Skip to main content

An Editorial Lollopalooza: The Pleasures and Dangers of Too Many Friends

While we cannot help but be heartened by all the good press nuclear energy has been picking up lately, we hope it is not collateral to the hoopla surrounding offshore drilling and the attendant determination to score political points with it. Like offshore drilling, nuclear energy can be part of a solution, but it’s not a panacea: there is a real danger of overloading specific solutions with so much significance that a prime opportunity can slip by for developing a sensible energy policy. A point or two at the polls, we have found, can be a powerful incentive for half-baked ideas. (To put it another way, let the gas tax holidays begin!)

Well, enough of that. We don’t know what the inside of a gift horse’s mouth looks like and maybe we shouldn’t be trying to find out. Let’s enjoy some nuclear goodness instead.

Mark J Perry in the Hartford (Ct.) Courant balances enthusiasm against realism just about right:

This support for nuclear energy is a hopeful sign, because the problems it has encountered have never been technological; they have been primarily political and institutional.

The United States pioneered the development of nuclear energy, and had the first major nuclear program. Most other leading industrial countries have continued developing their nuclear programs since the last nuclear plant order in the United States — primarily using U.S. technology.

Today we have the means — and more important, an urgent need — to bring that technology back home.

Howard Shaffer in the Union Leader (in Concord, N.H.) is a bit more worrisome – he comes pretty close to calling nuclear energy a cure-all - though he’s got all his facts in order:

The average nuclear plant runs uninterrupted for nearly two years before shutting down for refueling. And the refueling process is completed in a few weeks instead of a few months. That's one reason the Pilgrim plant was up and running 95 percent of the time from 2004 to 2006. Over that three-year span, the Seabrook plant was operating 91 percent of the time and Vermont Yankee, 98 percent. By comparison, the average capacity factor is 43 percent for a U.S. natural gas combined-cycle plant and 16 percent for a natural gas steam turbine. The gas plants run as little as possible because their fuel is so expensive.

And oh, all right, haters, here’s Sara Barczak in the Atlanta Constitution-Journal. Hooey central:

As we're seeing with Iran, it's unlikely that the U.S. would be keen on having nuclear power technologies shipped all over the globe. Global warming and all smart energy policies require terror-resistant solutions. No matter what you think about nuclear power, it will not solve global warming and it can only complicate strained international relations.

But in spite of these nuclear-induced headaches, Georgia and several of our neighboring states are headed for a nuclear relapse. Don't let history repeat itself. We can't afford it, and we don't have time.

Just in case you thought we were getting swelled heads.

Comments

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …