Skip to main content

On the Bush Energy Speech

By Eric McErlain
As you might imagine, there's press coverage of President Bush's speech on energy policy just about all over -- check out these accounts from the Washington Post and the New York Times for starters.

Investor's Business Daily (no direct link, behind subscriber wall) seemed to welcome the President's message on nuclear energy:
[N]uclear power provides a form of cheap -- and clean -- energy. Paying less to heat and cool our homes would offset the pain of higher gasoline prices -- and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. All good.

Out in the heartland, it looks like the Lufkin Daily News liked what it heard:
Our view is that nuclear power plants, when properly regulated and maintained, provide a safer, cleaner, cheaper and longer-lasting source of energy than the traditional types of energy generation – coal-fired or natural gas plants in particular. Nuclear plants are used throughout Europe. With the tragic exception of Chernobyl in 1986 – the result of a flawed design – these plants have been safely operated for many years.

Nuclear plants do not pollute the atmosphere, as do coal-fired plants, nor do they require vast amounts of an increasingly expensive commodity, such as natural-gas plants. We agree with Bush that the government should make it easier to build such plants.

Here's what Crumb Trail had to say:

If things proceed as Bush advocates, helping China and India to develop and deploy clean energy technology, that will be the most effective thing the US can do about environmental issues including GHG emissions. With their large populations and fast growth rates they are poised to dwarf the rest of the world's emissions as well as consume an ever larger share of dwindling fossil fuel reserves. The US should also increase its use of emission free nuclear energy, but that wouldn't help if China and India were not also being helped.

This could be good. It was encouraging to see the US avoid being sucked into the Kyoto inanity, but avoiding dumb policy isn't enough. Good alternatives are needed, and this sounds much better, though it's still a long way from being a reality.

For more, stop by Prometheus and Green Car Congress.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more