Skip to main content

Is Mario Cuomo Another Democrat for Nuclear Energy?

By Eric McErlain
Over at DMI Blog, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo has been writing a series of posts on new priorities for progressive politicians. Today, he turned to his suggestions for strengthening the economy, including his ideas for energy policy.

In the nuclear energy business, Cuomo is best known for leading the opposition to the opening of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island -- a plant that was complete and ready to begin providing reliable, emission-free electricity to a region that has traditionally paid some of the highest utility rates in the nation.

Which is why the following words come as something of a surprise:
We should also take a fresh look at nuclear energy that uses uranium, a fuel that is available, less expensive and a good replacement for fossil fuels that produce dangerous carbon dioxide emissions. Until now nuclear energy in the United States has been discouraged because the construction technology has been imperfect, siting has been done carelessly and there is not yet a safe and convenient way to dispose of nuclear wastes. If we can find a way to travel to the moon and back we can solve all these technological problems as well, especially since it’s clear that France has been doing it for many years.

Ultimately the use of nuclear power for energy instead of destructiveness should be a vital part of our non-proliferation strategy with Iran, North Korea and other nations.
While Cuomo straddles on enough points here to cover his previous opposition to Shoreham, the statement as a whole -- which seems to include an endorsement of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) or something like it -- is something of a revelation.

I'll be watching for more from the former Governor in this area. Please recall that his son, Andrew, is currently serving as Attorney General for the State of New York.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
And Mario's son Andrew, along with Westchester County Commissioner Andy Spano and US Reps Nita Lowey and Mark Green are leading the fight to shut Indian Point down. Let's not forget Hillary who proposed the E-plan siren law that required backup sirens for hi population density areas, and that this affects ONLY Indian Point.

Yes, I am very surprised at Mario's words. Maybe the Dems will turn around. But when I look at Andy Cuomo, Hillary Clinton, Elliot Spitzer and all the rest, I don't see any turn around in attitude.
September 14, 2007 at 6:55 AM
Anonymous said…
Spitzer needed to make a publicity splash to distract people from the news of his political corruption.
September 14, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous said…
Mario Cuomo would sell his first-born to gain political advantage – oh wait, I forgot – he’s already done that!

He bought Shoreham for $1 and passed the $ billions of cost to future generations of New Yorkers to gain the political support of Long Island soccer moms, and to pay off his lawyer cronies. That was after the mob made their $ millions in concrete sales and kick-backs from the trade unions who built the plant.

I feel qualified to judge Cuomo: I lived in NY during the demise of Shoreham, and was subject to more than 20 years of the heavy tax burden that state is famous for.

I will never be able to believe anything that comes out of Mario Cuomo’s mouth, much less an apparent change of tune when it comes to nuclear energy.
September 16, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Anonymous said…
No matter what Cuomo says now, he is still responsible for wrecking the Shoreham plant. Aside from costing the Northeast about 1000 MW of safe, reliable, emissions-free electricity, he ruined the lives, jobs, and careers of many fine people who were employed at that plant. One of them was an ex-student of mine who was in the C&HP department. The company promised to "take care of him" when they trashed the plant. They did that, alright. They made him a forklift operator on a loading dock. Really good for one's career advancement.
September 17, 2007 at 11:00 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