Skip to main content

John Kerry on the Boxer-Kerry Bill

clip_image001In a bit of a surprise, Sen. John Kerry (R-Mass.) has taken the lead on the Senate climate change bill – a surprise because it was widely expected Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) would do so – but regardless, this is a topic Kerry has had an interest in for a long time. The Washington Post has a lengthy interview with Kerry, and do go over and read the whole thing, but let’s see what Kerry thinks about nuclear energy:

[The Post’s LOIS] ROMANO: So you have said yourself, this is a work in progress?

SENATOR KERRY: It is. I think we have a terrific starting point, and I'm proud of the progress that we've made. We have a nuclear title in there that actually embraces the notion that nuclear is going to be part of the solution, and we need to simplify and, in fact, accelerate the ability to get decisions and let that market work or not work on its own.

No complaint from us. The bill as presented had seemed to us like a Christmas tree without ornaments – the nuclear title is almost barren, but so are many of the others – and Kerry confirms what we suspected: that the various committees will start hanging those ornaments as they work through the bill.

Kerry gets even more explicit on this point:

MS. ROMANO: You've mentioned nuclear energy a couple of times, but now we also have a leading Republican Senator, John McCain [R-Ariz.], saying he will not support it because there's not enough new funding for nuclear energy. Where's the…

SENATOR KERRY: Well, on the contrary, we've opened up. I mean, the House bill did not, but we have initiated additional funding in order to try to deal with some of the nuclear issues, and we're open to sitting down with John and with others in order to move this process forward.

You know, there will be a committee process. Subsequent to that, we will meld the six different committee interests into one bill, with a leader, with Harry Reid's leadership, and that is the bill that will come to the floor. And then there's plenty of time on the floor for the White House and Senator McCain and all of us to be involved in the negotiation that tries to come up with a bill.

That sounds like the health bill, doesn’t it? So much focus was on the Finance Committee that a lot of commentators forgot that there were other versions of the bill to be merged into a final package. That’s what will happen here, too, so if somewhere along the way, you get disturbed by this provision getting in, that provision pushed out – just wait. Something reasonable might well result from the full process. (We readily admit that the legislative process can break an advocate’s heart, but one might as well wait so as not to keep reassembling the ventricles before the final outcome is known.)

And even better, the architect of this tree recognizes the value of the nuclear ornament.

The Post offers a transcript and the video of the interview. It’d be great if Sen. Boxer had a turn.

We’ll move on to some other subjects next week, but we wanted to stay with this until we fully understood how the bill was going to be assembled and what nuclear energy’s role in it might be. Well, now we know – Kerry goes a long way here explaining the idea behind the legislation. It’s a different approach from the House – where the details were complete in the original bill, then tweaked – but this approach, a kind of tabula rasa, will certainly lead to some interesting hearings. The outcome? We’ll see.

Sen. John Kerry

Comments

Adam said…
Surely you meant (D-Mass.) with respect to John Kerry.

Unless of course he has joined the ranks of Arlen Specter.
Anonymous said…
Ah... I think Kerry is a Democrat. If memory serves, he tried to slay the dragon in 2004.
Climate change, global sea rise, and independence from fossil fuels cannot be seriously dealt with without nuclear power.

So I'm glad to see both Republicans and Democrats strongly supporting more nuclear power.
Anonymous said…
If only he had come around before leading the charge to shut down the Integral Fast Reactor
DocForesight said…
Independence from fossil fuels for electricity generation makes total sense, particularly so when the "right-sized" nukes are readily available. Re-powering coal-fired power plants should be near the top of the list of priorities.

As to the 6 degrees F increase in global temperatures (worst case scenario) and 17 inch sea level rise predicted by some, not so much.

Atomic power stands on its own merits regardless of climatic conditions.
Anonymous said…
John Kerry... hmmm... I heard somewhere he served in Viet Nam...

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 …