NEI Nuclear Notes

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 li...

April Fools? Maybe not: Nuclear energy is, for the most part, clean. Though not inexpensive to build, power plants do provide energy at a reasonable cost to consumers for many years. In remarks made recently during a meeting with national, regional and local news media Ray Golden, TVA’s senior manager of nuclear communication, said, “You cannot abandon use of this fuel.” Golden is correct. Nuclear energy has to be in the mix as does coal, natural gas, wind and solar energy. This is from the Scottsboro (Ala.) Daily Sentinel. A little more, explaining the TVA connection: After meeting with TVA and NRC officials numerous times over the years and recently being involved in a tour at TVA’s oldest nuclear facility I’m [Ken Bonner is the writer] convinced that nuclear power must play a larger role in the future. It must be regulated and icensees diligent in operating and maintaining the plants. “Our nuclear reactors at TVA have been safely operated for years,” TVA chief nuclear officer P...

From The Macomb (Mich.) Daily: The agonizing restatement of Murphy's law at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in northern Japan threatens to delay once again a promising expansion of our own nuclear power generating capacity. It should prompt a check and recheck of plans and proposals for new nuclear plants in this nation. But we question if anyone can offer well-founded objections to nuclear plants of improved designs in areas which are not seismically active. Me, either - even in seismically active areas, actually. We won’t know until much later the role the earthquake played at Fukushima, but the tsunami added a wild card that most regions of the United States don’t have to worry about. In any event: Nuclear energy, for all its opposition, has some useful life left. Solar and wind power in the long run can provide the cleanest, safest source of energy. But until they can be put to use on a larger scale, we should use whatever other clean energy is at hand. F...