Skip to main content

Simpson and Murkowski on Getting It

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.

Comments

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 …

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 Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …