Earth Day and the DC Department of Energy

During the first meeting of the DC Chapter of Young Generation in Nuclear, a member proposed putting together some type of public education exhibit to coincide with Earth Day. After a little research we identified that the District of Columbia's Energy Office was holding a week long Earth Day event and that this would be the best venue.

About a week ago, I contacted, Marielle Avilla, the woman in charge of the event. She seemed to understand why a group like NA-YGN would like to participate in a public education day on energy. As we finished our conversation, she promised to send me the registration materials that afternoon.

Fast forward to this week and I was still waiting for the materials, so I decided to call Ms. Avilla. She responded to me via email asking me to provide a brief paragraph as to "why we wanted to exhibit". I emailed the following:

Nuclear energy is the largest, emission free source of baseload electricity production. With the current environmental situation in the states, nuclear power has had a major comeback with decisionmakers as to a solution for carbon based pollution. NAYGN (North American Young Generation in Nuclear) is the professional association that comprises professionals working in all facets of nuclear technology (medical, energy production etc.). We have numerous brochures and other educational materials that will explain the environmental benefits of nuclear and how, with more nuclear plants in the United States, we could fit into many of the carbon control programs being considered on the local, state and federal levels.

Not long after that, I got a call from Avilla's boss, Tomaysa Sterling, informing me that they would not be able to "accommodate our request to participate" in the event. The reason given was that nuclear energy was not considered a "renewable" form of energy and they were only extending invitations to producers of "renewable" energy. I mentioned that while I understood the need to push the renewable message, I thought that it was unfair for a government entity to exclude the largest, non-emitting source of baseload electricity as it has less of an environmental impact than some renewables (windmills and hydropower).

During our conversation, Ms. Sterling mentioned that the decision to decline our participation was really made because of two factors:

DC does not draw any of it's electricity from nuclear power Nuclear energy is seen as "dangerous and unsafe" by the public

**UPDATE** PEPCO estimates that just over 30% of the electricity generated for the District of Columbia and the Maryland suburbs is generated by nuclear power. Less than 1 percent is generated by renewables.

While it seemed that Ms. Sterling was only following guidance she got from management, any "negative" perception of the industry is because of groups like the DC Department of Energy who only give a partial explanation of the entire energy picture. And in any case, some of the latest public opinion data contradicts her assertion quite dramatically.

As you have read on this blog, NEI supports a diverse portfolio of electricity generation (and included in this is a renewable portfolio). Giving the message to the general public that renewable energy is the only way to solve the carbon, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions issue is just plain wrong -- and some of the world's leading environmentalists agree.

Currently all power generated inside of the borders of the District of Columbia is oil powered. With prices climbing and the environmental impacts that occur with burning oil for electricity, you would think that the DC Government would be looking for other sources of baseload power production. Eventually a portion could come from "renewables", however it is unlikely in the next 20 years.

The two other states that make up the DC metropolitan region generate more than 20 percent of their power from nuclear (Maryland - 26% and Virginia - 34%), so why is DC adamant about leaving nuclear out of any Earth Day festivities?

Better public education on electrical generation and its environmental impact is critical to informed public debate. Without a balanced discussion, with every stakeholder presenting, the public will not have all the information it needs to make an informed decision.

Ms. Sterling, identified herself as an energy professional, but she seemed to foster many of the stereotypes that the anti-nuclear movement has pushed for the last 25 years. As I mentioned, she brought up "health effects" during our conversation and cited Three Mile Island as an example. This despite the fact that a University of Pittsburgh study showed there were no lasting health effects as a result of the accident.

Public education about the benefits of nuclear needs to happen, but how can we accomplish this without being allowed a seat at the table?

Technorati tags: Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology

Earth Day and the DC Department of Energy

During the first meeting of the DC Chapter of Young Generation in Nuclear, a member proposed putting together some type of public education exhibit to coincide with Earth Day. After a little research we identified that the District of Columbia's Energy Office was holding a week long Earth Day event and that this would be the best venue.

About a week ago, I contacted, Marielle Avilla, the woman in charge of the event. She seemed to understand why a group like NA-YGN would like to participate in a public education day on energy. As we finished our conversation, she promised to send me the registration materials that afternoon.

