Skip to main content

Planet Forward - Make Your Case

Planet ForwardNEI's VP, Angie Howard, has made her case: submitting a video to PBS's Planet Forward show. Scheduled to air on April 15th, the primetime special will feature viewer-submitted video clips that address the feasibility of moving away from fossil fuels, domestically and globally.

Visitors can rate and comment on Angie's clip, Teaming Nuclear and Renewable Energies, on the Planet Forward website. (Vote now - and often. The highest-rated submissions are more likely to be selected for the show.) The video can also be seen on NEI's YouTube channel here.




Comments

gunter said…
"teaming" nuclear with renewables.
This is really NEI's April Fools joke, right?

While nuclear power was sold as "too cheap to meter" during its rise till its fall it consumed more federal R&D of any energy source... no that its burned out private investment in fact its remains "too expensive to share."
Jason Ribeiro said…
It's too bad the sound quality of this video is rather poor.

Overall I think it's a good strategy and message to market nuclear as a team player in the clean energy mix. Personally though, I think nuclear makes solar and wind energy more or less irrelevant.

This is a political struggle as much as a scientific and economic one. Showing the nuclear industry wants to play nice is key to gaining more trust. And given the latest poll results, I think people are getting the message.
Jason Ribeiro said…
Mr. Gunter - Latching onto a quote that is over 50 years old to intentionally misconstrue the facts about nuclear energy is an old routine of the anti-nuclear clan. The fact is that solar and wind energy are some of the most expensive per unit forms of energy. Nuclear has some of the lowest costs per unit of energy produced.

The quote was "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy electrical energy in their homes too cheap to meter." said in 1954 by then Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman of the AEC. He was referencing the concept of fusion, not fission energy. Moreover, this was not a promise, it was that man's imagination of passing a better world to future generations. I think that is a notion we all share. Is it not a green vision to imagine energy supplies that belong to everyone and are affordable? Is that not the meaning behind the word when you say "share"?

I remember when Al Gore was misquoted as "invented the internet" and he was relentlessly raked over for it. Of course Al was explaining that he supported legislation for the R&D group which developed the internet. I always defended Al Gore when I heard someone mention that misquote. When you misquote Admiral Strauss, you are using the same type of tactics that were used against Al Gore.
gunter said…
I know the quote well... dating it is irrelevant given nuclear power is only more expensive than ever today. The point being nuclear power is not a "team player" as it is so much more capital intensive now that it is will suck up the lion's share of R&D as it did from 1948 to 1991 as documented by Congressional Research Service reports.
Jason Ribeiro said…
If you know the quote well, then why do you continue to misconstrue it for your own self serving agenda?

Mr. Gunter, expensive is a relative term. The gov't spent about 2.5x the amount of money recently on renewable energy, conservation, geothermal, wind, solar, etc. - collectively compared to nuclear R&D. Has it occurred to you that no matter how much money is put into solar or wind R&D that only a small amount of benefit will become of it due to the intermittent nature of the wind and sun? Has it occurred to you that wind energy has the highest consumption of steel and concrete per unit of energy and thus is more "expensive" than nuclear, especially when you consider wind's extremely low capacity factor (a term almost totally absent from the mind of most wind enthusiasts)?
John Wheeler said…
The repeated rendition of the “too cheap to meter” mantra by anti-nukes is like children teasing in the schoolyard, “Na-Na-Na, I told you so…..” Is there anything new to add to the discussion? It’s getting a bit stale!

Today nuclear electricity is generated for about 1.7 cents per kW-Hr. Based on the consumer price index, the present day cost of nuclear electricity in 1954 dollars is about 0.21 cents ($0.0021) per kW-Hr. That is about one-half of what it cost in 1954 to generate electricity (primarily by coal). Nuclear energy has done pretty well for electricity rate payers; essentially cutting the cost of electricity in half while reducing air pollution, acid rain, and GHG emissions.

Over that same 60 year period nuclear energy essentially eliminated petroleum use as an energy source for electricity generation and put a huge dent in the coal-producers pocket book. Many of the same anti-nukes who sing the “expensive nuclear” mantra are on the payroll of the coal, gas and oil industries. Call me suspicious, but I hardly think that’s a coincidence.

Today the market price for electricity in the NY ISO was around 38 cents per kW-Hr. With a production cost of 1.7 cents per kW-Hr, nuclear power plants contribute to lower rates, and help meet regional greenhouse gas emission goals, all while providing a nice return on investment.
Anonymous said…
Mr. Gunter,

When the quote you so love to take out of context was first said my mother was 4 years old. I had never heard of it before until I read one of your parrotted comments. Therefore, please excuse me when I say I place little to no relevance in it.

I won't bother refuting your claims of nuclear energy's "great expense", as this blog and the previous commenters do a good job of that already.

-Sarah
Anonymous said…
I'm beginning to feel that any talk of "future energy' is a moot point. I think if we get 3degrees C , we will have passed the point of no return, if we haven't already. Global warming is not entirely human driven, but a natural progression, that has happened many times before. We are destined for extinction like any other animal. Because we have 'self awareness' does' not exclude us from the performance of nature!!

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…