Skip to main content

Does Pelosi's Statemet on Nuclear Energy Open the Way for a Larger Compromise?

By Eric McErlain
Following up on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's surprising announcement that she was keeping an open mind about how nuclear energy could play a role in battling global warming and climate change, Moe Lane over at Red State wonders if there's a deal to be made (where have we heard that before?):
Well, for a start: it's a positive sign, obviously - unless you're the sort who spits at the idea of nuclear power. In that case, you'd better get cracking at repairing your ties to the Democratic Party. Nope, I haven't gotten the order mixed up. The Democrats have been nursing a grudge against the Greens for, oh, just over six years now: if they could do them dirty, they will. And what better way than to strike against one of the fundamentals of the Green Party's religion? Excuse me: "core political views". And if you don't think that the GOP won't hand the Democrats the knife with which to do the dirty deed, then you don't know the GOP very well at all, at all.
It gets more interesting from there. Be sure to read the rest.

Here's one reaction from Instapundit.

UPDATE: Be sure to vote for our WTF blurb on this topic at Technorati.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'm a little confused about this, I must say. My limited understanding of US politics was more or less that the Democrats are rather more progressive, while the Republicans have a leader who thinks he talks to God. Are the Democrats traditionally seen as anti-nuclear, then?
February 13, 2007 at 7:53 AM
Anonymous said…
George Bush believes he "talks to God" only in as much as anyone else who believes in the Judeo-Christian God and that God hears prayers. Thus, if you believe that God exists and he hears people who call upon Him, yes, you are "talking to God".

Regarding political support for nuclear energy, it is an issue that crosses party lines. You have pro-nuclear Republicans and Democrats, as well as anti-nukes on both sides of the isle.
February 13, 2007 at 11:35 AM
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

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 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