Skip to main content

Is Mario Cuomo Another Democrat for Nuclear Energy?

Over at DMI Blog, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo has been writing a series of posts on new priorities for progressive politicians. Today, he turned to his suggestions for strengthening the economy, including his ideas for energy policy.

In the nuclear energy business, Cuomo is best known for leading the opposition to the opening of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island -- a plant that was complete and ready to begin providing reliable, emission-free electricity to a region that has traditionally paid some of the highest utility rates in the nation.

Which is why the following words come as something of a surprise:
We should also take a fresh look at nuclear energy that uses uranium, a fuel that is available, less expensive and a good replacement for fossil fuels that produce dangerous carbon dioxide emissions. Until now nuclear energy in the United States has been discouraged because the construction technology has been imperfect, siting has been done carelessly and there is not yet a safe and convenient way to dispose of nuclear wastes. If we can find a way to travel to the moon and back we can solve all these technological problems as well, especially since it’s clear that France has been doing it for many years.

Ultimately the use of nuclear power for energy instead of destructiveness should be a vital part of our non-proliferation strategy with Iran, North Korea and other nations.
While Cuomo straddles on enough points here to cover his previous opposition to Shoreham, the statement as a whole -- which seems to include an endorsement of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) or something like it -- is something of a revelation.

I'll be watching for more from the former Governor in this area. Please recall that his son, Andrew, is currently serving as Attorney General for the State of New York.

Comments

Anonymous said…
And Mario's son Andrew, along with Westchester County Commissioner Andy Spano and US Reps Nita Lowey and Mark Green are leading the fight to shut Indian Point down. Let's not forget Hillary who proposed the E-plan siren law that required backup sirens for hi population density areas, and that this affects ONLY Indian Point.

Yes, I am very surprised at Mario's words. Maybe the Dems will turn around. But when I look at Andy Cuomo, Hillary Clinton, Elliot Spitzer and all the rest, I don't see any turn around in attitude.
d kosloff said…
Spitzer needed to make a publicity splash to distract people from the news of his political corruption.
Anonymous said…
Mario Cuomo would sell his first-born to gain political advantage – oh wait, I forgot – he’s already done that!

He bought Shoreham for $1 and passed the $ billions of cost to future generations of New Yorkers to gain the political support of Long Island soccer moms, and to pay off his lawyer cronies. That was after the mob made their $ millions in concrete sales and kick-backs from the trade unions who built the plant.

I feel qualified to judge Cuomo: I lived in NY during the demise of Shoreham, and was subject to more than 20 years of the heavy tax burden that state is famous for.

I will never be able to believe anything that comes out of Mario Cuomo’s mouth, much less an apparent change of tune when it comes to nuclear energy.
Anonymous said…
No matter what Cuomo says now, he is still responsible for wrecking the Shoreham plant. Aside from costing the Northeast about 1000 MW of safe, reliable, emissions-free electricity, he ruined the lives, jobs, and careers of many fine people who were employed at that plant. One of them was an ex-student of mine who was in the C&HP department. The company promised to "take care of him" when they trashed the plant. They did that, alright. They made him a forklift operator on a loading dock. Really good for one's career advancement.

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…