Skip to main content

Barack Obama and Bobby Jindal on Energy: No Love, Love

Here is President Obama's paragraph on energy from last night's not-the-State-of-the-Union:

But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest $15 billion a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.

No Love.

And Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, in his not-response, er, response:

To strengthen our economy, we need urgent action to keep energy prices down. All of us remember what it felt like to pay $4 at the pump and unless we act now, those prices will return. To stop that from happening, we need to increase conservation, increase energy efficiency, increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels, increase our use of nuclear power, and increase drilling for oil and gas here at home. We believe that Americans can do anything and if we unleash the innovative spirit of our citizens, we can achieve energy independence.

Love

Comments

Anonymous said…
I would just like someone in the Democratic party to recognize what base-load electrical power is, and the fact that wind and solar are not base-load. Until then, Al Gore's greens will be in control in the party.
Jason Ribeiro said…
I would hope the nuclear industry does not measure the challenges it faces by who "loves" them best. That isn't a winning strategy or good marketing. I'm not making any personal accusations to the author of the post, but to be fair no mention in a speech does not equal no "love". Obama ought to be criticized for a misplaced expectation that renewable energy will make a difference. The Greens with their "rewewables" have done a better "marketing job" all the way to the top to accomplish this mindset than nuclear has. I hate to say it but its true.

If I was the nuclear industry, I'd be gathering linguists, marketing gurus, PR experts and a warchest of money to build a mega-strategy to (re)introduce itself to the world. Start with nuclear and radiation literacy.

To be fair on Jindal, we know that increasing use of nuclear power will not change the oil market. Not unless small nuclear plants gain a foothold widespread on ships and replace diesel generators to begin displacing it in those markets. Jindal has misplaced his affection but the nuclear industry shouldn't be looking for someone to pat it on its head.

Nuclear can and should be the main energy source for humankind for many millennium to come. We are at a critical turning point to learn that lesson. I think learning that the hard way, the "renewable" way, could be avoided if the nuclear industry stands up for itself and grows into that role.
There are strong pro-coal and pro-renewable energy advocates in the Democratic Party. Although a plurality of Democrats support more nuclear power plants, there's a strong anti-nuclear contingent in the Democratic Party especially amongst women who are the majority of the Democratic Party.

However, support for nuclear expansion is very strong amongst Republicans and Independents. That's why I was hoping that the Republicans would help to amend the stimulus package with more support for nuclear energy. Unfortunately, the Republicans felt it was more important to oppose the stimulus package instead of fighting for increased loan guarantees for nuclear energy in the package.

Hopefully, this will not be the case when a comprehensive energy bill is finally decided on in the near future. Without nuclear energy, CO2 cannot be halted and energy independence from foreign energy sources cannot be achieved.

Marcel F. Williams
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
Unknown said…
Jason: 10% of the diesel fuel used in the US is to power trains and ships which transport coal to power plants.
Egy Azziera said…
First off we would like to congratulate you on your fine public speaking skills. It looks like those who said the Obama Administration would strike while the iron is hot may have been correct, and the Administration may be doing it in a way that does not require them to even get a vote in Congress.

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...