Another Democrat for Nuclear Energy

Iowa state representative Phil Wise thinks it's time for Democrats to embrace nuclear energy:

Core Democratic constituencies have stepped forward to champion nuclear energy as a cornerstone of economic growth. A number of major labor organizations, such as the Building Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, the Operating Engineers, the IBEW, Sheetmetal Workers and hundreds of local labor chapters, have adopted policy positions supporting the expansion of nuclear energy. That includes some in our state, such as the Hawkeye Labor Council, the Southeast Iowa Building and Construction Trades and the Quad City Federation of Labor.

Even the environmental community is no longer monolithic in its opposition to nuclear energy. Key leaders within the environmental movement - such as Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore - publicly support the expansion of nuclear power.

[...]

For Democrats and nuclear energy, the landscape has changed rather significantly. This brings with it the possibility of a fresh, bipartisan consensus around nuclear power. Why? Because nuclear power works. It is safe. It is environmentally benign. And because the "times they have changed."

That's an interesting message for the national party to digest.

Comments

Anonymous said…

While more voices is obviously good, these new groups essentially look like trade guilds representing the kinds of industries that would benefit from new nuclear build. I'm sure a new AP-1000 will require the odd bit of sheet metal work.

I also don't think Patrick Moore is an example of the environmental movement softening. He has never been part of the dogmatic, fanatical regime we have come to know and love.

July 10, 2007 at 3:56 AM

Anonymous said…

Don't know why anyone is surprised - nuclear power construction means big bucks for all the trade unions that support vital needs of the industry. Just take a look at the supporters identified in the lead post from Eric.

July 16, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

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

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog