NEI's VP, Angie Howard, has made her case: submitting a video to PBS's Planet Forward show. Scheduled to air on April 15th, the primetime special will feature viewer-submitted video clips that address the feasibility of moving away from fossil fuels, domestically and globally.Visitors can rate and comment on Angie's clip, Teaming Nuclear and Renewable Energies, on the Planet Forward website. (Vote now - and often. The highest-rated submissions are more likely to be selected for the show.) The video can also be seen on NEI's YouTube channel here.
Comments
This is really NEI's April Fools joke, right?
While nuclear power was sold as "too cheap to meter" during its rise till its fall it consumed more federal R&D of any energy source... no that its burned out private investment in fact its remains "too expensive to share."
Overall I think it's a good strategy and message to market nuclear as a team player in the clean energy mix. Personally though, I think nuclear makes solar and wind energy more or less irrelevant.
This is a political struggle as much as a scientific and economic one. Showing the nuclear industry wants to play nice is key to gaining more trust. And given the latest poll results, I think people are getting the message.
The quote was "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy electrical energy in their homes too cheap to meter." said in 1954 by then Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman of the AEC. He was referencing the concept of fusion, not fission energy. Moreover, this was not a promise, it was that man's imagination of passing a better world to future generations. I think that is a notion we all share. Is it not a green vision to imagine energy supplies that belong to everyone and are affordable? Is that not the meaning behind the word when you say "share"?
I remember when Al Gore was misquoted as "invented the internet" and he was relentlessly raked over for it. Of course Al was explaining that he supported legislation for the R&D group which developed the internet. I always defended Al Gore when I heard someone mention that misquote. When you misquote Admiral Strauss, you are using the same type of tactics that were used against Al Gore.
Mr. Gunter, expensive is a relative term. The gov't spent about 2.5x the amount of money recently on renewable energy, conservation, geothermal, wind, solar, etc. - collectively compared to nuclear R&D. Has it occurred to you that no matter how much money is put into solar or wind R&D that only a small amount of benefit will become of it due to the intermittent nature of the wind and sun? Has it occurred to you that wind energy has the highest consumption of steel and concrete per unit of energy and thus is more "expensive" than nuclear, especially when you consider wind's extremely low capacity factor (a term almost totally absent from the mind of most wind enthusiasts)?
Today nuclear electricity is generated for about 1.7 cents per kW-Hr. Based on the consumer price index, the present day cost of nuclear electricity in 1954 dollars is about 0.21 cents ($0.0021) per kW-Hr. That is about one-half of what it cost in 1954 to generate electricity (primarily by coal). Nuclear energy has done pretty well for electricity rate payers; essentially cutting the cost of electricity in half while reducing air pollution, acid rain, and GHG emissions.
Over that same 60 year period nuclear energy essentially eliminated petroleum use as an energy source for electricity generation and put a huge dent in the coal-producers pocket book. Many of the same anti-nukes who sing the “expensive nuclear” mantra are on the payroll of the coal, gas and oil industries. Call me suspicious, but I hardly think that’s a coincidence.
Today the market price for electricity in the NY ISO was around 38 cents per kW-Hr. With a production cost of 1.7 cents per kW-Hr, nuclear power plants contribute to lower rates, and help meet regional greenhouse gas emission goals, all while providing a nice return on investment.
When the quote you so love to take out of context was first said my mother was 4 years old. I had never heard of it before until I read one of your parrotted comments. Therefore, please excuse me when I say I place little to no relevance in it.
I won't bother refuting your claims of nuclear energy's "great expense", as this blog and the previous commenters do a good job of that already.
-Sarah