Skip to main content

A Bipartisan Push on Nuclear Energy

6a00d834527dd469e2011572101b67970b-500wi Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) co-wrote an op-ed for the New York Times demonstrating that distinguished gentlemen from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum can agree on a few things. Like what, for example?

Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.

Incidentally, the first point is that they agree that global warming is real – and the third point is that the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill is a good opportunity to enhance energy security. And there’s a fourth point about not exporting jobs overseas. You can read the article for all that. They’re good points all, but even with our slant, we’d have to say the nuclear provisions are by far the most noteworthy because they indicate what Kerry and Graham find necessary for the legislation to fulfill its goals.

If there’s any downside at all, it’s that nuclear energy is given such a key spot because Kerry and Graham think it might be a harder sell that its renewable cousins. We’ve shown many times that polls (and from firms like Gallup) indicate that nuclear really isn’t that tough a sell. But that’s okay – Kerry and Graham do make the case, they’ve declared themselves publically, and they’re key to the legislation. We’ll take it with bells on.

A true bipartisan barn burner.

We feature Sen. Kerry last week. Here’s his co-writer, Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Comments

Phil H said…
Ug. They mention "clean coal" as if it's even remotely possible to clean up that disastrous rock. Even if carbon sequestration could be made to work economically and reliably (and I predict that carbon reliable economical sequestration will come online about the same time as the Jetsons' flying cars), show me the "clean coal" mountaintop removal mine. How about the "clean" slurry pond.

Unless we stop entertaining such OBVIOUS horrible unworkable ideas and get serious we're not going to make any progress on climate change or nuclear power expansion.
gman said…
Read Jeff Goodell's book "Big Coal" to find out why politicians entertain such ideas...
Phil H said…
Excellent recommendation gman. Great book. I second the recommendation.

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 …