Skip to main content

President Obama on Energy: Chuck Schumer

Last week, the senior Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, stopped by the Charlie Rose show and surveyed the Senate landscape under an Obama administration. A transcription follows, but mere text on a page does disservice to the actual exchange - occurring at the 13:40 mark in the video below.
Charlie Rose: What else will we see in terms of legislation in the House and Senate?
Chuck Schumer: You will see a really serious energy policy that will wean us away from fossil fuels.
Charlie Rose: Okay, but tell me what that means. What is going to wean us away?
Chuck Schumer: It means, it's going to mean changing the tax laws. We developed...
Charlie Rose: Incentives to...
Chuck Schumer: All kinds of alternative energies. All kinds. I would say with President Obama, nuclear energy is on the table. Okay? People don't realize that. It's in his platform.
Charlie Rose: Add to nuclear energy?
Chuck Schumer: Mmm hmmm. Mmm hmmm. [Affirmative]. With Senator Obama, all kinds of... now, we'll have an electric car. Production. Work. Travels the same distance in five or six years. Okay?

Comments

Matthew66 said…
Westinghouse and Chicago Bridge and Iron announced last week that a $150 million contract for the fabrication of two containment vessels for AP1000 nuclear reactors. The utility involved was not disclosed. Currently there are six applications for twelve AP1000's being considered by the NRC. If CBI does a good job on the first contract, they're frontrunners for the other five, potentially another $750 million. Does anyone seriously think that President Obama is going to take that kind of work away from a company tied to his home state?

The new build in the nuclear industry is going to provide a lot of jobs to traditional Democrat voters - steel workers, boiler makers, electrical workers, construction workers, shipyard workers. They've delivered Michigan and Virgninia to the Democrats. I don't think the President-elect is going to bite the hand that feeds him.
Anonymous said…
If I were thinking about building a new reactor, I would be very worried about that capital at risk. With capital being very scarce, commodities being expensive, and real reason to believe that Harry Reid will set the agenda in the Senate, I would not bet the company on a risky new plant project that ends like that fancy new plant on Long Island that never made power.

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…