Skip to main content

NEI’s VP Alex Flint Debated Beyond Nuclear’s Kevin Kamps on C-SPAN

This morning NEI’s VP Alex Flint debated Kevin Kamps (pdf) from Beyond Nuclear for about 45 minutes.

Besides disagreeing with every issue Mr. Kamps raised, I have to say he was quite smooth with his responses and did an effective job at making his case. But as Mr. Flint pointed out at 42:50, many of Mr. Kamps’ claims were “irresponsible fear mongering.”

Among the topics discussed were CBO’s debunked 50 percent default rate which is not based on past industry experience, Vermont Yankee’s tritium situation, and how loan guarantees reduce the cost of electricity to the consumer (pdf). Enjoy!

Comments

Carletes said…
makes me sick to see the same old BS coming out of kamps' mouth. Markajani study? Amory Lovins? Can't believe he keeps reinforcing the 50% default rate. Not even restaurants default that much.
I'm wondering why NEI doesn't emphasize the importance of baseload power. To me, the most important thing is that when I flip the switch, the light in my house (or my computer, which I used to do work) turns on.

To me, that's something important that any energy policy has to preserve.
Anonymous said…
why NEI doesn't emphasize the importance of baseload power

Because "baseload" is a bisyllabic word, which is one more syllable than the average voter can handle.
DocForesight said…
@Anon - Here's a simple solution to that problem:

break the word in two, thus:

base ... load.

See? Single syllables.
Phil Hamm said…
"I feel like I'm arguing with somebody who says that we can't put men on the moon". CLASSIC!!!! HA HA HA HA!! SO TRUE!

"That's irresponsible fear mongering." Good for you!!!!!
T-Squared said…
Alex did a fantastic job! He was cool, calm and measured, providing factual responses to the concerns brought up.

Had I been in Alex's shoes, I would have lost my patience with Kevin Kamps, reached over the desk, grabbed him by the his lapels, looked him straight in the eye and said: "Why can't you get it through your thick skull that the waste problem isn't spent nuclear fuel its the billions of tons of CO2 emissions being spewed out every year through human activity and your pathetic wind farms just aren't going to cut it."

Kevin would do well to read David McKay's book "Sustainable Energy -- Without the Hot Air". I am sure if he did he would stop trying to flog Arjun Makhijani's fluff piece on carbon-free energy. David MacKay incidentally is the UK's Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change and, as one would expect from someone in his position, he has a pretty good handle on the capabilities of renewables and their drawbacks. He has concluded, if we want to beat climate change, we need a good dollop of nuclear energy.

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…

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…