Skip to main content

TCS Daily on the Supreme Court and GHG

From Max Schulz:
The irony is that the beneficiary of Monday's ruling won't be wind power, solar power, or any of the other renewable technologies favored by the Green establishment. Their economic and technological limitations are too severe for them ever to occupy more than a small niche in the American energy economy. Instead, one of the winners from Massachusetts v. EPA just may be something that many of the environmentalists who brought the suit have long abhorred: nuclear power. Like renewables, nuclear power generates electricity with no pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions. But unlike renewables, nuclear is capable of generating reliable power on a massive scale, which is what our country's future energy demands will require.

Nuclear power is on the verge of making a comeback in the United States. Thanks to several favorable provisions in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, as well as a streamlined licensing process, it is possible we could see the construction of new plants start within several years. The economics for new plant construction are still being worked out, particularly with regard to financing and federal loan guarantees. But there can be no doubt that federal efforts to hamstring coal can only help nuclear. Moreover, any future regulatory scheme allowing nuclear power plant operators to earn credits for generating emissions-free electricity would enhance nuclear's attractiveness to investors.
Hat tap to Instapundit, who would seem to welcome a spate of new nuclear build.


Rod Adams said…
I interpreted the ruling in the same favorable way. The stars are beginning to align. It is definitely time for the nuclear engineers and technologists to engage in honest and earnest discussions about HOW to build a large number of plants effectively.

We need to incorporate lessons learned from the past building cycle and from other more successful models. We need to become better project managers, planners, and financial people. We need to talk early and often with those people who have the power to add costs through interference.

We need to recognize that there are a lot of interest groups out there who have legitimate concerns. Our technology can make a huge positive impact in the world, but we cannot be dismissive of the questions.

Find some environmentally interested people and try to engage them in conversations. Try to share your knowledge without being arrogant. (I find that quite difficult - it really is hard to be humble about the characteristics that nuclear power can bring to the table.

Just some thoughts for your consideration and discussion. I am not trying to lecture - but to inspire dialog and success.
Anonymous said…
The single best thing we can do right now is to keep existing plants operating.

There are some important battles shaping up in the Northeast: Vermont Yankee - Vermont being THE state with the BEST GHG profile because of nuclear energy.

Yankee Pilgrim is another battle.

Here in New Jersey we have Oyster Creek.

This plants must not go the way of Maine Yankee.

Thanks to Rod, by the way, for making me aware of new coal facility on the Maine Yankee grounds, and to Ruth Sponsler for spreading the word on this one.

We need to drive home the fact that every nuclear power plant that is shut and not replaced by new nuclear is, in fact, replaced by fossil fuels.

Anonymous said…
In my state the kooks browbeat a utility into trashing construction of a nuclear plant and replacing it with a coal-fired unit. Now the same idiots are complaining about the smog and ash and GHGs released by the coal unit. The politicans who fought against the nuclear unit are now crying the blues about proposals for carbon taxes and caps, and the recent ruling about regulating CO2. But they get mad when I remind them that they brought in on themselves. They could have avoided all of these headaches if they hadn't let the kooks buffalo them into trashing the nuclear plant. But they don't want to hear it. I guess it's just human nature to avoid facing up to the fact that you are stupid.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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.


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 Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot., the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…