Skip to main content

Senator John Corzine and environmentalists

The New Jersey-based blog Dirty New Jersey links to a story in Newsday that discusses the upcoming New Jersey governor's race and how a few decisions by Sen. John Corzine have left the presumed Democratic nominee looking for ways to woo back one of his bases of support - environmentalists.
Among the issues raised by environmentalists, Corzine supports extending the license of one of the country's oldest nuclear power plants, Oyster Creek, and he has endorsed construction of an enormous entertainment complex in the Meadowlands, the sprawling wetland across the Hudson River from New York City. The state's three biggest environmental groups are suing to stop the Meadowlands project.
While I understand there are many issues that have caused this erosion of support among the environmental community, one must take issue with the contention that the re-licensing of Oyster Creek is bad for the environment. A study conducted by Polestar Applied Technology and released last month by the Nuclear Energy Institute demonstrates that nuclear energy must remain a leading source of electricity in the Northeastern United States for decades to come if efforts under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) to reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector are to prove successful without major upheaval for industry and consumers.

Non-emitting nuclear energy produces 31.6 percent of the Northeast's electricity, making it the single-largest electricity source in the region. The prominence of nuclear power plants means that Northeastern states already enjoy some of the lowest carbon dioxide emission rates in the country.

Note to the NJ environmental community: Without Oyster Creek, the CO2 problem is only going to get worse.


Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…