Skip to main content

Terry Branstad on Making Sense

Terry Branstad The Dallas News has up an editorial that favors continued development of nuclear energy:

Americans must learn from this tragedy in our own necessary pursuit of nuclear power as part of a broader plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Nearly all of the 104 reactors in this country are on coastlines and near earthquake faults, and, similar to Japan’s, they utilize backup electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries. A confluence of several catastrophic events here could be just as calamitous as what is unfolding half a world away.

The support is always welcome, but the mainland of the United States is not vulnerable to tsunamis except in the Pacific Northwest and no nuclear plants are at the coast there. Earthquakes are a different matter, but plants are built to withstand more than the largest earthquakes ever recorded in their areas. See this FAQ from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Still, the editorial is more than judicious and worth a read.

---

The other day, we highlighted Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and his willingness to push forward with nuclear energy in the shadow of Japan. Now, meet Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad:

Gov. Terry Branstad said Monday it “makes sense” for state lawmakers to move ahead with legislation that would help address hurdles that might impede MidAmerican Energy’s exploratory effort aimed at building a nuclear-powered facility in Iowa.

And the reason?

Some critics have contended that the state should expand more aggressively into renewable energy production rather than pursuing an expansion into nuclear-generated power given the unfolding environmental crisis in Japan. Branstad agreed that Iowa already has been a leader in wind and renewable energy production, but he added “we really can’t do it all with renewable.”

“We can’t generate all of our power needs from wind energy, so we do need to look at the other sources and this seems to be something that is worth significantly studying,” Branstad said.

He’s right. Wind simply can’t do it all, though it’s certainly welcome in the mix. But nuclear energy can. A little more:

“We have a problem because of most of the power in Iowa is generated by coal and (federal Environmental Protection Agency) rules now are really very restrictive on coal-fired plants,” the governor said during an Iowa Public Radio interview. “So we’re either going to have to shut those plants down or do major expenses on retrofitting them or replace them with something that’s going to have the environmental problems that we have with coal.”

The arguments are as the arguments were. Nothing’s changed. And governors like Herbert and Branstad see that. I don’t really know whether taking these stands will cause trouble for them – I doubt it – but they are realistic policy decisions.

Gov. Terry Branstad.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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: 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…