Skip to main content

Mr. Alexander Goes to NEI

Sen. Lamar Alexander’s (R-Tenn.) speech at NEI outlined the reasons he thinks nuclear energy needs to be bolstered in the United States. He started with climate change, and interestingly, he imagined a United States without nuclear energy by looking at two countries that have foresworn it and one that has embraced it.

The three-term senator, who also served as Governor of Tennessee through most of the Reagan years, compared the German situation with that of the UAE, which included a number of factoids I hadn’t seen put together quite this way:

In just 12 years after notifying the International Atomic Energy Agency of its intent to install nuclear power, the Emirates will have completed four reactors, which will provide nearly 25 percent of its annual electricity by 2020. This is a nearly three-and-a-half times faster increase in emission-free green power than Germany has accomplished with wind and solar.

It is true that four reactors at one site will change UAE’s emissions profile from its electricity sector considerably for the positive and that the best Germany can expect – and it’s a lot to expect - is a one-to-one swap on carbon emissions – that gobbles up a lot of land - and at a miserably high cost to ratepayers.

And Japan:

The cost of generating electricity in Japan has increased 56 percent since they began shutting down their reactors in 2011. In June 2014 three major business organizations – the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren), the Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Japan Association of Corporate Executives (Keizai Doyukai) – submitted a written proposal to the Industry Minister seeking an early restart of the nuclear reactors. “The top priority in energy policy is a quick return to inexpensive and stable supplies of electricity,” they said.

It sort of speaks for itself, doesn’t it? And I have to give credit to Alexander for his knack for finding colorful detail:

A Wall Street Journal article said the Japanese have turned their air conditioners up to 82 degrees in order to cut back on electricity use – which would be fine except thousands of people have gone to the hospital with heatstroke. The emperor and empress have even been wandering around the Imperial Palace at night with flashlights and candles.

Alexander’s plan for U.S. nuclear energy is perfectly sensible and a reasonable roadmap. We’ll have to wait for legislation and hearings and votes to see how it all works out, but it’s worth the work. Here’s the outline of Alexander’s plan:

No. 1) Build more nuclear reactors

No. 2) Solve the nuclear waste stalemate

No. 3) Relieve the burdens of excessive regulation – we should note that this is not a stalking horse for any anti-regulatory zeal on Alexander’s or the industry’s part. NEI has argued that regulation needs to  focus on public and plant safety and that the NRC’s capacity to regulate beyond those issues can sap resources where they are needed most – which is, of course, public and plant safety.

No. 4) Stop picking winners and losers

No. 5) Double energy research

No. 6) Encourage energy diversity – we’ve been making this case using last year’s polar vortex as a demonstration of diversity’s value. Alexander takes a broader approach: “Historically, natural gas prices have a way of going up and down, sometimes abruptly, and experienced utility managers generally prefer more than one way of producing reliable, base-load power.” Choice equals options and options in the energy sphere is a natural good.

You can watch Alexander’s speech in the post below and on YouTube. You can also read the transcript of the speech here. I understand the senator will be sitting for a few additional questions for an NEI-produced video. Keep an eye for that on the YouTube page – subscribing to NEI’s feed makes that easy, as YouTube will send you emails when the page updates – and we’ll let you know here when it’s posted. NEI has posted a press release here.

Comments

Atomikrabbit said…
If Sen Alexander decided to run for President again, how much financial support would NEI or its members be willing to contribute to his campaign?

I'd wager certain fossil fuel interests would readily open their wallets to his opponent.

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…

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.

Huh?

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…