Skip to main content

Breathless: Nothing to Say About Nuclear Good News

JeanSeberg Well, we always have something to say, but there’s a fair number of interesting articles that come out each day which don’t really require much comment to be fully comprehensible on their own. For example:

Investing in new nuclear power plants is good for the economy, good for the environment and good for energy security. But to ensure that America's nuclear renaissance isn't derailed, members should reject the House restriction on loan guarantees for nuclear energy when the bill reaches the Senate floor.

This op-ed comes from the San Antonio Express-News and we thought might be responsive to the story we’ve been following on South Texas Project. But no: it’s instead a good editorial on the efficacy of nuclear energy written by Bernard Weinstein, the associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University. He knows whereof he speaks, so consider it another link to send your nuclear-deprived friends.

---

George Mason University has put together a poll with an unusually thorough slicing and dicing of the respondents’ profiles.They explain this here:

We are pleased to announce the release of our latest report - Global Warming's Six Americas 2009 . … In this report, we identify and profile six distinct groups of Americans based on their climate change beliefs, attitudes, risk perceptions, policy preferences, behaviors, barriers to action, motivations, and values.

Here are the six Americas: The Alarmed, The Concerned, The Cautious, The Disengaged, The Doubtful, and The Dismissive. (The Alarmed killed the Dismissive in the library with a solar panel.) Bottom line: top to bottom, the majority likes nuclear. Here’s the breakdown – just pair it with the categories above – 50, 57, 63, 57, 76 and 88 percent strongly or somewhat favor building new plants.

Here’s a link to the report (largeish pdf). The reason we don’t have a lot to say about this is that it seems to have settled into that 60 per cent or so range that nuclear energy hovers around in many polls. However, the methodology here is interesting – undertaken by students with a lot of time, presumably – and if your mind turns a certain way, the cross tabs will make you purr like a kitten for several hours at least.

---

Washington State Senator Jerome Delvin goes all out for nuclear energy in an article at Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Washington is a hydro state, but as Delvin points out:

Our state is fortunate to have clean, renewable hydropower - but we are now using virtually all the hydropower available. We cannot grow it 40 percent, never mind the amount needed to make up for the loss of coal, oil and gas. This task becomes even more insurmountable if the Snake River dams are removed.

Hmm, what to do?

To give up all energy produced from fossil fuels, we need another source of energy that's cheap, clean and full-time. Fortunately, one exists: Nuclear power. Europe is flourishing on it. In fact, France produces 80 percent of its energy from low-cost, zero-emissions nuclear power.

Delvin has his beans together and covers a lot of topics around nuclear energy for his readers. He’s no doubt alert to what Energy Northwest is up to – see post below – but interested here in making the sale for new nuclear. Nothing for us to say – he covers the salient topics in a salient way quite well.

---

If you poke around, you’ll be surprised at how many articles either provide a positive introduction to nuclear energy to readers or treat nuclear energy as essentially a given, especially in climate change discussions. People get it, the polls have come around, politicians are building policy around it. Maybe the reason we have nothing to say is that we’re breathless at the flood of nuclear good news that seems part and parcel of coverage these days.

Jean Seberg has a newspaper to sell you in the movie Breathless (1959).

Comments

crf said…
Jerome Delvin should say that France produces 80% of its electricity, rather than energy, with nuclear.
Ioannes said…
This gets so old after a while. Com'on guys. Obama let pro-nuke Peter Lyons go from the NRC. He demoted pro-nuke Dale Klein from Chairman to commissioner and he promoted anti-Yucca Mountain Jackzo as Chairman. Don't you guys remember how you fought to balance with Dominici's Lyons the appointment of Jackzo forced on Bush in a legislative deal with Harry Reid?

Now the two vacancies in the NRC will be filled by Precautionary Principle Dems who will constipate the fuel cycle by making it too expensive to make new fuel (DI&C-ISG-07 - go read it), and by preventing its storage or reprocessing.

There will be NO new nukes with Obama in charge. None. You need to throw the Dems out. If you can't do that, then the industry is doomed. That simple.
donb said…
The original posting stated:
Here are the six Americas: The Alarmed, The Concerned, The Cautious, The Disengaged, The Doubtful, and The Dismissive. (The Alarmed killed the Dismissive in the library with a solar panel.) Bottom line: top to bottom, the majority likes nuclear. Here’s the breakdown – just pair it with the categories above – 50, 57, 63, 57, 76 and 88 percent strongly or somewhat favor building new plants.

Most ironic! Those who are least concerned about the possibility of climate change are the most supportive of the technology that can do the most to prevent it! Those who are "Alarmed" and "Concerned" should be careful about critisizing who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, since those who "don't care" are the very ones most likely to fix the problem.
Brian Mays said…
donb - You are speaking from the assumption that these two groups really want something to be done that actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions overall -- ignoring the possibility that this "crisis" could be used as an excuse to push for solutions to other "problems."

Go read the report. Support for nuclear power is not the only factor that seems to be reasonably well correlated with "climate change beliefs."
Chad said…
loannes,

I have little doubt the VC Summer 2&3 and Vogtle 3&4 will be built. If these projects keep on budget and on time, the most reasonable anti nuclear argument will be dismissed and more orders will follow. In fact, Dominion will likely make one in the next 6 months.

Since this adminstration has take office, there has been no change in progress of these projects.

Your view of new construction from Castle Hayne is not as clear as those of us in Charlotte and Pittsburg.

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 …