Fast forward to this week and I was still waiting for the materials, so I decided to call Ms. Avilla. She responded to me via email asking me to provide a brief paragraph as to "why we wanted to exhibit". I emailed the following:

Nuclear energy is the largest, emission free source of baseload electricity production. With the current environmental situation in the states, nuclear power has had a major comeback with decisionmakers as to a solution for carbon based pollution. NAYGN (North American Young Generation in Nuclear) is the professional association that comprises professionals working in all facets of nuclear technology (medical, energy production etc.). We have numerous brochures and other educational materials that will explain the environmental benefits of nuclear and how, with more nuclear plants in the United States, we could fit into many of the carbon control programs being considered on the local, state and federal levels.

Not long after that, I got a call from Avilla's boss, Tomaysa Sterling, informing me that they would not be able to "accommodate our request to participate" in the event. The reason given was that nuclear energy was not considered a "renewable" form of energy and they were only extending invitations to producers of "renewable" energy. I mentioned that while I understood the need to push the renewable message, I thought that it was unfair for a government entity to exclude the largest, non-emitting source of baseload electricity as it has less of an environmental impact than some renewables (windmills and hydropower).

During our conversation, Ms. Sterling mentioned that the decision to decline our participation was really made because of two factors:

DC does not draw any of it's electricity from nuclear power Nuclear energy is seen as "dangerous and unsafe" by the public

**UPDATE** PEPCO estimates that just over 30% of the electricity generated for the District of Columbia and the Maryland suburbs is generated by nuclear power. Less than 1 percent is generated by renewables.

While it seemed that Ms. Sterling was only following guidance she got from management, any "negative" perception of the industry is because of groups like the DC Department of Energy who only give a partial explanation of the entire energy picture. And in any case, some of the latest public opinion data contradicts her assertion quite dramatically.

As you have read on this blog, NEI supports a diverse portfolio of electricity generation (and included in this is a renewable portfolio). Giving the message to the general public that renewable energy is the only way to solve the carbon, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions issue is just plain wrong -- and some of the world's leading environmentalists agree.

Currently all power generated inside of the borders of the District of Columbia is oil powered. With prices climbing and the environmental impacts that occur with burning oil for electricity, you would think that the DC Government would be looking for other sources of baseload power production. Eventually a portion could come from "renewables", however it is unlikely in the next 20 years.

The two other states that make up the DC metropolitan region generate more than 20 percent of their power from nuclear (Maryland - 26% and Virginia - 34%), so why is DC adamant about leaving nuclear out of any Earth Day festivities?

Better public education on electrical generation and its environmental impact is critical to informed public debate. Without a balanced discussion, with every stakeholder presenting, the public will not have all the information it needs to make an informed decision.

Ms. Sterling, identified herself as an energy professional, but she seemed to foster many of the stereotypes that the anti-nuclear movement has pushed for the last 25 years. As I mentioned, she brought up "health effects" during our conversation and cited Three Mile Island as an example. This despite the fact that a University of Pittsburgh study showed there were no lasting health effects as a result of the accident.

Public education about the benefits of nuclear needs to happen, but how can we accomplish this without being allowed a seat at the table?

Technorati tags: Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology

Some Background on Used Fuel Issues

In trying to understand the tangled issues of a national fuel repository, I have been reviewing how we got here. Specifically, how did we, as a nation, come to be stockpiling used fuel? And how, exactly, did the decision to stockpile the fuel instead of recycle it relieve non-proliferation fears?

FRONTLINE has provided links to two essays: one in favor of the 1977 decision to delay/cancel nuclear fuel reprocessing and one opposed. While these resources do not make for light reading, they are very informative, and paint a picture of the reprocessing decision in light of the political landscape of the times.

The show that is associated with these essays was first aired in 1997. When you're finished with the essays, the reactions to the show are much easier to digest. I was delighted by Frank R. Borger's email regarding radiation exposure from coal stations (with a link to the appropriate reference)!

Some Background on Used Fuel Issues

In trying to understand the tangled issues of a national fuel repository, I have been reviewing how we got here. Specifically, how did we, as a nation, come to be stockpiling used fuel? And how, exactly, did the decision to stockpile the fuel instead of recycle it relieve non-proliferation fears?

