Skip to main content

Venezuela Gets a Pass, Whitman Talks Nuclear

WP528FIRSTPERSON In writing about Venezuela’s nuclear energy ambitious, I wondered what the U.S. response would be. Now we know:

"We have no incentive nor interest in increasing friction between Venezuela and the US, but we do think Venezuela needs to act responsibly," [President Barack] Obama told Spanish media at the White House.

"Our attitude is that Venezuela has rights to peacefully develop nuclear power," he said, adding that as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty it must also meet its obligations not to weaponize those systems.

So there you go. And Venezuela is moving right along:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez clinched a deal in Moscow on Friday that will see Russia build and operate the first nuclear power plant in his country.

You can read the rest of the story for more.

---

Former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman weighs in on the renewable electricity standard, which will require that utilities get a percentage of their power from non-carbon-emitting energy sources. Leaving nuclear energy out of the standard has never seemed very on-point since the goal of it is to encourage the production of “clean” electricity. Nuclear does that. Here’s Whitman:

Whitman said in a telephone interview that she'd like to see it broadened to a "green" standard that includes nuclear power. She argued that renewable sources alone won't be able to meet the country's growing energy needs.

This is true, but if the goal is to promote wind, solar, hydro and so on, then perhaps nuclear does not need to be part of it.

"What we want is clean, green energy," Whitman said. "And you should let the market decide which form is going to work the best. If you say renewables, you can't include nuclear, because it does rely on uranium, and that's a finite resource."

Because when you limit the standard to renewable, you’re not really fulfilling the policy goal.

"What we want is clean, green energy," Whitman said. "And you should let the market decide which form is going to work the best. If you say renewables, you can't include nuclear, because it does rely on uranium, and that's a finite resource."

In other words, make the standard broad enough without being too specific about the technologies needed to accomplish the standard’s objective. In that way, government policy and industry policy sync more congenially.

"I get very leery when Congress picks the winners within any band of energy source," she added.

Say it loud.

Christine Todd Whitman. An excellent example of a person who has devoted herself to public service, elective or no.

Comments

Aaron Rizzio said…
I don't know why Whitman & the NEI wont just push to have fission officially designated "renewable" and point out that SNF can be recycled into fuel for either fast-spectrum or thorium fuel cycles.

Geothermal, solar, wind, and hydro are considered "renewable" despite the fact that the Earth's core will cool one day and the Sun will exhaust its hydrogen fuel.
Brian Mays said…
"I don't know why Whitman & the NEI wont just push to have fission officially designated 'renewable' ..."

It's because when they do, they run across jerks like Michael Eckhart.

"Renewable" energy (except for hydroelectric) is a scam, and these scammers don't want a viable technology to gain access to their gravy train of government handouts.

Since nuclear power produces results, rather than just empty promises, all of the incentive money would eventually flow to nuclear, which would leave the "real renewables" high and dry.

Why do you think that the renewable proponents, like Eckhart, fight the inclusion of nuclear energy into the definition of "renewable" so hard? They can see the writing on the wall.

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 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…