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 …

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 …