I appeared on NTD News Thursday morning with Host Stefania Cox to talk about energy-related issues impacting the presidential campaign. For those not aware, NTD News is the digital television affiliate of the Epoch Times news organization. I’ve made 6 or 7 appearances on their news programs so far this year.
A transcript follows the video clip for those who prefer to read.
Enjoy!
Stefania Cox: Fracking came up a lot in Tuesday's presidential debate. It's a method for extracting crude oil, but nuclear energy did not. That's despite the fact that both Trump and Harris support it. But for different reasons, Trump sees it as a way to ensure America is energy independent. The Biden-Harris administration says it can lower carbon emissions and help the transition away from fossil fuels. So, it seems likely that nuclear energy production could increase under either administration. Joining us now is David Blackman, energy policy analyst and consultant. Blackmon is a 40-year veteran of the oil and gas industry. Good to have you with us, David. Nuclear energy comes with the baggage of disasters that Chernobyl and Fukushima. Is the technology really at a place where it can be safely rolled out across the US?
David Blackmon: Well, yes, I think it is. And it's certainly good to see Kamala Harris and Donald Trump agreeing about something when it relates to energy policy, nuclear energy. And I think what this reflects is that both sides understand that you can't have a reliable power grid just based on windmills and solar arrays alone.
Right now, American consumers are being forced to fund two different power grids: For every megawatt you spend on, you install of solar and wind, you have to have a corresponding megawatt of reliable 24/7 power generation by either coal, gas or nuclear to back it up because you only get 4 to 6 hours a day out of renewables and you have to keep the lights on the other 20 to 18 hours a day.
So that's why our power bills have gone up so dramatically as we've been forced to bear the cost of paying for both a virtue signaling power grid of wind and solar and batteries, and a reliability power grid made up of natural gas, coal and nuclear. Nuclear is a zero-carbon emission power source. So, it's good to see the Harris campaign at least endorsing that.
Cox: Now the only reactor built in the US in recent memory was six years behind schedule and $16 billion over budget. So how challenging will it be for either administration to roll this out?
Blackmon: Well, it's going to be very challenging. It takes, in the current system, it takes at least a decade just to get the permits in place for a nuclear power plant. And that's going to continue to be the case, even for these modular, smaller modular reactors that are the new generation of nuclear technology.
We're going to have to have really pretty radical change in the permitting process in order to really bring about a big new fleet of nuclear generation. And, you know, the Trump campaign is promising to do that.
The Harris/Biden folks have had three and a half years to do something about that and have really accomplished pretty much nothing. So depending on how this election goes, is really going to determine whether or not we have a pretty significant expansion of nuclear power generation.
Cox: And just expanding this discussion on energy policy. You recently wrote that Tuesday's debate provided little clarity on Kamala Harris's energy policies. What is still unclear?
Blackmon: Well, I mean, we don't know which Kamala Harris I'm sorry, Kamala Harris, to believe.
We don't know whether to believe her earlier promises to ban hydraulic fracturing to, you know, she was a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, which envisions a complete elimination of oil and natural gas from the power mix.
So, do we believe that version of Kamala Harris or do we believe the campaign, Kamala Harris, who has reversed herself on those commitments?
I frankly, you know, we've seen it in the past. There's an awful long history in the United States of presidential candidates reversing and flip flopping on certain policies, only to see them go right back to their true beliefs after the election is over. And, you know, there's no accountability once the election's over.
So, I just I'm really skeptical that she's truly changed her mind about any of this. She constantly repeats the mantra that her values have not changed. And I think that's a pretty clear signal to her supporters, you know, progressive supporters, not to worry about the promises she's making in this campaign to try to win the state of Pennsylvania, that’s the main thing she's trying to do.
Cox: And what role does consistency of policy play within the industry itself? I know that they need to plan quite far ahead, as you said, ten year permitting, at least for the nuclear power plants.
Blackmon: Yes. These are, you know, plants like a nuclear power plant, natural gas power plant, these are multi-billion-dollar investments, long term investments.
You have to be able to secure the financing. And to do that, you have to have confidence in the, the consistent application of laws and regulations of the United States. We've always had a clear advantage over developing countries here in America, in attracting capital for these kinds of investments into our country, because we’ve had a very stable and predictable system of laws and regulations.
That has begun to unwind in this administration. I talk to senior executives in the energy space all the time about this, and they're very concerned that we're losing the ability to raise capital because we no longer have predictability and stability in our system of laws and regulations.
I don't know how to convince folks on the Democratic side of the aisle that this is a really, really important aspect of our society if we want to continue to have a strong, reliable power grid in this country. And, you know, another four years of the same trend, we're going to have a really significant problem in our country attracting capital.
Cox: And just looking at another aspect here, David, briefly, looking at everything that's happening in the Middle East and a slowing global economy, do you see energy and gas prices rising or falling over the next 12 months?
Blackmon: So far, you know, as long as we don't have a major escalation in the conflict there, it appears that it's not going to have a big impact on oil prices, which is the real concern I think we have to have because 40% of the global oil supply flows through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf every day. And if you had a disruption in that flow, then you would see a big spike in oil prices.
That has not happened. Iran has not threatened to cause that to happen. And so we've seen pretty stable, and even falling oil price in the last few weeks. I would expect the oil prices to maintain about their current levels right now, maybe slightly higher as the year goes on because of increasing demand in the Asian area of the world. But overall, you know, I just feel like we're in a pretty stable oil price situation as long as that conflict doesn't escalate in a major way.
Cox: All right. Thank you so much, David. Great to speak with you.
dBlackmon: Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
[End]
That is all.
Now, if you could have an intelligent conversation like that with the Democrat party communications team, uh, I mean the mainstream media, Americans might learn how much danger we are in of not only destroying grid reliability, but destroying access to the necessary capital our energy providers need.
Excellent talk. I think you hit the most important points in a clear manner.
There is so much more you could have said in response to the question about Vogtle reactors, but focusing on the regulatory challenges, which is probably the first hurdle that needs to be dragged off the course, was probably the smart thing, presentation-wise. Get one idea in the public's mind -- we need to fix the regulatory framework.