Skip to main content

Simpson and Murkowski on Getting It

By

simpson For starters, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) can read the numbers:

In fact, the American people are well ahead of congressional Democrats in their support for nuclear energy. In a recent survey, fully 74 percent of Americans expressed support for nuclear energy, and with good reason.

Let’s acknowledge that supporting something purely due to poll numbers is not a great practice – people being ruled by passions and all – but in this instance, it allows discussion of the issue without much risk of being pitched out of office – and that’s only to the benefit of nuclear energy.

Simpson sees that not only can it work but has worked (and even nods to the French, a Republican no-no (<:)

France learned long ago that nuclear energy is safe, abundant and cheap. … Using our technology and the political will we lacked, France created a nuclear energy system that keeps the French people reliant upon only themselves for electricity and that ensures stability in their energy sector for decades to come.

And he gets the carbon emission reduction percentages and their implications:

The most recent version of their bill would require 20 percent of our nation's baseload energy sources to come from renewable fuels and energy efficiencies by 2020. Further, the bill would require a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and would establish some sort of auction whereby emitters would purchase credits.

And okay, we don’t agree with everything he says:

Republicans support renewable energy. Heck, we all do. But who wants their grandmother's kidney dialysis machine to rely on wind energy on a calm day or solar energy when the sun is not shining? Not me

But in general, we really appreciate that Simpson grasps the issues in so rounded a manner – we’ve charted a lot of off-the-wall Congressional hectoring on the developing energy policy, but Simpson really grasps the potential for nuclear energy going forward.

Himself.

---

Here’s a very good discussion on nuclear energy by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the ranking member on the energy and natural resources committee. When she talks on these issues, as she is here to President Obama, wise to listen. (warning: runs 20 minutes)

NOTE: Reposted. We made a big boo-boo that kind of wrecked our original point, but the materials still good. Enjoy.

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

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 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