FRONTLINE has provided links to two essays: one in favor of the 1977 decision to delay/cancel nuclear fuel reprocessing and one opposed. While these resources do not make for light reading, they are very informative, and paint a picture of the reprocessing decision in light of the political landscape of the times.

The show that is associated with these essays was first aired in 1997. When you're finished with the essays, the reactions to the show are much easier to digest. I was delighted by Frank R. Borger's email regarding radiation exposure from coal stations (with a link to the appropriate reference)!

NY AREA Rallies Support for Indian Point

Yesterday, another stage in the PR battle over the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant began, as supporters and opponents of the plant both staged public rallies concerning a possible relicensing.

But while you might be familiar with many of the names associated with the opponents of Indian Point, you ought to take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance (NY AREA), an alliance of business, labor and community groups formed to rally support for the plant and raise public awareness about the New York area's energy needs.

Yesterday at a press conference in White Plains, New York, Jerry Kremer, former New York State Assemblyman and Chairman of the Advisory Board of NY AREA had this to say:

Tonight, the anti-nuclear group Riverkeeper will launch what they are calling a campaign kickoff to deny re-licensing for the Indian Point Energy Center and advance their cause to close the plants. But it’s really an attempt to breathe life into what has become a tired and discredited campaign.

It would be nice to ignore Riverkeeper’'s membership campaign, except for the fact that they are promoting an agenda that would wreak havoc on both our regional economy and the environment.

Considering all the criticism over air quality in this region, New York needs the clean power that Indian Point provides and will need it even more in the years to come. That'’s why a diverse group of business, labor, environmental, and community leaders have come here today.

On their Web site, the group has an extensive list of resources, including a copy of the NEI economic impact study on Indian Point.

NY AREA Rallies Support for Indian Point

Yesterday, another stage in the PR battle over the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant began, as supporters and opponents of the plant both staged public rallies concerning a possible relicensing.

But while you might be familiar with many of the names associated with the opponents of Indian Point, you ought to take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance (NY AREA), an alliance of business, labor and community groups formed to rally support for the plant and raise public awareness about the New York area's energy needs.

Yesterday at a press conference in White Plains, New York, Jerry Kremer, former New York State Assemblyman and Chairman of the Advisory Board of NY AREA had this to say:

Tonight, the anti-nuclear group Riverkeeper will launch what they are calling a campaign kickoff to deny re-licensing for the Indian Point Energy Center and advance their cause to close the plants. But it’s really an attempt to breathe life into what has become a tired and discredited campaign.

It would be nice to ignore Riverkeeper’'s membership campaign, except for the fact that they are promoting an agenda that would wreak havoc on both our regional economy and the environment.

Considering all the criticism over air quality in this region, New York needs the clean power that Indian Point provides and will need it even more in the years to come. That'’s why a diverse group of business, labor, environmental, and community leaders have come here today.

On their Web site, the group has an extensive list of resources, including a copy of the NEI economic impact study on Indian Point.

Debating the Environmental Benefits of Nuclear Energy in Holland

Earlier this month, the Amsterdam Forum on Radio Netherlands held a debate between Bruno Comby, president of Paris-based Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy and Rianne Teule from Greenpeace Netherlands, on the environmental benefits of nuclear energy.

The program, which runs just under 30 minutes, is available in both Windows Media and Real Media.

For more on the background on the nuclear energy debate in the Netherlands, click here and here.

Debating the Environmental Benefits of Nuclear Energy in Holland

Earlier this month, the Amsterdam Forum on Radio Netherlands held a debate between Bruno Comby, president of Paris-based Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy and Rianne Teule from Greenpeace Netherlands, on the environmental benefits of nuclear energy.

The program, which runs just under 30 minutes, is available in both Windows Media and Real Media.

For more on the background on the nuclear energy debate in the Netherlands, click here and here.

Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

Commenting on Tom Friedman's column in Sunday's New York Times, Seattle's Roy Smith makes the case for nuclear energy:

For too long, the "environmental movement" has sabotaged real solutions to the climate change issue by their ideologically based, uninformed opposition to nuclear energy. It is refreshing to see voices such as Mr. Friedman and James Lovelock pointing out that rather than being an enviromental armageddon, nuclear energy may be our only hope for saving the planet from a global warming catastrophe.

