Skip to main content

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz in Idaho

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz has never hidden his support for nuclear energy. In 2011, before he took up his current post, he wrote an article for Foreign Affairs surveying the nuclear landscape, finding some sump holes and crevices (as well as gold-infused hillocks and verdant valleys), and concluded:

As greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, finding ways to generate power cleanly, affordably, and reliably is becoming an even more pressing imperative. Nuclear power is not a silver bullet, but it is a partial solution that has proved workable on a large scale. … The government's role should be to help provide the private sector with a well-understood set of options, including nuclear power -- not to prescribe a desired market share for any specific technology.

And:

The United States must take a number of decisions to maintain and advance the option of nuclear energy.

As energy secretary, he has embraced President Barack Obama’s “all-of-the-above” energy policy – it features in his Foreign Affairs piece, too – so his specific interest in nuclear energy has been less apparent if never absent.

Now it’s apparent again:

U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz championed the use of nuclear power and urged politicians and leaders in the energy industry to adapt and modernize energy production to help minimize the fallout from global warming.

And for the same reason as in the article: because it’s a bulwark against climate change. He was speaking in Idaho with three of the state’s Congressional delegation present, so his words have some significance:

"The predictions of a world where we do nothing predict unhealthy outcomes for our forests," Moniz said. "Working hard on it means innovating energy technology. And I want to emphasize, the goal of energy is very simple, keep the costs down. As we have seen, that will make the policy making easier."

I hesitated a bit on this story from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch because Moniz isn’t quoted directly about nuclear energy. He was speaking at The Intermountain Energy Summit, with the Idaho National Laboratory providing a nice backdrop for nuclear-specific comments.

Moniz said the U.S. Department of Energy would award $67 million for nuclear research and development to universities and labs across the country. Idaho will receive $3.7 million for six projects at the Idaho National Laboratory, Boise State University and Idaho State University.

But everything is of a piece. Moniz said a few things about small reactors in his 2011 piece and again in Idaho:

Small modular reactors could possibly ease critics' fears that nuclear energy costs too much to be efficient, Moniz said, but many of these are in the early stages of construction so information on long-term operation costs are minimal.

If nothing else – actually, there’s a lot else - this story demonstrates that nuclear energy remains as it has been, a strong element in the administration’s energy policy.

---

Here’s the breakdown of the $67 million DOE dispersed, from ExecutiveGov (it’s about a million short, but what’s a few dollars?):

  • $30 million for 44 university-led nuclear energy R&D projects;
  • $4 million for 19 research reactor and infrastructure improvement projects;
  • $20 million for five integrated research projects;
  • $11 million for 12 R&D projects by DOE national laboratories, industry and U.S. universities; and
  • $1 million for two infrastructure enhancement projects.

  • Comments

    trag said…
    Moniz is all talk and no real support for nuclear. The money dispersed is pennies compared to what's been showered on unworkable solar and wind schemes.

    One need look no further than him appointing a UCS wonk as his chief of staff to know that at heart, he's anti-nuclear. A pro nuclear secretary would be taking real action and recommending real movement that would get dozens of reactors built, not a handful. Furthermore, he'd be knocking on Obama's door begging him not to appoint the proposed political weasels to the NRC board.
    Anonymous said…
    Either Dr. Moniz misspoke or--more likely--he was misquoted by a reporter who knows little about nuclear power. There are no small modular reactors in the early stages of construction--at least, not in the US--and they are unlikely to reach that state for at least another 5-10 years (if then). The designs still have to undergo NRC review, and someone has to apply for a license to build one, which has not happened yet.

    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 …