Skip to main content

Steven Chu and The Perfect Storm

By

Steven ChuFirst, consider that Steven Chu’s confirmation hearing yesterday (you can watch the whole thing at this link – it’s a little over two hours) was moved to a bigger room. While we suspect that Hilary Clinton’s hearing, happening at the same time, got the marquee space, the interest in Chu’s testimony was huge – and justifiably so, as many of the energy topics addressed during the Presidential campaign continues to interest people even as gas prices have righted themselves.

Second, consider Chu’s unexpected celebrity as the product of the permanent bruising left from the pummeling at the pumps everyone took last Summer. If average energy consumers were sanguine before about their energy options, they are no longer. Add the popular and largely media-driven concern about global warming and greeniness and there is a perfect storm – the abstract and distant becomes concrete and immediate.

You can read Chu’s comments about nuclear energy in the post below. He had a lot to say on other topics, too, of course, but nuclear energy really became the renewable energy source of the day, with its cousins solar getting a couple of shout-outs (both positive) and wind barely gusting in. (Biofuel got more coverage than either – corn state Senators were looking for encouragement.)

---

Speaking of corn state senators, coal state senators were also much in attendance. Chu threaded his way very carefully through the resulting mind field, but there’s no reason to think he was insincere in his measured outlook for coal. Pull quote: "We will be building some coal plants. One doesn't have a hard moratorium on something like that when we search for a way to capture carbon and store it safely." Well, okay.

---

Chu’s focus on nuclear energy came about because of the questions he was asked, not by his own initiative. Still, it’s a big deal. Here’s the Politico’s headline:

Chu vows to push nuclear power

And first graf:

Steven Chu said on Tuesday that he would push as the new energy secretary to help the nuclear energy and clean coal industries jump-start their contributions to battle the nation’s energy crisis.

Headline from U.S. News and World Report:

Chu Quizzed Mostly on Nuclear Issues During Hearing for Energy Post

And first graf:

One could be forgiven for thinking that Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to head the Department of Energy, was being evaluated for a somewhat different role—that of, say, chief nuclear officer—during his Senate confirmation hearing this morning.

Yes, we think one could be forgiven.

While many outlets went with nuclear energy for their ledes, as many went with climate change as the hook – which suits us – while we were amused to see that both the Washington Times (an exceptionally conservative newspaper) and TPMCafe (an exceptionally liberal Web site) clamped onto coal: Obama energy pick backs coal and Energy Secretary-Designate, Steven Chu Endorses "Clean Coal"? (you can sample those for yourself – the perspectives differ quite a lot.)

Steven Chu swears in: the whole truth.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more