To read what other bloggers have to say about nuclear energy, click here, here, here and here.

Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

Commenting on Tom Friedman's column in Sunday's New York Times, Seattle's Roy Smith makes the case for nuclear energy:

For too long, the "environmental movement" has sabotaged real solutions to the climate change issue by their ideologically based, uninformed opposition to nuclear energy. It is refreshing to see voices such as Mr. Friedman and James Lovelock pointing out that rather than being an enviromental armageddon, nuclear energy may be our only hope for saving the planet from a global warming catastrophe.

To read what other bloggers have to say about nuclear energy, click here, here, here and here.

Columbia Looks Into Nuclear Energy

From the Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune:

Columbia Water & Light officials are considering doubling the size of the coal-burning Municipal Power Plant on Business Loop 70.

As an alternative, Mayor Darwin Hindman said he’d be interested in looking into buying a portion of a new nuclear power plant outside the Columbia area . . .

Hindman said he favors looking into building a new coal plant but also wants the nuclear option investigated. While a nuclear plant would probably never be built in Columbia, he said, the city’s utility could buy a percentage of one built elsewhere.

"I do think that in a volatile market where we subject ourselves to market prices of buying electricity during peak times, we need to hedge that in some way," Hindman said. "Building a power plant is one way to do that."

"One thing we should never overlook is the use of nuclear power," he said. "It doesn’t pollute the air."

Columbia Looks Into Nuclear Energy

From the Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune:

Columbia Water & Light officials are considering doubling the size of the coal-burning Municipal Power Plant on Business Loop 70.

As an alternative, Mayor Darwin Hindman said he’d be interested in looking into buying a portion of a new nuclear power plant outside the Columbia area . . .

Hindman said he favors looking into building a new coal plant but also wants the nuclear option investigated. While a nuclear plant would probably never be built in Columbia, he said, the city’s utility could buy a percentage of one built elsewhere.

"I do think that in a volatile market where we subject ourselves to market prices of buying electricity during peak times, we need to hedge that in some way," Hindman said. "Building a power plant is one way to do that."

"One thing we should never overlook is the use of nuclear power," he said. "It doesn’t pollute the air."

Now We're Cooking!

As I've mentioned before, the Virginia Section of North American-Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) has been vocal in the public debate about the potential for new nuclear power plants in our state. Articles have appeared in many local newspapers and anti-nuclear activists have been writing letters attacking not only nuclear power, but NA-YGN members personally. Some of us have responded as diplomatically as possible to the misinformation and character defamation.

Recently, in a letter published in Cville, a weekly newspaper in Charlottesville, one writer suspected that the nuclear industry was trying to fake a grassroots movement and that NA-YGN "reeks of deceit and corruption." In response, I wrote that NA-YGN was founded in 1999 well before anyone seriously began talking about new nuclear plants, that the Virginia section in particular was engaged in many public outreach activities years before Dominion ever submitted an Early Site Permit application, and that making such slanderous statements about an organization simply because it supports an action that one does not is the height of rudeness and intolerance.

The next week, another locally prominent anti-nuclear extremist, Elena Day, wrote a letter in which she said in part:

While Vice President Lisa Shell likes to characterize the group as a “pro-nuclear grassroots organization” [“Talking ‘bout my Generation,” Mailbag, March 8], I would like to pose the following question: Is it reasonable for groups whose members have vested their careers in the nationwide acceptance and growth of the nuclear industry to direct or dominate the debate on the expansion of nuclear power in Virginia? I believe not.

Unfortunately, I was on vacation and unable to respond to Ms. Day in time for the next issue. I would have said,

1) I don't support nuclear power because I work in the industry, I work in the industry because I support nuclear power.

2) If greed were my motivation, I would be lobbying to shutdown all nuclear power plants in this country. With ten years of research and working experience in spent nuclear fuel management, if every plant began decommissioning I could name my price as a consultant and retire wealthy at a young age.

3) Who, exactly, is better positioned to comment objectively on nuclear power plants than well-educated professionals who work there and choose to live in the surrounding communities?

