Senator McCain on Energy Security

Here's U.S. Senator John McCain from a Sunday morning interview he did with Fox News:

And the second lesson we should have learned from this, and what’s going on in Venezuela with Mr. Chavez, and what Putin did vis-a-vis the Ukraine, we’ve got to get quickly on a track to energy independence from foreign oil. And that means, among other things, going back to nuclear power.

But we better understand the vulnerabilities that our economy and our very lives have that when we’re dependent on Iranian mullahs, and wackos in Venezuela, and now Mr. Putin obviously deciding at least under one occasion to exercise the oil card, which never happened in all the days of the former Soviet Union.

Thanks to AZ Congress Watch for the pointer. And there's more from James Chang.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment Energy, Politics, Economics, Senator John McCain

Comments

Anonymous said…

First off: don't get me wrong here, I'm rabidly pro-nuclear.

Are we also in danger of foreign cutoff of fissile material? Didn't we shut down US enrichment because we are getting so much from the former Soviet Union? Does this leave us vulnerable on this front?

Obviously a much smaller concern than oil. But is it still something to worry about?

Matthew

January 23, 2006 at 2:12 PM

Eric McErlain said…

Last April in San Antonio, our CEO, Skip Bowman, addressed this issue, among others, at the World Nuclear Fuel Cycle Conference. Click here for that text.

January 23, 2006 at 3:03 PM

Anonymous said…

That's a great link Eric.

As for the senators comments, they're welcome, but they are frustratingly small at this stage in the game.

January 24, 2006 at 9:13 AM

Anonymous said…

Matthew,

The answers to your four questions are:
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No. It is something to consider in determining the amount of foreign uranium to stockpile.

January 26, 2006 at 1:19 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog