Skip to main content

Bob Bennett and The 100 Nuclear Plants

1277260Bob_Bennett_official_photo_240 A couple of weeks ago, we noted that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) had called for building 100 new nuclear plants. What Alexander created is, shall we say, a meme, one that is catching on in Republican energy circles. Here for example is Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah):

"It's been my experience and my position...that one of the driving forces behind America's economic growth has been our access to cheap energy," Bennett said at a Republican-only hearing on energy development he organized. "If we're going to survive in the kind of economy we want, we need to have access to cheap energy."

We’re not sure we’d stress the “cheap” part of “cheap energy” – in a way, all energy has been cheap and we’re fairly sure that even the most draconian energy bill might make energy less cheap but far from ruinously expensive - but we take his point, especially since nuclear energy portends no particular need for foreign entanglement. It answers to concerns of energy security quite tidily.

Bennett serves on the energy and natural resources committee and is ranking member on the energy subcommittee of the appropriations committee. He has a significant voice in these issues. So his proscription matters:

That means, Bennett says, reviving the idea of building new nuclear reactors, a move the United States hasn't made since 1977. He wasn't alone in that thought.

He sure wasn’t.

"The president has said Iran can produce electricity through nuclear power, so why in the world should we not in the United States begin to pick up the technology that we invented," Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said.

"The future of energy is clean energy," said Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, including, "building at least 100 new nuclear power plans in the next 20 to 25 years."

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said he was stumped why anyone would oppose such a construction blitz.

"You'd think that all Americans can come together on a plan like that," Wicker said.

You’d think. We cannot find ourselves disagreeing with any of this, although we think Bennett’s Republican’s-only get-together would have benefited from some bipartisan effort. Excluding Democrats is what Republicans don’t like when it happens to them and a limited group with no real disagreement can lead to an airy dismissal of problems.

But if Bennett can broaden out his coalition some more – and we think he could – he can turn an interesting assemblage into one that might have an impact on policy. We hope he does that.

Himself. Sen. Bennett is in his third term as junior Senator and is next up for election next year. You can get a sense of his outlook on energy here.

Comments

Charles Barton said…
Nuclear Green is devoted to cheep nuclear energy. In route to that goal I propose numerous tricks:
factory manufacture
Recycling coal fired power plants for reactor sites
clustering modular reactors
Automatic reactor operation with no onsite staff
Underground location
And of Course, a fluid salt core
Based on old ORNL estimates LFTRs in the United States need not be greatly more expensive of Indian PHWR.
Pete said…
What leads you to believe the Democrats were "excluded"?
Republicans are a minority party. So they need to reach out to pro-nuclear Democrats if they seriously want to expand nuclear power production in this country.

But if the Republicans simply want to play politics with this issue, then there will be no significant expansion of nuclear energy in America because the extreme left in the Democratic Party is strongly against any nuclear expansion.

Clean energy is more than just a political issue. The fate of the American economy and the world's environment is at stake.
Joel Upchurch said…
I don't having some pro-nuke Democrats is going to help much when the leadership won't let Pro-nuke bills out of committee for a floor vote.

It looks like the Waxman-Markey bill, which is going to the floor this week, has a anti-nuke gotcha on page 245. It requires nuclear power plants built under the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program pay "prevailing wages" for the plant construction. This will increase the cost and negate the savings of the loan Guarantee.

http://www.anupchurchchrestomathy.com/2009/06/waxman-markey-goes-to-floor-vote.html
Anonymous said…
It requires nuclear power plants built under the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program pay "prevailing wages" for the plant construction. This will increase the cost and negate the savings of the loan Guarantee.

But doesn't NEI say in all the economic analyses of existing and new plants that it releases that nuclear power jobs already and will pay HIGHER than average wages for the regions in which they're located?

If that's true, why would a requirement to pay prevailing wages even affect nuclear projects, let alone increase their costs?

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

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: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…