Skip to main content

Rudy Giuliani on Nuclear Energy

By

It’s a great pleasure and surprise when someone who has not said much about nuclear energy one way or another comes out strongly in favor. So here’s New York City’s former Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the Daily News:

We were recently reminded why maintaining a diverse fuel supply is so critical. The extreme cold weather that hit the city this winter caused New York City’s electricity prices to surge to record highs; customers saw their bills spike more than 20%. Many attributed the boost to rising prices for natural gas, which powers most of our electricity generators.

To protect against even more volatile price increases, we need to protect and preserve safe and stable-priced sources of power — such as the nuclear plants at Indian Point.

Electric reliability and the possibility of power outages were constant concerns of mine during my years as mayor, during the brutal winters as well as grueling, hot summer months. Our electric infrastructure is a vital part of New York — it powers our mass transit, our world-class health care, our communications, our financial markets and all the other the private-sector businesses and public organizations that drive our economy.

Given the unexpected challenges our region has faced over the past few years — from Hurricane Irene and superstorm Sandy — the mission to preserve and improve our power systems has never been more critical. We should use available federal funds to strengthen our existing electric system, and thereby offset the needed investment costs.

Most importantly, this will enable us to keep power costs under control — which is important for our region’s economic attractiveness.

A lot more at the link. He has his facts in order and, with a focus on the New York area, he has knows his beans about energy options. Very impressive op-ed from a very impressive figure.

Labels:

Comments

jimwg said…
Actually Rudy's been advocating Indian Point (and Shoreham) for quite a long while, even long before 911. One of the few pols out there with the spine to come out to hawk nuclear, though regrettably is pretty much a lone wolf about it here as he's advocating in a "progressive" bastion and against a formidable the Cuomo dynasty which is hell bent on shuttering IP with very unscrupulously rabid green groups here. We really have to get a handle on challenging FUD groups and spokespeople!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
April 1, 2014 at 5:01 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more