Check out this quiz over at the American Petroleum Institute to see how well you know nuclear's competitors. I scored nine out of ten.
A tip of the hat to Nick Loris.
A tip of the hat to Nick Loris.
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Comments
No mention of how much oil can be drilled on US offshore, how quickly can it be put to market and how long it lasts.
No mention of how much EROEI the Canadian tar sands have, and its polluting effects.
No mention of how close we are to next generation biofuels and how much land is needed to cater to US oil needs by growing switchgrass.
No mention of how much needs to be invested on trains and electrifying the transport sector. No mention of how that compares to investing in oil.
Oil is a weak thing as compared to coal, you don't need nuclear to beat oil. Oil could be beaten by pretty much anything.. natural gas, wind, biofuels.
Fighting oil is not an environmental issue, it is purely an issue of economic security.
Nuclear is needed when we talk of replacing coal, this is the true environmental issue.
One fact that the major oil and gas companies keep touting as a positive is something that I believe is actually quite negative - insiders own less than 5% of the stock in the company. They are managers with interests other than the best interests of the stockholders. Their compensation is based on metrics that might not be best for the long term health of the company.
I think it is very telling that ExxonMobil has poured more than $118 billion of its capital in the past five years into stock purchase plans. The main purpose of such plans is to bump the stock price - usually temporarily. If they really wanted to return the money to the investors - especially tax exempt pension funds, they would raise the dividends, not buy back stock.
ExxonMobil is not the only major making that choice. From my point of view it really makes it clear that their message of "do not raise our taxes, we need the money for investing in future energy" a blatant lie.
Keep comming!!!
Abhishek
http://innovideas.blogspot.com