The issue of fracking is a serious legacy from the Cheney presidency that we need to address as soon as possible. It isn't the totality of natural gas production and supply, however, and even after we (somehow) move legislation through Congress to put the burden for proof of safe operation on a tightly regulated industry there will be sufficient supply to meet our needs for the transition to renewables.
If we pursue nuclear power, it is setting the energy course in that direction for at least a century. We see how strong the resistance is to change once the massive capital investment in nuclear has been made, so nuclear cannot, as many of its supports attempt to portray it, a short term way to transition to a more sustainable energy system based on renewables.
Natural gas is.
We largely already have the generating capacity in place to do what would be required to support large scale use of variable technologies, so our efforts should be focused on two things:
1) pressing for immediate legislative action to dismantle President Cheney's energy policy and replace it with legislation that brings an empowered EPA to the forefront in regulation of natural gas extraction.
2) A policy that unambiguously establishes a firm national commitment to a complete transition to renewable energy beginning yesterday - that should include pricing carbon in some manner.
Natural gas is an enabling technology for renewable power.
By itself it cannot power the nation, but it is precisely what is needed to "fill in the holes" that our present large scale system leaves. We run nuclear and coal as hard as we can** and when they have to shut down unexpectedly (as happens pretty often), or we need to ramp up to meet spikes in demand, natural gas generators have the right operational characteristics for the job.
Those same characteristics are no less important for renewables; especially in the middle stages of deployment when we are starting to shut down large coal generators. As more wind, solar, geothermal etc come online the "holes" in the system that exist will steadily diminish. A carbon price can ensure competitors with the same operational characteristics that make NG useful - such as biomass, bio-methane, bio-diesel, geothermal, wave/current/tidal and storage - are able to move into the market.
The greatest fear of the nuclear industry is that people will come to understand that there
*is* a viable way to move away from large-scale centralized thermal generation in a rapid, cost effective manner.
They will try to demonize any and all technologies and policies that make that transition possible.
Fix the flawed policies that allow natural gas operate like an outlaw industry.
Build renewables.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150**The capacity factor (CF) of a generating unit is a measure that compares the actual amount of electricity produced over time (say one year) to the maximum amount that would be produced if the plant runs full capacity 100% of the time. So a plant that is designed to produce 100 units over a year, but only produces 80, would have a capacity factor of 80%.
The nuclear power plant operators in the US are proud of the fact that they have pushed the CF of their plants to about 93%.
One of the ways they do this is by running past maximum rated output to compensate for the times they must shut down.
One of the lessons of Japan comes from this. Their fleet of reactors has a capacity factor that, before Fukushima, was just nudging above 80%. Nuclear enthusiasts here explain that as being due to their need to shutdown frequently due to earthquakes. That is true to a point, but it only justifies a fraction of the difference. The real reason IMO is that
compared to the US, the Japanese are fanatics about maintaining their equipment properly. Again
in comparison to the prevailing US ethos, as a culture they are completely dedicated safe operation of their entire infrastructure. Bridges there are not rotting; roads that are crumbling are repaired promptly. They are not perfect, and they are subject to human greed and folly just like anyone else. BUT - THE PHILOSOPHY THE PUBLIC JUDGES PERFORMANCE BY INCLUDES PLACING A HIGH VALUE ON QUALITY - INCLUDING MAINTAINING QUALITY OVER TIME.
Think about that as you ponder the pride of the US nuclear plant operators in their 93%+ capacity factor.
One final note. The use of capacity factor as a measure of the "best technology" is a frequent red herring designed to deflect attention from a wide array of very important considerations that score poorly for centralized thermal generation. Large scale centralized thermal generation refers to systems that burn fuel to heat water to produce steam to run a generator. Coal nuclear and natural gas all have the potential for high capacity factors. Since wind and solar both have significantly lower capacity factors, this is the favorite point of attack by those supporting Republican energy plans.
What that attack ignores is that
actual capacity factor a system operates under is as more a function of the
designed system of the grid than an unchangeable characteristic of how a grid
must be operated. It is entirely possible to design and operate a grid with a combination of technologies ALL having low operational capacity factors.
Simply comparing capacity factors alone tells us nothing of value until it is placed in proper context. If you want to compare which carbon free techs are best, the way to do it is to look at the result of the full formula where CF is used -
the final price of electricity that the generator produces.
And, if transitioning to a carbon free economy is important to you, you'll also want to compare how long it takes to start producing electricity.