4) If, as Ms. Day suggests, those who are employed in the nuclear industry should be disqualified from the public debate, then to be fair, the career anti-nuclear ideologues who make a living working for Public Citizen, BREDL, NIRS, etc., and who provide the skewed information that she often quotes in her letters, must also be excluded.

I didn't have the opportunity to submit the above, but luckily, two of my colleagues that were also called out by Ms. Day fired back in letters printed this week.

Mike Stuart corrected some of Ms. Day's statments about coal plants and ended with:

As for the young engineers and nuclear professionals in NA-YGN, we will not sit idly by while the best chance this country has for energy independence is discredited by the half-truths and misrepresentations that groups such as the People’s Alliance for Clean Energy and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League will spread to promote their anti-nuclear agenda. These groups have been allowed to spread flawed information without accountability for far too long. If anything, these groups should take a lesson from another grass roots organization, Greenpeace, whose founder, Patrick Moore, has publicly admitted that nuclear power is preferable to the alternatives.

And, to top off the page linked above, you'll note that two local seventh-grade students weighed in with their thoughts on the benefits of nuclear power.

Woohoo! The public debate about nuclear power is heating up in Virginia!

Technorati tags: Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Now We're Cooking!

As I've mentioned before, the Virginia Section of North American-Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) has been vocal in the public debate about the potential for new nuclear power plants in our state. Articles have appeared in many local newspapers and anti-nuclear activists have been writing letters attacking not only nuclear power, but NA-YGN members personally. Some of us have responded as diplomatically as possible to the misinformation and character defamation.

Recently, in a letter published in Cville, a weekly newspaper in Charlottesville, one writer suspected that the nuclear industry was trying to fake a grassroots movement and that NA-YGN "reeks of deceit and corruption." In response, I wrote that NA-YGN was founded in 1999 well before anyone seriously began talking about new nuclear plants, that the Virginia section in particular was engaged in many public outreach activities years before Dominion ever submitted an Early Site Permit application, and that making such slanderous statements about an organization simply because it supports an action that one does not is the height of rudeness and intolerance.

The next week, another locally prominent anti-nuclear extremist, Elena Day, wrote a letter in which she said in part:

While Vice President Lisa Shell likes to characterize the group as a “pro-nuclear grassroots organization” [“Talking ‘bout my Generation,” Mailbag, March 8], I would like to pose the following question: Is it reasonable for groups whose members have vested their careers in the nationwide acceptance and growth of the nuclear industry to direct or dominate the debate on the expansion of nuclear power in Virginia? I believe not.

Unfortunately, I was on vacation and unable to respond to Ms. Day in time for the next issue. I would have said,

1) I don't support nuclear power because I work in the industry, I work in the industry because I support nuclear power.

2) If greed were my motivation, I would be lobbying to shutdown all nuclear power plants in this country. With ten years of research and working experience in spent nuclear fuel management, if every plant began decommissioning I could name my price as a consultant and retire wealthy at a young age.

3) Who, exactly, is better positioned to comment objectively on nuclear power plants than well-educated professionals who work there and choose to live in the surrounding communities?

4) If, as Ms. Day suggests, those who are employed in the nuclear industry should be disqualified from the public debate, then to be fair, the career anti-nuclear ideologues who make a living working for Public Citizen, BREDL, NIRS, etc., and who provide the skewed information that she often quotes in her letters, must also be excluded.

I didn't have the opportunity to submit the above, but luckily, two of my colleagues that were also called out by Ms. Day fired back in letters printed this week.

Mike Stuart corrected some of Ms. Day's statments about coal plants and ended with:

As for the young engineers and nuclear professionals in NA-YGN, we will not sit idly by while the best chance this country has for energy independence is discredited by the half-truths and misrepresentations that groups such as the People’s Alliance for Clean Energy and the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League will spread to promote their anti-nuclear agenda. These groups have been allowed to spread flawed information without accountability for far too long. If anything, these groups should take a lesson from another grass roots organization, Greenpeace, whose founder, Patrick Moore, has publicly admitted that nuclear power is preferable to the alternatives.

And, to top off the page linked above, you'll note that two local seventh-grade students weighed in with their thoughts on the benefits of nuclear power.

