Skip to main content

Clean Sweep on Meet the Press

Here’s a bit of the discussion from this morning’s Meet the Press. Host David Gregory mostly focused on Libya, appropriately, with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), then turned to Japan. (Transcript cleaned up a little to cover pauses and such.)

MR. GREGORY:  I want to turn to Japan, another crisis that the president is facing, and, of course, what the Japanese are dealing with. Here are some of the latest facts to emerge out of the disaster in Japan. The death toll now upwards of 8,100. Still so many missing, and the number of missing well over 12,000. Some signs of hope, though.  Incredible images coming out of Japan early today from Ishinomaki as there were incredible rescues of a teenager as well as an 80-year-old grandmother who was stuck inside of her house.  Thankfully, though, those two people were rescued.

But, Senator Levin, as the nuclear emergency continues in Japan there are real questions about the future of nuclear power in this country.  After Three Mile Island back in 1979, as a young senator you called for a moratorium of six months on any nuclear power plants in the United States. Should that hold true now?

SEN. LEVIN:  Well, I think there ought to be a period here where all of our nuclear plants are tested very, very carefully to make sure that they are safe, and to make sure that this cannot happen here.  But I don't think that we can say that we're not going to continue to use nuclear power. Europe depends heavily on it, and they have found it to be safe. We use it a lot. We have found it, since Three Mile Island, to be safe. And it seems to me that the great hope that we have, ultimately, in terms of greenhouse gas is to move away from fossil fuels. And although I think we have to be mighty careful about nuclear power, we should put a lot of effort into seeing what we can do with the waste, that we cannot give up on that possibility because of the climate change which is occurring from fossil fuels.

MR. GREGORY:  Senator Kerry, about 30 seconds here.  How big of a blow has nuclear power, as part of our energy mix, been dealt here?

SEN. KERRY:  Well, I think it's taken some hit, obviously.  But I think it's going to cause everybody to look for the fail-safe methodology and what the next generation of nuclear power might or might not be.  I think, you know, of equal urgency is simply responding to the demand of climate change and the need to move away from fossil fuels.  The faster we build an energy grid in America that we move to solar, thermal, other things, I think the marketplace will make that decision for us.

MR. GREGORY:  Senator Sessions, after the gulf oil spill, after the nuclear emergency in Japan, do you think the president is capable of leading a bipartisan effort to really make energy policy a priority, and to lead to some change?

SEN. SESSIONS:  He has to do that.  He has not done that.  The Energy Department seems to be putting out more roadblocks on American energy production than actually leading in the way to produce more energy.  We need more clean, American energy.  Now, that is a driving force for this country right now.  We're not seeing that leadership.  We've got gulf oil production blocked basically by not getting permits.  Only two have been made since the oil spill.

MR. GREGORY:  Right.

SEN. SESSIONS:  And we need to get moving.  We simply cannot afford not to.

MR. GREGORY:  I'm going to have to make that the last word.  Senators, thank you all very much.

---

That’s almost a clean sweep, but that “almost” is because Sen. Sessions was set on a different track. Here’s Sessions in The Birmingham News on Thursday:

I think we ought to check everything for safety," Shelby said. "If we have to build in some safety, let's do it."

Sessions said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should learn from the Japanese experience and re-examine American plants. But he also doesn't want to stop work on building new nuclear plants.

"All I'm saying is we don't need to overreact because nuclear power has to be a part of the clean energy future," Sessions said.

Okay, now it’s a clean sweep.

Comments

DocForesight said…
Somebody needs to update Sens. Levin and Kerry that "Global Climate Disruption" has been replaced with reality -- mankind can (and does) pollute but it cannot influence the global climate system.

And why politicians from both sides of the aisle can't separate electricity and industrial process heat generation from transportation fuels and chemical feed stocks is baffling to me. Just doing that would make the argument easier to pose and defend.

Solar and wind will never, ever produce enough energy or power to support a modern society. Saying otherwise is an insult to our intelligence.

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…