Skip to main content

The Whole Shocking Truth About Nuclear Energy

motherjones Nuclear Energy is never going to get an awful lot of love from Mother Jones magazine – unless the tide of support it’s seen from more progressives that way. But not yet.

In a small piece, Mariah Blake shows that the nuclear energy industry would really like nuclear energy to be considered amongst other technologies in the energy bills going through Congress – shocking, we know, but true enough – and is even leveraging growing support from Democrats and organized labor to press its cause – doubly shocking, also true.

The industry's efforts began to pay off this fall, as nuclear subsidies emerged as the key to wooing Republican votes for a Senate climate bill—votes necessary to offset defections from coal-state Democrats. Since October, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of the climate bill's sponsors, has been holding closed-door meetings with Republicans to craft nuclear language.

None of this is particularly diabolical – none of it crosses any ethical line or aims to suborn the public will through underhanded tactics. The nuclear industry is playing the hand it’s been dealt: It’s a good hand, with positive polls behind it and a growing base of institutional support and government interest. 

Blake isn’t really arguing against the industry’s efforts as much as suggesting that a disliked industry (by her) should not be able to so effectively marshal its resources. Yet it has done so – nuclear energy really can help solve a key problem and its stock has risen accordingly. It’s just not that hard to grasp.

---

Mother Jones also named NRC Commissioner nominee William Magwood one of President Obama’s Five Worst Nominees. Why?

Even before Obama took office, Magwood called on the incoming administration to spearhead a nuclear expansion—boosterism that critics say makes him ill-suited for an agency designed to determine the safety and viability of nuclear technology.

Really? Wanting a nuclear expansion necessarily leads one to undermine “the safety and viability of nuclear technology?” That doesn’t make human sense much less logical sense, as such a person would likely be more critical of shortfalls than a more disinterested party.

Perhaps Mother Jones can come up with a “pure” candidate for NRC commissioner – be we suspect it would set a bar, well, not too high perhaps, but too eccentrically composed for anyone to meet.

Mother Jones – Mary Harris Jones (1837-1930) – the “miner’s angel” who worked tirelessly on behalf of miners, for example bringing the issue of child mine workers to the fore in the early part of the last century. Fairly radical by modern standards, her benign grandmotherly mien allowed her views a wide hearing and brought about considerable progressive reform. A fascinating labor figure.

Comments

Anonymous said…
If you don't mind putting the shoe on the other foot, it is rather unfair and unrealistic of you to expect anyone associated with "Mother Jones" to be capable of rational thought or coherent logic.
DW said…
Excellent commentary. Very good parsing of this issue.

Actually MJ has run some pro-nuclear stuff in the past.

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 …