Skip to main content

Bob Bennett and The 100 Nuclear Plants

1277260Bob_Bennett_official_photo_240 A couple of weeks ago, we noted that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) had called for building 100 new nuclear plants. What Alexander created is, shall we say, a meme, one that is catching on in Republican energy circles. Here for example is Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah):

"It's been my experience and my position...that one of the driving forces behind America's economic growth has been our access to cheap energy," Bennett said at a Republican-only hearing on energy development he organized. "If we're going to survive in the kind of economy we want, we need to have access to cheap energy."

We’re not sure we’d stress the “cheap” part of “cheap energy” – in a way, all energy has been cheap and we’re fairly sure that even the most draconian energy bill might make energy less cheap but far from ruinously expensive - but we take his point, especially since nuclear energy portends no particular need for foreign entanglement. It answers to concerns of energy security quite tidily.

Bennett serves on the energy and natural resources committee and is ranking member on the energy subcommittee of the appropriations committee. He has a significant voice in these issues. So his proscription matters:

That means, Bennett says, reviving the idea of building new nuclear reactors, a move the United States hasn't made since 1977. He wasn't alone in that thought.

He sure wasn’t.

"The president has said Iran can produce electricity through nuclear power, so why in the world should we not in the United States begin to pick up the technology that we invented," Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said.

"The future of energy is clean energy," said Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, including, "building at least 100 new nuclear power plans in the next 20 to 25 years."

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said he was stumped why anyone would oppose such a construction blitz.

"You'd think that all Americans can come together on a plan like that," Wicker said.

You’d think. We cannot find ourselves disagreeing with any of this, although we think Bennett’s Republican’s-only get-together would have benefited from some bipartisan effort. Excluding Democrats is what Republicans don’t like when it happens to them and a limited group with no real disagreement can lead to an airy dismissal of problems.

But if Bennett can broaden out his coalition some more – and we think he could – he can turn an interesting assemblage into one that might have an impact on policy. We hope he does that.

Himself. Sen. Bennett is in his third term as junior Senator and is next up for election next year. You can get a sense of his outlook on energy here.

Comments

Charles Barton said…
Nuclear Green is devoted to cheep nuclear energy. In route to that goal I propose numerous tricks:
factory manufacture
Recycling coal fired power plants for reactor sites
clustering modular reactors
Automatic reactor operation with no onsite staff
Underground location
And of Course, a fluid salt core
Based on old ORNL estimates LFTRs in the United States need not be greatly more expensive of Indian PHWR.
Pete said…
What leads you to believe the Democrats were "excluded"?
Republicans are a minority party. So they need to reach out to pro-nuclear Democrats if they seriously want to expand nuclear power production in this country.

But if the Republicans simply want to play politics with this issue, then there will be no significant expansion of nuclear energy in America because the extreme left in the Democratic Party is strongly against any nuclear expansion.

Clean energy is more than just a political issue. The fate of the American economy and the world's environment is at stake.
Joel Upchurch said…
I don't having some pro-nuke Democrats is going to help much when the leadership won't let Pro-nuke bills out of committee for a floor vote.

It looks like the Waxman-Markey bill, which is going to the floor this week, has a anti-nuke gotcha on page 245. It requires nuclear power plants built under the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program pay "prevailing wages" for the plant construction. This will increase the cost and negate the savings of the loan Guarantee.

http://www.anupchurchchrestomathy.com/2009/06/waxman-markey-goes-to-floor-vote.html
Anonymous said…
It requires nuclear power plants built under the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program pay "prevailing wages" for the plant construction. This will increase the cost and negate the savings of the loan Guarantee.

But doesn't NEI say in all the economic analyses of existing and new plants that it releases that nuclear power jobs already and will pay HIGHER than average wages for the regions in which they're located?

If that's true, why would a requirement to pay prevailing wages even affect nuclear projects, let alone increase their costs?

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…