Skip to main content

The Governors Meet in Washington

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …