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

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…

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 …

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…