Wind, Si; Nuclear, No – Part Deux

Following up on my post of the other day, there’s a poll just out from the Financial Times and Harris:  in the US and the five largest EU countries, “Big majorities of the public … favor the building of more wind farms in their countries, varying from 90% in Spain and 87% in the U.S. to 77% in France. And large numbers of them favor it ‘strongly.'”  On new nuclear power, “Opinions … are more mixed and vary by country. The public is more or less equally divided in the U.S., Britain and France but clear majorities are opposed in Italy (60%), Spain (63%) and even more strongly in Germany (77%).”  (As I’ve noted, the Germans get it.)

Meanwhile, one of the FT’s energy magi, Ed Crooks, had a story earlier this week echoing the theme that new nuclear is fighting an uphill battle in the US owing to its inability to compete economically.  One reason?  It’s being murdered by natural gas on price.  With the shale gas bonanza coming into full swing, gas is going to be competitive for a long time.  As John Rowe, head of Exelon, the utility with the biggest presence in nuclear power in the US says in the article:  “Gas is queen.”  (Rowe strikes me as a peculiarly level-headed individual.  See Speaking of Nukes … here.)

Arrogant – and wholly boneheaded – quote of the week comes from the FT article.  According to James Connaughton, Constellation Energy Group‘s vice-president for corporate affairs and policy:  “There is no reasonable scenario by which we can meet the government’s aims for energy security, air quality and cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, without building in excess of 100 new nuclear plants.”  Indeed?  Read this blog sometime, Jim.  For you, the posts on renewable energy and energy efficiency.  (Connaughton spent eight years in the last President Bush’s White House as the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality.  Nuff said.)