Skip to main content

Senator Clinton on Energy Policy

Senator Hillary Clinton gave a speech on energy policy at the National Press Club earlier this week, and in stark comparison to President Bush's speech on energy policy at Limerick yesterday, had little to say about nuclear energy:
Nuclear is now very much in the news as a potential power source because of its lack of contribution to global warming. If you look at nuclear energy, which currently provides 20 percent of our energy with virtually no emission of greenhouse gases, we do have to take a serious look, but there remain very serious questions about nuclear power and our ability to manage it in a world with suicidal terrorists.

So I have real concerns, specifically about a plant in my state near where I live, Indian Point, which has had a number of problems, and more generally with the capacity and quality of the oversight provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

So we need to resolve problems with the NRC, as well as questions of cost, safety, proliferation and waste, before we go forward with nuclear power.
Needless to say, we believe the industry has answers to many of these questions already. A good place to start would be a speech our CEO Skip Bowman gave at MIT earlier this year that directly addressed questions on safety, cost and waste. As for the industry's relationship with the NRC, a speech Skip gave at the agency's RIC conference in 2005 is a good place to start, while the keynote he gave at NEA 2006 also addresses several regulatory issues relating to the agency's future workload.

For a look at the security issue, be sure to read the testimony NEI Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Marv Fertel submitted to the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Paul Primavera said…
Senator Clinton knows that commercial nuclear power plants are secure. Why else would she live in Chappaqua, so close to Indian Point? She is catering to Riverkeeper and the other anti-nukes in Westchester County so that she can get re-elected to the Senate this November.

Mark my words: if Senator Clinton is elected President in 2008, then we'll see someone like Gregory B. Jaczko as NRC Chairman and the whole tone of the NRC will change. It'll be worse than when Shirley Jackson was Chairman.

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 …

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…

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…