Skip to main content

Editorial Round-Up

We've been on the hunt for editorials both negative and positive about nuclear energy to see if there are themes that can be identified. Many resolve that nuclear energy is the surest way to help the country reach emissions goals and see the event in Japan as a call to strengthen safety rules - both in this country and worldwide. But there are other approaches, too.
---
This op-ed from The New Straits Times (in Malaysia) is negative and very much wants Malaysia to go to solar energy. The problem is, nuclear energy is less expensive. Ah, but that won't always be the case - maybe - down the road a piece:

Hence, the pertinent question in this energy debate is: How would the projected costs of solar power and nuclear power compare in the near future, say, in 10 years time? (2021 is the proposed date for Malaysia's first nuclear power plant).
If indeed the cost of electricity generated by the new nuclear power plants is rising, the cost of solar-generated electricity is likely to be cheaper by then.
Well, hope springs eternal. The credit on this op-ed is charmingly direct:
Associate Professor Dr Lan Boon Leong is an anti-nuclear physicist at Sunway campus of Monash University. He hopes the Fukushima nuclear crisis will end soon and wishes the best for the people of Japan.
We all share his sentiment. I hope "anti-nuclear physicist" isn't part of his title at the university.
---
Bill Crawford, a columnist at the Meridian (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger is for an all-in energy portfolio:
Just approved [Mississippi] Senate Bill 2723 adds authority to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality and the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board to oversee carbon sequestration. This, plus our new lignite coal, biomass and solar energy plants, our Grand Gulf single-reactor expansion, and our untapped offshore fields, give Mississippi the chance to show the world how to produce...and regulate...safe, clean energy.
It'll be interesting to see how this goes. 
---
The Glens Fall (N.Y.) Post-Star casts a kind of pox on all political houses by running a chart with energy policy statements dating back to President Nixon that all sound - really - similar. It continues:
What the U.S. needs is a lot less hot air and a lot more action. If this country is truly serious about achieving energy independence, the president and Congress can't just keep rehashing the same old platitudes. How about requiring that all new cars get at least 75 miles per gallon? You know they can do it. We know hybrid car technology is possible. How about stating that the U.S. would no longer make cars that aren't hybrids, and then taxing the hell out of companies that make traditional cars? How about announcing that in 10 years, the U.S. will replace its old nuclear power plants with the most modern, safe technology possible? No shortcuts. No easily avoidable worst-case scenarios. The best.
No messing around with the editorial board in Glens Falls, that's for sure. If you turn it just a bit, it's a call for government intervention into the energy market (and car market, too) and a ramp-up in regulation. I'm not judging it, but I think it would sound less appealing to many inside and outside industry put that way.
---
Up in Oregon, the Register-Guard's Vip Short has been against nuclear energy for a pretty long time and has the record to show for it:

Here in Oregon, I was the first person arrested at our first and only live nuke plant, along with hundreds of others as time unfolded. Subsequent court hearings, even when they resulted in trespass convictions, were victorious in the sense that we were able to field numerous expert witnesses as part of our defense.
One thing I should note about Oregon is that the political needle in some communities can tip further left than is typically seen in the media. It's definitely seen here:
Society’s energy “needs” (“wants” being the more operative word) exist on one side of the scales, and society’s concern for preventing the fouling of the only nest we have is on the other. It is up to us, the people, to educate ourselves and ensure rational protections. If we leave it to the money people, the profiteers — well, we’ve seen what Wall Street’s greed can do to our economy. Short-sighted greed and arrogance will also wreck our living planet, if left to run free.
See? But despite the rhetoric - and leaving his dislike of nuclear energy to one side - Short isn't exactly wrong. I do think he lets an innate distrust of - well, institutions in general cloud his perspective. However, his sense that people ought to educate themselves on the issues and turn up at public and other meetings (or protests) and make themselves heard is exactly right. I can put up with the most intemperate rant if that's the core point. 

Kuala Lampur, Malaysia

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…