Skip to main content

Hot Off the Presses: Editorial Feedback on Loan Guarantees

41I5CKeEvTL._SS400_ How has the editorial response to President Barack Obama’s announcement of loan guarantees been? Good – really good.

Now, let’s acknowledge just for fun that the ink stained wretches of the fourth estate – now byte stained wretches too – remain far more relevant to policy discussion than falling circulation and industry crisis might lead one to believe. While all the enthusiasm may point online, the kind and quality of attention given a subject by the general public – not to mention the news agenda for a given period – is still controlled primarily by print media and its online outlets.

Whether that’s a good or bad thing, or a terribly retrograde thing, we can’t begin to judge – but when opinion begins to form around an issue, your old-fashioned purveyor of comic strips and advice columns provides a powerful voice – and can make or break developing policy of all kinds. Take it seriously or risk missing a key component in how the country understands issues.

So, that out of the way, here’s The Denver Post:

We're heartened to see the Obama administration pledge $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to back construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia. It is a solid first step. The administration says this will be the first in a slew of commitments to future nuclear projects, which is even better news.

Do read the whole thing – if you’re a nuclear energy advocate, you’ll find it spectacularly warming.

Granted, the Bemidji (Minn.) Pioneer serves a pretty small market, but we were tickled by this:

The time has come to include nuclear power in a discussion of alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind and biomass. It’s also time to think about additional nuclear energy in Minnesota, in light of failed efforts to build a new clean-coal power plant.

We can only agree.

Here’s the Wilmington (N.C.) Star News:

Done right, a high-tech, safe nuclear power system should be a boon both for power users in our area as well as the many workers the industry employs here.

A lot of these editorials, you’ll note, hit the jobs issue hard – that makes sense in the current environment. The title of this one is “New nuclear power plants could mean lots of new business for area.” We genuinely think that will happen, all over.

And finally, The New York Times:

President Obama’s decision to commit $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to help build two nuclear reactors in Georgia and restart the American nuclear power industry makes good sense.

[…]

From where we sit, the risks are worth taking to get the United States back into the game, for the sake of the climate, this country’s energy future and the jobs a vibrant nuclear technology industry could create.

The title of this one: A Reasonable Bet on Nuclear Power. So Times, that.

It would be a surprise even to us if this extremely well-received move proved to be an item that helped the administration’s poll numbers. Such a result would have been unimaginable not so very long ago, but it certainly seems conceivable – if newspapers still hold some sway.

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 …