Skip to main content

The End of Seasons

By

AkinTodd We’ve turned the spotlight on some politicians who really seem to have done their homework on climate change, cap-and-trade, nuclear energy and the other topics that will be important as the climate change and energy bills work their way through Congress.

We did that because, first, they deserve a little attention for doing their jobs well – we’ve spotlighted Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), but there are plenty of others who have done the home work and shared what they’ve learned. That they mostly support nuclear energy – well, surely the mark of advanced intelligence, no?

And second, because all this good work can get drowned out when you run into comments like this:

This whole thing strikes me [as] if it weren’t so serious as being a comedy, you know? I mean, we just went from winter to spring. In Missouri, when we go from winter to spring, that’s a good climate change. I don’t want to stop that climate change, you know? Who in the world want to put politicians in charge of the weather anyway? What a dumb idea.

At least this seems an intentional joke:

Some of the models said that we’re going to have surf at the front steps of the Capitol pretty soon. I was really looking forward to that.

That’s Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) on the floor of the House. Leaving aside the confusion about weather and climate, this does not seem responsive to the legislation or to the needs of policy. While we grant that deriding policy you don’t like is a grand old tradition, and that supporting wrong-headed legislation is never a good idea, we’re not sure presenting this as an argument on the House floor is particularly useful.

Viewing Rep. Akin’s homepage, we find he is intensely interested in a shortfall of Navy fighter planes. We’d love to hear more from him on that subject.

Rep. Todd Akin. He serves on the House Energy and Environment subcommittee, which passed the climate change (cap-and-trade) bill; we bet his questions of witnesses there aren’t all that bad.

Labels:

Comments

Colin said…
Lighten up! Geez. It’s not usual for members of Congress or other leaders to use satire, humor or other devices to make a point about an issue, particularly one as contentious as climate change. I’m sure that Rep. Akin isn’t waxing up his long board anticipating the day that the Capitol is underwater.
June 4, 2009 at 7:36 PM
MD said…
Humor aside, climate change is a serious issue that has many dimensions. It should be considered fully and with all due consideration to the environmental and economic impact on all Americans.

Given the political and regional differences associated not only with climate change policy, but also with energy policy, there will be a great many differences among members of Congress and their constituents as this debate ensues. Many support cap-and-trade scheme; others a carbon tax. There is the question of allocations and how they should be distributed.

Reducing greenhouse gases while meeting future electricity demand is as serious an issue as Congress as debated in some time. Sure, there are strong feelings on both sides. There also are many members of Congress who are devoted to striking a legislative balance that enhances our environment without putting an undue economic burden on consumers.

Electricity bills will increase in the years to come as our high-tech conveniences suck more power from the grid. Add to that the cost of power plants and a smart grid to maintain the electric system reliability we enjoy today, and it’s easy to see why Congress must support cost-effective carbon reductions
June 4, 2009 at 11:03 PM
donb said…
Climate change is the issue in vogue right now with regards to reducing CO2 emissions via nuclear energy. The unfortunate results is this one issue tends to become THE reason to promote nuclear energy. However, there so are many known bad affects from burning fossil fuels (especially coal) that even climate change agnostics (such as myself) who look carefully at energy issues can easily conclude the nuclear is the way to go. Making known this long list of bad affects is how to promote nuclear energy. If you also want to put climate change on the list, be my guest.
June 5, 2009 at 3:46 PM
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