Skip to main content

On YouTube and Not on YouTube

Thomas Farrell As the post below reminds us, NEI has a thriving YouTube channel where anything regarding nuclear energy is neatly extracted from longer talks or press conferences for your viewing pleasure. Here’s White House Science Director John Holdren during the Q&A after his speech at MIT (our transcript):

I think for a whole variety of reasons the United States needs to stay at the cutting edge of nuclear technology. And in order for us to do that, it would be nice if we had a domestic nuclear industry; building nuclear power plants in this country. I would like to see that happen. Steve Chu would like to see it happen. The President would like to see it happen.

Not least, because if I didn't make that clear enough in this talk, although nuclear energy is not a panacea for the climate problem, there is no panacea, it could make a significant contribution if we could make it expandable again. It would be easier to solve the climate problem with the help of nuclear energy than without it.

And I think it's in our interest therefore to help ourselves and help the rest of the world figure out how to get that done; with the appropriate technologies, the appropriate training, the appropriate regulations.

And:

The Unites States is not yet in any danger of being left in the dust in this domain. But we've got to pay attention. We've got to make the investments. We've got to do what needs to be done to create the environment in which this technology becomes expandable again.

You can watch the whole thing here.

---

But all right, just as all your friends have not friended you on Facebook, so it is that every speech doesn’t make it onto YouTube.

For example, Thomas Farrell, Chairman, President and CEO of Dominion Energy, gave an interesting speech to the Harvard Business School Energy and Environment Club’s Energy Symposium 2010 in which he lays out his views on energy policy - very timely given the recent election. It’s a long talk and well worth reading but here’s a bit of the take-away:

Ultimately, I believe, we must center our energy policy on the concept of security – the most meaningful principle, as it recognizes the interdependencies, scale and complexity of the energy supply system.

Energy security is rooted in a number of different things:

Supportive legislation and regulation that provide access to and responsible development of our domestic resource base:  natural gas and oil, both onshore and offshore, as well as coal and uranium.

A modernized, smart power grid – empowering consumers and moving electricity reliably and efficiently to population centers where it is needed most. Here is where conservation may yet have a chance to promote reduced energy demand, lower costs and protect environmental quality.

Robust international relations and trade that help maintain stability and long-term economic growth.

And perhaps most important of all, reliance on the full range of energy sources at our disposal.

Energy diversity is really the key to America’s energy security.  As any decent financial adviser will tell you, the best hedge against a market is a diversified portfolio.   You knew that – even before you came to HBS [Harvard business School].  The same is true for energy.

Thomas Farrell.

Comments

SteveK9 said…
'There is no panacea.'

'There is no silver bullet.'

These are cliche's that are now spoken as if checking off a box, without really thinking about it.

Nuclear is a panacea, it is the silver bullet. 50 years from now people will wonder why this wasn't already clear to us by now.
Philip said…
Nuclear is a panacea, it is the silver bullet. 50 years from now people will wonder why this wasn't already clear to us by now.

+100

There is nothing else that can help.
DocForesight said…
I suspect that Holdren, and other government officials, say these cliche's in order to appease certain environmental or industry groups. A nod in their direction, if you will.

I'd like to believe the current administration is serious about encouraging a nuclear renaissance. The loan guarantees are helpful but there appears to be lingering doubt about their continuance. The skilled labor, manufacturing and construction jobs this renewal would produce would go a long way to reviving our economy.

Other countries are clamoring for the technology and we seem to be dithering.

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 …