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

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…