Skip to main content

“The Only Reason Nuclear Is Attractive”

feinstein Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she might run for another term next year, but for our purposes, this stands out from a recent interview:

And here's her lengthier discussion on the safety of nuclear power in the wake of the recent killer Japanese earthquakes. Feinstein said while she believes nuclear energy can be a safe form of power, "we have to be eternally vigilant'' on safety issues.

Feinstein said "there has to be longterm storage'' for nuclear waste, and said that "I think there ought to be regional waste storage sites."

Regional waste storage sites is an idea we’ll be hearing more about in the coming months – I expect a House hearing I’m covering later this week will discuss them – and it’ll be interesting to the hear the various views about them.

Video at the link.

---

Almost a month after Fukushima Daiichi, the Washington Post has weighed in again on nuclear energy. After noting that public support as reflected in polls has waned but not fallen off a cliff and that policymakers have not turned tail, the Post concludes:

The only reason nuclear is attractive, some insist, is concern over global warming. Yet, even if that is the only cause, it is compelling. As of now there is no other proven, scalable low-carbon source of electricity that produces the reliable, “always on” power that utilities require. America may never get as much of its electricity from nuclear plants as France, which generates 80 percent of its power that way. But if it is serious about cutting carbon emissions, the United States should keep nuclear on the table.

“The only reason.” People tend to forget, because the recession has lingered so long, that the demand for electricity had been rising steadily. And I think it’s fair to say, will rise again – in the U.S., of course, but throughout the world as well. Nuclear energy not only produces a lot of energy in a relatively packed space but also can also encourage energy security.

But we know all that. What the Post knows is that emission free base load energy is something one tosses aside with considerable hesitation. Although it isn’t the bravest show of support imaginable, it’s fair enough.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

Comments

Anonymous said…
"Regional" sites, eh? Sounds familiar. And how much luck did those "regional" LLW sites have? Maybe one or two actually got started, out of a dozen or so initially planned? My state tried for something like 15 years to get a site picked, and eventually threw in the towel. If LLW sites were such political hot potatoes, so to speak, how much more so will be HLW sites?
Anonymous said…
"Almost a month after Fukushima Daiichi..." ?? The earthquake was March 11th.
Cyril R said…
Ugh, fossil fuels kill hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, due to air pollution, mining accidents etc. Particulate matter is a killer.

That's a HUGE reason to add to global warming abatement!

People who insist climate change is the only reason nuclear is attractive, are utterly moronic. Anyone who has researched the issue will find fossil pollution/killings, energy dependence, and reducing energy sprawl (solar/wind/biomass), energy density, materials requirements, and cost to be important reasons in favor of nuclear power.

The Washington Post is a big disappointment in my view.

There used to be a time that journalists prided themselves in their profession. That day has come and gone - journalism today isn't even a profession anymore (anyone can be a journalist).
Private utilities are paying the Federal government more than enough money (several hundred million dollars annually) for the Federal government to easily set up safe and secure temporary storage facilities (up to 200 years) in every state that produces spent fuel. This should also create jobs in every state that produces spent fuel.

Spent fuel is an extremely valuable commodity that could be worth nearly a hundred trillion dollars in the future once commercial breeding technologies start to come on-line twenty or thirty years from now.

Do not throw this precious commodity away!

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 …

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 Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …