Skip to main content

Should Democrats Embrace Nuclear Energy?

For Daily Kos diarist bryfry, the answer is yes:
Now is the time for Democrats to champion real solutions (note: that's plural; there are more than one solution) that don't require fossil fuels. Nobody is saying that efficiency, conservation, or renewables should be discarded. On the contrary, they are absolutely essential. But to leave out nuclear energy -- the one energy source that has proven itself in the US, in France, in Japan, and is today proving itself in over 400 currently operating reactors worldwide -- is simply ludicrous.

Democrats should say yes to nuclear energy. Now is the chance to provide real answers to one of the most important questions of our time: how will we live and where will the energy come from? The opportunity is too great to pass up.
For more, read this Boston Globe op ed from John Dyson and Matt Bennett.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Please, nuclear is not safe since it leaves
radioactive refuse, in many instances in places
that don't want it or are so poor and willing to
accept it. Where will you be in 25,000 years
to see if the systems determined to last,
didn't break down? Also given our world of
terrorism, why not build more targets?

MIT determined that two geo thermal plants
could be built within a few years...one on each
coast, at the cost of 2.9 billion dollars that would
produce 24X the amount of electricity currently
used. This is a minimal cost compared to its
production, as well as having no deleterious
effect on the environment now or in the
future. I know they say it can make faults
more vulnerable, but how about not building
on one, such as occurred with previous
nuclear plants. Nuclear plants have been gone for 30 years for a reason. It is like resuscitating
Frankenstein. We don't want them, they are the
dinosaur of the past. Give true green a chance,
and new industries that promote the well-being
of our citizens. Green and nuclear are an
oxymoron, outrageous that you would support
this issue.

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 …

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…

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…