Skip to main content

All Around the Country: More Editorials

natchez-ms An editorial from The Herald Times Reporter in Wisconsin takes a reasonably concerned stance:

Sara Cassidy of the Point Beach plant said the facility's design and maintenance are based on the worst-case seismic scenario for the plant's location.

And Mark Kanz of the Kewaunee nuclear plant said its owner, Dominion Resources, would review all of its safety systems.

They all are comforting, albeit predictable, statements.

Comforting, we hope, predictable, maybe, true, yes.

In this case, however, we put more stock in the past than in what might happen in a future impossible to predict. The Point Beach and Kewaunee facilities have, for the most part, had clean safety records since going online in the 1970s.

There have been occasional glitches, but they were thoroughly examined by the NRC and corrective measures were taken. None of the instances rose to the level of seriously compromising public safety.

We can be thankful that current and previous management of the local nuclear facilities has been, if not always stellar, at least proficient to the point of keeping the plants operating safely and efficiently.

I’ll bow to local media on how “stellar” management of the plants have been – though I suspect that’s a newspaper’s watchdog instinct at work – it’s really the conclusion that counts:

We hope that nuclear power, with ongoing and thorough oversight, will continue to be part of the nation's energy landscape for many years to come.

---

The Natchez (Miss.) Democrat takes the same tone as the Wisconsin paper and for the same reason: there’s a nuclear plant in the neighborhood. But like Wisconsin, the tone here is concerned and supportive:

Thus far the track record in the U.S. has been good.

In terms of human lives lost, coal mining and oil and gas drilling have proven far more deadly to the workers involved in their production than nuclear energy production.

However, it’s the threat of being harmed by invisible radiation associated with nuclear energy that gives many people fear.

Most of us know we’ll rarely be in a coal mine or on an oil rig in the gulf, but the notion that radiation might seep into our lives and harm us is enough to worry even the most calm among us.

When the current crisis has passed, we hope our nation — and the world — considers bolstering the already stringent nuclear regulations to help avoid another crisis in the future. By all accounts, our world needs the potent energy creating aspects of nuclear power, but we need to continue our excellent record of safety.

Let’s leave to one side that American regulation didn’t play a part one way or another in Japan – the desire to see that regulation is strengthened here at home is certainly valid. The editorial board at the Democrat might want to go over here to learn more about radiation.

---

The Washington Times is not known for nuance. This editorial takes up the issue of Yucca Mountain:

President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise to his radical supporters by zeroing out funding for Yucca Mountain in his fiscal 2011 budget last year. Then his energy secretary, Steven Chu, tasked nuclear energy backers with finding a different disposal solution.

This is true except for the whole “radical supporters” bit. To the Times, “radical” just means ideologically left of center and even that’s a stretch in this instance.

The O [for Obama, I guess]  Force is pursuing an unrealistic energy policy that is free of nuclear power and anything that emits carbon dioxide.

Well, we agree with the basic premise of the editorial that Yucca Mountain may warrant another look, but the haze of ideology is awfully thick here. Obama has been quite explicit – many times – about his support for nuclear energy, so the Times just seems way off base.

---

The Times’ editorial, though, did lead me to wonder whether the idea of a second look at Yucca Mountain might be picking up energy. So, a bit. Here’s an op-ed from Dennis Burney in the Chicago Tribune:

Scientific studies concluded that the best burial site is under Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. Congress approved and required ComEd and other nuclear power customers to pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund to finance disposal.

But Burney really has other advice to offer:

But no more studies are needed. There's a technology, called the Integral Fast Reactor, that could produce abundant, safe, environmentally friendly and less expensive nuclear power. IFR supporters said it would provide an inexhaustible and domestic fuel supply, while solving the spent-fuel problem.

I’ll let this one alone – it’s interesting to see the discussion. Doesn’t really count as a Yucca Mountain revival piece, though.

Downtown Natchez – maybe on a Sunday.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Knowing What You’ve Got Before It’s Gone in Nuclear Energy

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of carbon prevention in the United States, but this is a rough time to be in the business of selling electricity due to cheap natural gas and a flood of subsidized renewable energy. Some nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and others likely will follow.
In recent weeks, Exelon and the Omaha Public Power District said that they might close the Clinton, Quad Cities and Fort Calhoun nuclear reactors. As Joni Mitchell’s famous song says, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
More than 100 energy and policy experts will gather in a U.S. Senate meeting room on May 19 to talk about how to improve the viability of existing nuclear plants. The event will be webcast, and a link will be available here.
Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants get no specia…

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…