controls sponsor.
