NEI Nuclear Notes

There’s absolutely no reason for a senator from Alaska to be so knowledgeable about nuclear energy, yet Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is and has been one of its staunchest advocates. This is doubtless because she is the ranking member of the Environment and Natural Resources committee. Congressmen can be notoriously poor at learning the relevant issues of their committees, but Murkowski isn’t one of them – she really knows her energy beans and, as a bonus, has been one of the least ideologically driven members of the committee. She has worked comfortably with (the very liberal) Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) on legislation that avoids partisan potholes and aims to fix problems in the energy realm.  So we were very interested to see what Murkowski had to offer at the winter NARUC (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners) meeting here in DC. She used the occasion to release an unusually on-point report called “Powering the Future: Ensuring that Federal Policy ...

Every few months, a reporter hits upon nuclear fusion  - or a fraud involving nuclear fusion – and that may set up a brief uptick in attention paid to fusion and it enthusiasts. Another nuclear energy topic that springs forward every now and again is thorium and its potential as a complementary or replacement fuel source for uranium. No question it has such potential. This story in the Telegraph (U.K.) aims to make the case, but sways a bit under a heavy yoke of grievance and conspiracy: After the Manhattan Project, US physicists in the late 1940s were tempted by thorium for use in civil reactors. It has a higher neutron yield per neutron absorbed. It does not require isotope separation, a big cost saving. But by then America needed the plutonium residue from uranium to build bombs. And: You might have thought that thorium reactors were the answer to every dream but when CERN went to the European Commission for development funds in 1999-2000, they were rebuffed. ...

You may not know it, but the Senate took its first vote in quite a while yesterday on climate change issues. No, not one of the energy bills – Kerry-Lieberman’s or Lugar’s – but a resolution introduced by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions. Generally speaking, this is the kind of thing Congress doesn’t do, because the EPA belongs to the executive not legislative branch of government and its operations fall outside the purview of Congress (aside from oversight, of course). So to do this, Murkowski revived a rarely deployed provision of the 1996 Congressional Review Act called a resolution of disapproval that allows Congress to overturn administrative actions. Here’s the complete text of the resolution: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the...

  Here’s a bit of a head-scratcher: The federal regulatory agency charged with ensuring that nuclear plants are licensed and running safely could see its funding boosted -- or reduced -- in light of the gulf oil spill, Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska) said today. "It may be that as a consequence of this, we can ensure that we see additional funding in our other regulatory agencies," the Senate Energy and Natural Resources panel's top Republican told an audience at a nuclear energy conference this morning. On the other hand, she speculated, "It may just be that nuclear will actually be less resourced as we try to move over to the oil and gas sector [in terms of regulatory efforts] as a consequence of [the oil spill]. I would hope that's not the case. It could go either way." Murkowski’s a big supporter of nuclear energy, so she may well just be worrying, but we find it odd that the government, even when it’s concerned with deficits, would bleed o...

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who is ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources committee gave a speech on the Senate floor the other day: Let’s start with nuclear energy.  During his remarks two weeks ago, the President indicated his support for a “new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”  And to the Administration’s credit, it followed through on that one in the budget request.  That’s pretty good – even though Alaska has no nuclear energy plants, Murkowski has always been in favor of its use. She does note some frustrations, though. As I’ve said before, allowing the Department of Energy to guarantee more loans for nuclear plants is a step in the right direction.  But I’d remind you – it’s been a year now, and this Administration has yet to help finance a single nuclear project. […] Of course, we also need to make sure America is producing the raw materials used to generate nuclear energy.  Here, aga...

For starters, Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) can read the numbers: In fact, the American people are well ahead of congressional Democrats in their support for nuclear energy. In a recent survey, fully 74 percent of Americans expressed support for nuclear energy, and with good reason. Let’s acknowledge that supporting something purely due to poll numbers is not a great practice – people being ruled by passions and all – but in this instance, it allows discussion of the issue without much risk of being pitched out of office – and that’s only to the benefit of nuclear energy. Simpson sees that not only can it work but has worked (and even nods to the French, a Republican no-no (<:) France learned long ago that nuclear energy is safe, abundant and cheap. … Using our technology and the political will we lacked, France created a nuclear energy system that keeps the French people reliant upon only themselves for electricity and that ensures stability in their energy sector fo...