Skip to main content

Ernest Moniz Tapped for Energy Secretary

If you want a sense of what Ernest Moniz, the MIT physicist who is President Barack Obama’s pick for energy secretary, thinks about nuclear energy, read some of his writing. There’s a lot of it, and he’s pretty direct:
It would be a mistake, however, to let Fukushima cause governments to abandon nuclear power and its benefits. Electricity generation emits more carbon dioxide in the United States than does transportation or industry, and nuclear power is the largest source of carbon-free electricity in the country. Nuclear power generation is also relatively cheap, costing less than two cents per kilowatt-hour for operations, maintenance, and fuel. Even after the Fukushima disaster, China, which accounts for about 40 percent of current nuclear power plant construction, and India, Russia, and South Korea, which together account for another 40 percent, shows no signs of backing away from their pushes for nuclear power.
This is from November 2, 2011. A little more:
Nuclear power's track record of providing clean and reliable electricity compares favorably with other energy sources. Low natural gas prices, mostly the result of newly accessible shale gas, have brightened the prospects that efficient gas-burning power plants could cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants relatively quickly by displacing old, inefficient coal plants, but the historical volatility of natural gas prices has made utility companies wary of putting all their eggs in that basket. Besides, in the long run, burning natural gas would still release too much carbon dioxide.
Moniz is Director of the Energy Initiative and Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems at MIT. He served as Undersecretary at the Department of Energy in 1997–2001.

NEI’s take is here, from President and CEO Marvin Fertel:
“In nominating Ernie Moniz to be Secretary of Energy, President Obama has sent America a strong message that its energy leadership will be entrusted to an advocate of clean energy supplies, including nuclear energy. Dr. Moniz is experienced and well respected in the energy, nonproliferation and national security communities worldwide.  He has made it clear that he recognizes nuclear energy’s important role in reducing greenhouse gases as part of a balanced, low-carbon electricity generation portfolio.
Like NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane, Moniz was a member of the administration’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, which recommended a new strategy for managing used nuclear fuel.

I’m sure we’ll learn plenty more in the coming days.


jimwg said…
Holding my breath till he walks the talk -- and in a green-committed administration that'd rather throw billions at solar and wind and algae than one SMR, or call the anti-nuke dogs off nuke projects, that might be a very long time.

James Greenidge
Queens NY

Anonymous said…
So far the only beef I have with Moniz was the role he played in getting the High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven shutdown. That was back in the dark days of the Clinton era and the Richardson DOE. Granted that BNL and its operator at the time didn't handle the situation very well from a PR viewpoint, but in the end there was no technical or safety justification for trashing a scientific facility that was incredibly productive and perfectly benign. Moniz was at DOE at the time and had a hand in this fiasco, which in the end dirtied the hands of everyone involved. It not only ruined a very useful scientific tool, but destroyed the careers and jobs of very many fine people. For that, I cannot overlook the culpability of all those involved, and that includes mainly Bill Richardson but also, unfortunately, Ernie Moniz.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

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.


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…