Skip to main content

More Democats for Nuclear Energy?

By Eric McErlain
Thanks to my NEI colleague Donn Salvosa passing along the following exchange between Larry Kudlow and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi than ran this morning on CNBC (no link available):
KUDLOW: All right. We're here, back with more of my interview with House leader Nancy Pelosi. We'll get her thoughts on the U.S. policy in Iraq and on energy. I began by asking whether she would support an offshore drilling bill.

Rep. PELOSI: Depends. The Senate bill that is out there now is a much better bill than the House bill because it's targeted in what it would use the money for. I think we have to have some sunset to say, `How many years can we have tens of billions of dollars siphoned off from the federal government to a state?' Which is part of that bill? But there's really a need for remediation in terms of wetlands in New Orleans and the rest. So some kind of a bill like that might gain support just so long as it wasn't used as a model to do offshore drilling all over the country and in a way that is very close to shore.

KUDLOW: Expansion of nuclear power?

Rep. PELOSI: Has to be looked at. Technology has changed over the last, say, dozen years when this debate was going on a long time ago. I think we have to look at it. Because what is the alternative? You go to India? What is it, coal for all of those people, China and the rest? So I think it has to be revisited.
Next, click here for an interview Virginia Governor Mark Warner gave to Helen Smith and Glenn Reynolds where he expresses much the same sentiment.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Unfortunately, Paul is probably onto something here. Politicians that are out of power (either party) tend to run toward the center (as they see it). However, after they are elected, they tend to revert to catering to the groups they think are their core backers. It is almost always a political plus to be open minded. What remains to be seen is whether Democrats (individually or collectively) will see any reason to take action that would be counter to knee jerk environmental positions.
October 27, 2006 at 2:40 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more