Skip to main content

Browner, Korea and the Chamber

Carol Browner arms folded Carol Browner, President Obama’s energy and climate advisor, said some nice things about nuclear energy:

"We have not built a nuclear plant in this country in a long time but we want to work with the industry to make that happen in the not too distant future," Browner said in a live chat on the White House website.

"We have been working with the nuclear industry to understand exactly what it is they need."

This adds Browner to the list of relevant administration figures to endorse nuclear energy (Chu, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, Obama himself), so we’ll take it.

---

We were interested to see South Korea make a plant sale to UAE – the country had not seemed a major competitor before then – but the sale has unleashed ambition.

South Korea is aiming to grab at least 20 percent of the global market for nuclear reactors in the next 20 years, the government announced Wednesday.

A lot of ambition.

[Kim Young-hak, vice minister for Knowledge Economy] said by 2030, South Korea should join the United States and France as one of the world's leading builders of nuclear reactors.

The country aims to export 80 nuclear reactors by 2030, he said.

What can we say? Welcome, South Korea.

---

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce always has the option of staying neutral on a topic when its membership lacks consensus, but has lately taken on some hot topics, notably health care reform. However, we think the chamber has picked just about the right moment for this one, in a story about its 2010 plan:

On energy, [Chamber President and CEO Thomas] Donohue said nuclear power needs to be part of the nation's energy-producing mix. He said he has spoken to many in the environmental movement and senses a thaw in their longtime opposition to nuclear plants, which produce much lower emissions than coal-fired power plants.

We think Donohue has this about right in every aspect, and the Chamber in general has always seen nuclear energy in, shall we say, an enlightened way. So no complaint – maybe any of the chamber’s members who have issues with nuclear energy, will explore the topic more thoroughly.

Correx: We’re sure South Korea would love to sell a plant to India, but the sale was actually to UAE. Corrected. Thanks to reader E. Michael Blake for the catch.

Carol Browner wants you to know.

Comments

Georg said…
Im trying to find a contact on your blog but I cant. this is totally of topic but my only way to make contact.

In the autumn I have been working together on a project with KSU (nuclear safety and education) which aims to make YouTube videos of their brochures, first out is "ionizing radiation". Swedes target audience is between 13 to 35. The goal with movies is to spread knowledge about the subject in a simple, flexible format that is easy to absorb.

We are so happy with the result that we now want to get them to the public, in my search for pages that would fit, I turned on your. I thought it might fit.

anyway. This is the result http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DE82FF9404E57FF3 Swedish version

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2F32241381ECC3E7 English version

Best wishes, George
If you wish to contact me georg(at)kollektivetlivet.se
Anonymous said…
As much as I would like to believe Ms. Browner, and Mr. Obama, and Ms. Jackson (I do believe Dr. Chu), I'm going to maintain my comfortable paranoid mistrust until a new reactor actually goes critical and contacts the grid. It would be easy for Obama et al. to talk big about nuclear power while ordering proxies on Capitol Hill to kill it.
Anonymous said…
I'm posting anonymously, but I identify myself below. First, where you refer to a contract between South Korea and India, I think you mean that it's between South Korea and the United Arab Emirates.

Second, the unidentified anonymous poster might not be satisfied under the best of circumstances, because none of the proposed new reactors are expected to start up until 2016 or later, and even with two terms Obama would leave office in January 2017.

--E. Michael Blake
SteveK9 said…
The chamber would sound more convincing if they weren't in the camp of climate-change deniers. That has caused them some grief with a range of large industrial companies, who withdrew from the chamber over the issue.

It's nice to argue for nuclear power from a logical perspective, but you need to be consistent.
DocForesight said…
"in the not too distant future" -

This reminds me of my attitude towards commitment with females gaining my attention and affection 20-30 years ago. I would approach my trust in the sentiment now expressed by this administration with the same "prove it" approach that I received from the objects of my interest then.

Considering the rhetorical emphasis placed on wind, solar, geothermal and "renewables" that dominates this administration, I would keep my powder dry. Sorry for the mixed metaphors but didn't want to follow the train of thought in paragraph 1.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…