Skip to main content

U.S. and Russia Bring Nuclear to Fore at G8

Building on the announcement from earlier this week where the U.S. and Russia reaffirmed their commitment to the MOX fuel program, the two countries followed it up with a long-expected joint statement instructing their governments to begin talks on advancing the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post likes what he sees so far:
Bush's determination to talk the world past its nuclear fears is evidenced not only in his bold proposed deals with India and Russia but also in his willingness to praise France, a country that is not one of his favorites, on this score.

"France has built 58 plants since the 1970s and now gets 78 percent of its electricity from nuclear power," Bush said on May 24. "They don't have to worry about natural gas coming from somewhere else. They worry about it, but they don't have to worry about it to the extent that we do."

Driven by events, rather than by any grand concept of his own, Bush has correctly identified nuclear energy as an important component in reducing global warming and pollution, combating proliferation and cutting the unhealthy dependence of industrial and developing nations alike on suppliers such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Bush must now show that his turn to nuclear is not simply short-term opportunism and ad hoc reaction to crisis but a well-integrated approach to a safer future.
It's good to see Hoagland recognize what Bush is doing, but I can't understand the comment concerning "short-term opportunism"when the Bush Administration has made nuclear a centerpiece of national energy policy from the outset, with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership being just the latest piece.

For more on Russia from earlier this week, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Rod Adams said…
Eric:

Though the Bush Administration has had favorable words to say about nuclear power for most of the time that it has been in office, I am not a big fan of their effectiveness.

The California energy crisis occurred five years ago; the price of oil was less than $20 per barrel in 2001 and has increased by nearly 400% since. Coal prices have more than doubled, and natural gas prices have more than tripled during the Bush Administration. I do not necessarily blame the Administration for everything that caused these increases, but they should recognize them and understand how they change things for average Americans.

Even with positive words and all of those changes in our energy picture, there has still been little action and not a single application filed for a COL (yet).

I personally am quite frustrated that the GNEP is just one more change in direction that uses the same money that used to be dedicated to other programs like Gen IV.

Andy Kadak got it right in his July 10 piece titled DOE's Blurred Nuclear Vision where he described how all of the changes have resulted in a situation with lots of public relations announcements but little real progress.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin