Skip to main content

More Democats for Nuclear Energy?

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

Paul Primavera said…
Rep. Pelosi needs to do more than just look at nuke power. First, she should start with her constituents in anti-nuke California and get them educated. Then she needs to get her peers in Congress (Nita Lowey, Charles Rangel and the others advocating for an Indian Point shutdown) on board.

I'll believe she's pro-nuke when she actually does something positive.
KenG 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.

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 …

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…

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…