Skip to main content

Clean Sweep on Meet the Press

Here’s a bit of the discussion from this morning’s Meet the Press. Host David Gregory mostly focused on Libya, appropriately, with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), then turned to Japan. (Transcript cleaned up a little to cover pauses and such.)

MR. GREGORY:  I want to turn to Japan, another crisis that the president is facing, and, of course, what the Japanese are dealing with. Here are some of the latest facts to emerge out of the disaster in Japan. The death toll now upwards of 8,100. Still so many missing, and the number of missing well over 12,000. Some signs of hope, though.  Incredible images coming out of Japan early today from Ishinomaki as there were incredible rescues of a teenager as well as an 80-year-old grandmother who was stuck inside of her house.  Thankfully, though, those two people were rescued.

But, Senator Levin, as the nuclear emergency continues in Japan there are real questions about the future of nuclear power in this country.  After Three Mile Island back in 1979, as a young senator you called for a moratorium of six months on any nuclear power plants in the United States. Should that hold true now?

SEN. LEVIN:  Well, I think there ought to be a period here where all of our nuclear plants are tested very, very carefully to make sure that they are safe, and to make sure that this cannot happen here.  But I don't think that we can say that we're not going to continue to use nuclear power. Europe depends heavily on it, and they have found it to be safe. We use it a lot. We have found it, since Three Mile Island, to be safe. And it seems to me that the great hope that we have, ultimately, in terms of greenhouse gas is to move away from fossil fuels. And although I think we have to be mighty careful about nuclear power, we should put a lot of effort into seeing what we can do with the waste, that we cannot give up on that possibility because of the climate change which is occurring from fossil fuels.

MR. GREGORY:  Senator Kerry, about 30 seconds here.  How big of a blow has nuclear power, as part of our energy mix, been dealt here?

SEN. KERRY:  Well, I think it's taken some hit, obviously.  But I think it's going to cause everybody to look for the fail-safe methodology and what the next generation of nuclear power might or might not be.  I think, you know, of equal urgency is simply responding to the demand of climate change and the need to move away from fossil fuels.  The faster we build an energy grid in America that we move to solar, thermal, other things, I think the marketplace will make that decision for us.

MR. GREGORY:  Senator Sessions, after the gulf oil spill, after the nuclear emergency in Japan, do you think the president is capable of leading a bipartisan effort to really make energy policy a priority, and to lead to some change?

SEN. SESSIONS:  He has to do that.  He has not done that.  The Energy Department seems to be putting out more roadblocks on American energy production than actually leading in the way to produce more energy.  We need more clean, American energy.  Now, that is a driving force for this country right now.  We're not seeing that leadership.  We've got gulf oil production blocked basically by not getting permits.  Only two have been made since the oil spill.

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

SEN. SESSIONS:  And we need to get moving.  We simply cannot afford not to.

MR. GREGORY:  I'm going to have to make that the last word.  Senators, thank you all very much.

---

That’s almost a clean sweep, but that “almost” is because Sen. Sessions was set on a different track. Here’s Sessions in The Birmingham News on Thursday:

I think we ought to check everything for safety," Shelby said. "If we have to build in some safety, let's do it."

Sessions said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should learn from the Japanese experience and re-examine American plants. But he also doesn't want to stop work on building new nuclear plants.

"All I'm saying is we don't need to overreact because nuclear power has to be a part of the clean energy future," Sessions said.

Okay, now it’s a clean sweep.

Comments

DocForesight said…
Somebody needs to update Sens. Levin and Kerry that "Global Climate Disruption" has been replaced with reality -- mankind can (and does) pollute but it cannot influence the global climate system.

And why politicians from both sides of the aisle can't separate electricity and industrial process heat generation from transportation fuels and chemical feed stocks is baffling to me. Just doing that would make the argument easier to pose and defend.

Solar and wind will never, ever produce enough energy or power to support a modern society. Saying otherwise is an insult to our intelligence.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...