Skip to main content

The Governors Meet in Washington

By

U.S.Governors We’ve noted here a few times –more than a few – that the states are taking a shine to nuclear energy that has made the feds look a little, shall we say, laggard. But this federalism thing is a two way street, so some governors are talking up energy issues with President Obama at a climate change symposium in Washington:

Gov. Jennifer Granholm [D-Mich.] is heading to Washington to talk about how clean energy technology can create jobs.

The Democratic governor will attend a symposium Tuesday on the challenges of building a renewable energy economy. U.S. lawmakers, business leaders and climate change economists also will attend.

and:

Governor Jim Doyle [D-Wisc.] is in Washington, D.C. today and tomorrow to meet with President Obama’s energy, environment and agriculture cabinet to build upon current state, national, and international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote low carbon technologies, and build jobs in the energy and agricultural sectors.

You get the idea – nothing here really about nuclear or any other specific energy source. It’s all about the jobs. But Doyle in particular has been one of those governors interested in moving the nuclear discussion forward at the state level and Granholm has a few plants in her state. And we’re reasonably sure some of the other attendees will have things to say on this issue. In November, candidate Obama made soothing noises to the governors at a similar confab:

Further, we will invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private sector efforts to build a clean energy future. We will invest in solar power, wind power, and next generation biofuels. We will tap nuclear power, while making sure it’s safe. And we will develop clean coal technologies.

Now, we won’t pretend that nuclear energy will be tops of the pops with the Obama administration, and we won’t snatch up every nice comment like dogs waiting to be patted on the head. But we do feel that America is just a few steps behind Europe in recognizing that you cannot get to a plausible energy policy that foregrounds carbon emission reduction and tough deadlines without nuclear energy. All the renewables put together cannot do it (scalability issues, nascent technologies) and clean coal really cannot do it (you can research this one yourself – start here for the most positive assessment imaginable and work your way outward).

And a fair number of governors get that. As does the European Union – and the Arab peninsula – and southeast Asia – etc.

Not from the current meeting, but a gaggle (a flock? a murder?) of governors.

Labels:

Comments

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