Skip to main content

Focus on the Energy Bill: Bring Some Perspective to Energy Policy

Here's the opener to an Associated Press story, as reported in the Louisiana Daily Comet:
Six states are competing to land the country's first new nuclear energy plants in three decades. Environmental groups said they'll try to stop the facilities from opening, no matter which states are selected.
Just that much of the article caught my eye, and I was intrigued to read on. I reflected on New England states' efforts to curb power plant emissions, sometimes above and beyond federal enforcement, because they and their leadership are concerned over the health of their citizens and their children. [See here and here, for examples.]

If states are even eager enough to consider competing for new nuclear development, do you think they're eager for rising electricity costs for their constituents? Of course not! Read your power bills closely - the costs are going up faster without new nuclear construction than would be if we had the choice for more inexpensive baseload power, that is also environmentally benign.

What alternatives to these so-called environmentalists offer that is better for the environment that nuclear? The only argument they make that may be better on a broad perspective, considering cost, releases and public health, is conservation. But if using less energy were the grassroots mandate they would like to think it is, then wouldn't we be already doing it? And if we're already doing it, why are utilities studying investing in new power stations 3 to 10 years down the road? Nobody plans to spend money on an idle baseload plant. Nuclear stations won't be idle. Why? They're the cheapest and the cleanest - and we need more of them.

Phone the staff of your senators and representatives, who are voting on the energy bill this week! You can contact your senators from here and your representative from here.

The Capitol Switchboard numbers are:
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Toll-Free Numbers: 1-888-355-3588 or 1-877-762-8762

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …