Skip to main content

Does Pelosi's Statemet on Nuclear Energy Open the Way for a Larger Compromise?

Following up on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's surprising announcement that she was keeping an open mind about how nuclear energy could play a role in battling global warming and climate change, Moe Lane over at Red State wonders if there's a deal to be made (where have we heard that before?):
Well, for a start: it's a positive sign, obviously - unless you're the sort who spits at the idea of nuclear power. In that case, you'd better get cracking at repairing your ties to the Democratic Party. Nope, I haven't gotten the order mixed up. The Democrats have been nursing a grudge against the Greens for, oh, just over six years now: if they could do them dirty, they will. And what better way than to strike against one of the fundamentals of the Green Party's religion? Excuse me: "core political views". And if you don't think that the GOP won't hand the Democrats the knife with which to do the dirty deed, then you don't know the GOP very well at all, at all.
It gets more interesting from there. Be sure to read the rest.

Here's one reaction from Instapundit.

UPDATE: Be sure to vote for our WTF blurb on this topic at Technorati.

Comments

Robert Synnott said…
I'm a little confused about this, I must say. My limited understanding of US politics was more or less that the Democrats are rather more progressive, while the Republicans have a leader who thinks he talks to God. Are the Democrats traditionally seen as anti-nuclear, then?
Anonymous said…
George Bush believes he "talks to God" only in as much as anyone else who believes in the Judeo-Christian God and that God hears prayers. Thus, if you believe that God exists and he hears people who call upon Him, yes, you are "talking to God".

Regarding political support for nuclear energy, it is an issue that crosses party lines. You have pro-nuclear Republicans and Democrats, as well as anti-nukes on both sides of the isle.

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…