Skip to main content

“Nuclear Generation is here and now.”


On Fox News Sunday, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ken.) said that this is what he would do to counter the Russians in Ukraine:
“I would do something differently from the president,” Paul said. “I would immediately get every obstacle out of the way for our export of oil and gas, and I would begin drilling in every possible conceivable place within our territories in order to have production we can supply Europe with if it’s interrupted from Ukraine.”
There are all kinds of reasons this is a difficult proposition. Paul says “I would begin drilling,” but all he could really do (as President) is open public land to drilling and then encourage private industry to do so. And then the market would decide where the gas would go. Politicians say all kinds of things with the intent of showing resolve rather than propose real policy, so there’s that, too.
But Paul might really be on to something. Forbes has an interesting article that has nothing whatever to do with Russia, but has the same impact:
Nuclear generation is here and now.

Major energy transitions are lengthy, says Michael Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute, in an interview. … “The right questions are how do we encourage a transition to it and how do we make it cheaper,” and not to dismiss it because of a stale mindset.
Writer Ken Silverstein shows how this is already happening in Europe and Asia.
Meantime, China, Korea, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and the UK are advancing nuclear production to address air pollution and climate concerns. China has 20 nuclear plants today and 28 more under construction — 40 percent of all projected new nuclear units, says the World Nuclear Association. A similar dynamic exists in the UK, which approved the construction of two reactors at Hinkley Point that will provide 7 percent of the UK’s electricity.
The beneficial aspects of this are manifest. Paul and other politicians often zero in on fuel types to promote energy policy, but that’s not all there is on offer. America has nuclear technology, nuclear manufacturers and nuclear personnel. The U.S. is  not a big supplier of uranium, but “good actors” like Australia are.
It takes time to build nuclear plants, but, as in the U.K, it takes no time at all to set an energy policy – well, okay, it does, but it can be done quickly – and energy policy that favors nuclear energy can benefit the U.S. right away. No need to drill everywhere if it proves to be a problem – nuclear is all ready to go. Even Sen. Paul might find it appealing.

Comments

Anonymous said…
With more nukes, the US could use the gas and coal it wastes on electricity generation to synthesise oil. The technology can be bought from South Africa. This would certainly cost less than the Iraq and Afghan wars. Entertainingly, Qatar is building a gas to oil plant to make better use of its plentiful supply of gas. The nukes the UAE are building will also allow them to export more fossil fuels to those who prefer them to nuclear power!!
Anonymous said…
Nuclear + Electric Vehicles (batteries) + Heat Pumps are going to eliminate the majority of fossil-fuel use in this century. These are not pie-in-the-sky technologies. They are very close to implementation. Battery research has really accelerated (finally). Nuclear is ready now, with more advanced designs in the wings. And Mitsubishi is selling heat pumps at Home Depot that are rated down to -14 F.

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 …