Skip to main content

Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill and Nuclear Energy

Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) much-anticipated "Boxer substitute" to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act has just been released (sub. req'd). To no one's surprise, the nuclear industry does not get much play. However, according to Congress Daily's Darren Goode, Senator Boxer "may be amenable to provisions regarding training of workers, keeping production in America and nuclear safety."

In the coming days, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent Democrat-CT) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) are expected to unveil an amendment that "would aim to increase nuclear engineers and other workers and improve the financing and purchasing of [nuclear power plant] equipment." From CongressDaily,
Warner said the nuclear section “will be the focal point of a lot of attention.” He said their plan will serve as a “building block” for others to work on during the floor debate. Lieberman said he and Warner are not addressing the speeding up of nuclear facility permits through amendments, and added that providing loan guarantees for nuclear production is possible. Furthermore, he said, their initial amendment does not address the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository or the broader issue of cleaning up and storing nuclear waste.

Boxer said Lieberman and Warner should have the votes to attach a nuclear title to the bill and said she may be amenable to provisions regarding training of workers, keeping production in America and nuclear safety. “They have the votes, so at the end of the day we will see what passes,” she said.
To be continued...

Comments

Anonymous said…
As Jeb Babbin noted in Human Events:

"Reid has scheduled the Lieberman-Warner global warming “cap and trade” bill for a cloture vote. Republicans are going to have a lot of fun with a bill that would raise the price of a gallon of gasoline by another 50 cents to a dollar."

I do wish NEI would spend less of its precious and limited political capital on support for global climate change issues - it just looks like naked rent-seeking. Plus, the science behind GHG is shakey and has a definite chance of being debunked to the embarassment of all.
Anonymous said…
There's nothing "shaky" about the science at all. The long term trend is global warming. Ignoring it is going to lead to more than just embarassment for those that don't want to see the writing on the wall.
Anonymous said…
People need to wake up! Our leaders (Dems and Republicans alike) are leading us straight into socialism! The control that the environmental lobby has on our congress is scary! Something needs to be done or we will no longer have the "right" to post comments like these that speak against the Party
Anonymous said…
To: first anonymous post: You are just like the media all wrapped up in Global Warming claiming it is human caused. Wake up--the science is wrong. I agree we should seek ways to be more efficient, however government doesn't need to tell us how. We need to be a God fearing people who does right to our neighbors and treats our world as we would our home.

Stop worrying about things that are out of your control. God created this world and he'll be the one to take us to the next phase of this world. The world was created for man to use and God gives man intelligence to improve.
c.f. in AZ

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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

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...

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...