Skip to main content

New York Post: "Nuclear or Bust"

By Eric McErlain
In the wake of last week's speech on energy policy by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the New York Post is endorsing new nuclear build in New York State:
[T]the Indian Point nuclear plant in Westchester, which provides Gotham with 20 percent of its juice, has been a constant target of local activists, fearmongers and demagogues who demand it be closed.

That is truly pathetic. A federal report recently noted just how indispensable the plant is to the region's energy supply - and just how nutty it would be to close it, given the lack of alternatives.

At the same time, you just need to recall the 2003 blackout - and the billions lost in that debacle - to appreciate New York's (and America's) need for adequate supplies of electricity.

For nuclear power to play a greater role in the energy mix, pols must show some commitment to the industry. (Hear that, Gov.-Presumptive Eliot Spitzer?)

Giuliani - who, as mayor, proved New York to be governable after all - had it right again last week: For the sake of the economy, and U.S. security, it's time for America to go nuclear.
As my colleague David Bradish noted a number of months ago, convincing Spitzer of the value of current and new nuclear generating capacity may be an uphill battle. For more, click here.

Thanks to our friend Norris McDonald for the pointer.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more