Skip to main content

No Controversy About Nuclear Energy

DEVALsussman1 This is amusing:

In expressing conditional support for nuclear energy, [Gov. Deval] Patrick joined Republican Charles Baker and Independent Tim Cahill in backing the controversial energy source.

"I agree with President Obama on this one,"

Cahill said. Similarly, Baker said, "I'm glad to see the president decide that this is part of the agenda."

“Controversial energy source?” Says who? Not any of the candidates for Massachusetts governor, evidently.

---

Yesterday, I mentioned some of the consequences of not passing a climate change bill, but forgot one: people get annoyed.

Tens of thousands of protesters - and a few skeptics - have taken to the streets across Australia to urge the major political parties to take action on climate change.

There’s an election coming up this weekend, so one could call this a last minute push. Interestingly, none of Australia’s parties seem to have gained much support for energy policy.

Both Labor and the coalition have failed to take decisive action to cut Australia's pollution levels in the run-up to the federal election, Walk Against Warming rallies in Australia's capital cities heard on Sunday.

The coalition is the Liberal Party and the National Party, which always run together nationally though not always on the state level. Despite the name, the Liberals are the conservatives.

In any event, the goal is to entice both ends of the political spectrum to pay better attention to the issue.

"Poll after poll shows that Australians want action on climate change yet just one week from the federal election, both major parties are still failing to produce plans that will reduce pollution," Environment Victoria's campaign director, Mark Wakeham, said.

Nuclear energy plays a small part here – Australia has opened a breach in its long held antipathy towards it as a hedge against climate change. In any event, We hope whichever party gains a majority this Saturday pays heed. Read the rest of the story for more details – this protest seems to have been a well organized action.

---

If Aussies are annoyed enough at the two major parties, that might mean:

Australia's Greens party is poised for a breakthrough in this weekend's elections, cashing in on the incoherence of the major parties on an issue that has claimed more than one political scalp.

The Greens could win up to 14% of the vote, according to opinion polls, nearly double what it achieved last time. It is likely to give them the balance of power in the senate (elected by proportional representation), and a seat in the lower house.

I’m not sure what balance of power means in this case – I assume it means the Greens can form a governing alliance with whichever larger party offers them the most in terms of executive and administrative heft – England has something like this going on now.

---

The story about the protests included this bit:

In Sydney, Al Gore's Climate Project presenter, Nell Schofield, attracted huge cheers when she said Australia's lack of political action on climate change was "not only embarrassing, it is morally reprehensible".

"As Al Gore says, politicians are also a renewable resource," she said.

Which made us wonder how Gore felt about the Australia action. It turns out he quoted some of this story, too, and commented:

It is my hope we see activism like this here in the United States. A special thanks goes out to those I trained in Australia to give my slide show. They played a major role in the events.

Hmmm. Seems like action he could spur if he chose to.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.

Comments

Isaac said…
The Australian Greens, if they get the balance of power in the Senate, will basically just get a very strong bargaining position in any piece of legislation the Government wants to push through and which doesn't have the support of the opposition.

Government is formed by the party with the most seats in the House of Reps, and the Greens will probably only pick up one seat there, so there is very little chance they'll be part of any government.

The Greens are *very* anti-nuclear, so none of this is positive for nuclear energy development in Australia.
Kaj said…
I you want actions against climate change, then you might wote for the Greens.

But woting for the Greens is woting for fossil fuels. That's a big paradox.

Just look at Germany and you see what I mean.

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…