tion of coal exceeded three times that of the United
States and is trending strongly upward (EIA 2010g).
To reduce the economic motivation for the use of coal
as an energy source, carbon tax and/or cap and trade
programs are a possibility. Implementation of either
by governments on a world-wide scale is clearly prob-
lematic. A bottom line near term result wherever ei-
ther is implemented will be a higher cost of energy for
consumers, commercial and private. An impact to the
economies asked to absorb this will be real, but this
does not mean it is not justified.
Adding new U.S. nuclear capacity will add new
jobs, many of them specialized and requiring exten-
sive education and training. Addressing this national
human capital need, as part of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, in 2009 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) “awarded nearly $20 million to 70 institutions to
boost nuclear education and expand the workforce in
nuclear and nuclear-related disciplines” (NRC 2009).
For example, Augusta Technical College, located in
Georgia near the only U.S. nuclear reactor site under
construction, was awarded a $121,500 grant from the
NRC “to help train the next generation of workers in
the nuclear industry” (Kyzer 2010). In addition to ad-
dressing clean energy, President Obama’s 2011 State
of the Union Address reinforced the importance of
investing in such education.
Increasing the nation’s nuclear capacity could be
viewed as threatening to the current U.S. coal indus-
try. Generations of Americans have depended on the
coal industry for their livelihood, with nearly 90,000
employed domestically in coal mining operations in
2009 (EIA 2010h). President Obama’s 2011 State of the
Union Address included the possibility of “clean coal”
as part of the 80 percent clean energy source mix. Per-
sharon
(sharon)
#1