Skip to main content

The State of the Union: The Reaction

s-MCDONNELL-large President Barack Obama essentially led with nuclear energy while discussing energy last night, a move that surprised many, delighted us (and more besides us) and distressed a few. It may prove to be one of the “discussed” points of the speech. Take this bit from CNET’s coverage:

"One surprise that few people would have anticipated only a few years ago: A mention of biofuels and clean coal received moderate applause. What drew the audience to its feet, cheering, was Obama's call for the construction of more nuclear power plants. Wind and solar combined produce less than 5 percent of U.S. electricity; Republicans have been calling on the administration to embrace a goal of authorizing 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years."

Well, we wouldn’t say that’s exactly what Republicans have been calling for – Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) definitely – and it wasn’t only Republicans jumping to their feet, unless Democrats were just getting the circulation going. But we’ll take it.

---

Here’s USA Today’s Greenhouse blog:

Is nuclear power ready for a resurgence? President Obama received standing applause, from both sides of the political aisle, when he called Wednesday in his State of the Union address for a "new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants."

To answer that opening question: Yes. The story goes on with some quotes from administration officials in support of nuclear energy. Writer Wendy Koch seems a bit quizzical about it all. Well, good – leads to learning more.

---

Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia did the opposition response last night. This is a pretty terrible duty for anyone, because all attention is elsewhere, and McDonnell was a bit hamstrung by Obama’s conciliatory tone. Here are his comments on energy:

Advances in technology can unleash more natural gas, nuclear, wind, coal, and alternative energy to lower your utility bills.

Here in Virginia, we have the opportunity to be the first state on the East Coast to explore for and produce oil and natural gas offshore.

But this Administration's policies are delaying offshore production, hindering nuclear energy expansion, and seeking to impose job-killing cap and trade energy taxes.

Now is the time to adopt innovative energy policies that create jobs and lower energy prices.

See? Obama handled this pretty much as McDonnell did. Of course, McDonnell was charged with striking an overt partisan tone, which seems querulous in context. A thankless job.

---

Beyond Nuclear was beyond unhappy:

In a disappointing moment during his State of the Union speech that surely must have alienated many in the environmental movement that helped elect him president, Barack Obama called for the three pillars of pollution to address U.S. energy needs.

Nuclear energy is one of those pillars – they mean used nuclear fuel, although it doesn’t even in the worst possible interpretation qualify as pollution - with oil and coal standing atop the other two. We’re pretty sure most environmentalists grant that renewable energy sources and energy conservation will only get the carbon emission reduction caboose halfway home, if that. For the rest, there may be disagreement whether to favor nuclear or, say, natural gas, but at least there’s a discussion. But if you’re going to call your group Beyond Nuclear, well, that’s the niche.

---

We took a look at the Heritage Foundation’s reaction – they’re pretty reliable friends of nuclear energy. Jack Spencer’s take, however, focuses more on Heritage’s free market orientation:

If the President believes that the nation needs more nuclear power, then he should reform the regulatory system that continues to stifle progress in the industry. If he believes that we need to gain access to our domestic energy resource by drilling in our offshore waters, then he should lift the ban on those activities. And finally, if he truly wants to see wind and solar power to be commercially viable, then he must stop subsidizing those activities.

Which, if you agree, is totally right and if you don’t, totally wrong. At the very least, Heritage is “pure” enough not to leave much room for ambiguity. Your choice.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

Comments

Anonymous said…
In fairness, Gunter and "Beyond Nuclear" are never happy.

I hope Obama is serious, although his track record (YMP, GNEP, Jackzo, etc.) makes me take his statements with a WIPP-sized grain of salt.
Phil said…
"WIPP-sized grain of salt"

I LOLed!! :-D

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…