Skip to main content

Reading the Morning Nuclear News

From Fox News (which can be intensely partisan, but this is by former Senators Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) and Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire). They have a plan, which I’ve extracted here (read the story for the rest of it):

Before we close more nuclear power plants, we need a national conversation

What might be done to ensure that existing nuclear energy plants are preserved? … [W]e have laid out a framework of possible solutions that might be considered by policymakers.

First, markets should appropriately value existing nuclear energy plants for their reliability… 

Second, electric transmission lines could better link nuclear energy plants to the markets that need their power…

Finally, nuclear energy plants could be recognized for the fact that they emit no carbon… 

The whole thing is worth a read.

From the Business Standard:

China launches nuclear power expansion scheme

Scheme? Let the evil laughter and overwrought rubbing of hands commence.

They write letters, this one to the Morris County N.J. Daily Record:

Don’t underestimate nuclear power

… So, it’s absurd that EPA’s clean power plant rule assigns scarcely any value to nuclear power’s key role in reducing carbon emissions. The rule as it is currently written is rigged against nuclear power. It counts only 6 percent of a nuclear plant’s generation toward a state’s carbon intensity goal, instead of the plant’s full production of zero-carbon energy.

Well, rigged is a little strong, but it’s pretty right-on. We wrote about nuclear value earlier this week; If Daily Record reader James McGovern dropped by (or read Bayh and Gregg’s editorial), great. If not, still great. Keep writing letters to your local newspaper.

One more headline, from ABC (not the American network):

Business groups want Government to 'get out of the way' of nuclear power

This isn’t from the United States, but I’ll give you a hint: every kangaroo there hates nuclear energy, though they waltz Matilda over the country’s considerable uranium exports.

The peak business group in South Australia, Business SA, is pushing for a debate to be held on the merits of building a nuclear power reactor in the state.

The organization's chief executive, Nigel McBride, has welcomed the comments from senior figures within the Federal Government.

"I do welcome what is, to me, a very important sign from the Prime Minister that this Government is not closed to what could be a significant game-changer in our fight for affordable energy," he said.

We’ve noted Australia’s intense nuclear distaste over several years, so let’s not get our hopes up. But it really is getting stuck with a terrible carbon dioxide emission profile that it can’t seem to find a way to improve. We can think of a way – so has Nigel McBride.

Comments

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 …