Woohoo! The public debate about nuclear power is heating up in Virginia!

Technorati tags: Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Backing Palisades

The Van Buren County (Michigan) Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution at the March 22 meeting in support of Consumers Energy's application for license renewal for Palisades Nuclear Plant.

For more on the NRC license renewal process, click here.

Backing Palisades

The Van Buren County (Michigan) Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution at the March 22 meeting in support of Consumers Energy's application for license renewal for Palisades Nuclear Plant.

For more on the NRC license renewal process, click here.

Vietnam Considers Nuclear Energy; Taiwan Has Second Thoughts on Phase-Out

From Japan's Asahi Shimbun:

Vietnam has nuclear power in its sights as a way to meet the sharp rise in its domestic electricity consumption. The country could see the completion of its first nuclear power plant as early as 2017.

An exploratory committee appointed by the government in 2001 has completed a pre-feasibility study for nuclear power development. The compiled report is now ready to be submitted to Prime Minister Phan Van Khai . . .

Even if the country greatly expands its hydropower and thermal power plants, demand will overtake production capacity, forcing the country to buy power from nearby countries including Laos, China and Cambodia around 2015.

Vietnam therefore plans to have its first nuclear power plant with an electricity generating capacity of 2 million kilowatts running sometime after 2015.

Meanwhile, Taiwan is finding that phasing out nuclear energy will be a lot harder than the country originally anticipated.

Vietnam Considers Nuclear Energy; Taiwan Has Second Thoughts on Phase-Out

From Japan's Asahi Shimbun:

Vietnam has nuclear power in its sights as a way to meet the sharp rise in its domestic electricity consumption. The country could see the completion of its first nuclear power plant as early as 2017.

An exploratory committee appointed by the government in 2001 has completed a pre-feasibility study for nuclear power development. The compiled report is now ready to be submitted to Prime Minister Phan Van Khai . . .

Even if the country greatly expands its hydropower and thermal power plants, demand will overtake production capacity, forcing the country to buy power from nearby countries including Laos, China and Cambodia around 2015.

Vietnam therefore plans to have its first nuclear power plant with an electricity generating capacity of 2 million kilowatts running sometime after 2015.

Meanwhile, Taiwan is finding that phasing out nuclear energy will be a lot harder than the country originally anticipated.

Tom Friedman Endorses New Nuclear Build

In yesterday's New York Times, columnist Tom Friedman offered an endorsement of nuclear power that's becoming familiar (registration required):

We need to start building nuclear power plants again. The new nuclear technology is safer and cleaner than ever. "The risks of climate change by continuing to rely on hydrocarbons are much greater than the risks of nuclear power," said Peter Schwartz, chairman of Global Business Network, a leading energy and strategy consulting firm. "Climate change is real and it poses a civilizational threat that [could] transform the carrying capacity of the entire planet."

Blogger Dave Johnson is thinking the same thing.

Tom Friedman Endorses New Nuclear Build

In yesterday's New York Times, columnist Tom Friedman offered an endorsement of nuclear power that's becoming familiar (registration required):

We need to start building nuclear power plants again. The new nuclear technology is safer and cleaner than ever. "The risks of climate change by continuing to rely on hydrocarbons are much greater than the risks of nuclear power," said Peter Schwartz, chairman of Global Business Network, a leading energy and strategy consulting firm. "Climate change is real and it poses a civilizational threat that [could] transform the carrying capacity of the entire planet."

Blogger Dave Johnson is thinking the same thing.

Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

Adding Dave Halliday to the growing list.

Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

Adding Dave Halliday to the growing list.

George Will on Yucca Mountain, Part II

In the second part of his two-part series on Yucca Mountain (click here for our post on Part I), George Will comes to this conclusion:

The nation should generate much more than the one-fifth of its electricity nuclear power currently produces. Forty percent of the Navy is nuclear-powered. More nuclear waste is produced daily.

Nevada has two tactics. It is insisting on a degree of certainty -- absolute certainty, over 100 millennia -- that is unreasonable, even considering the stakes. And it is making testable assertions about geological and metallurgical matters about which scientists are reaching conclusions that are beyond reasonable doubts.

Three truths: America must store nuclear waste more safely, can never prove perfect safety forever and hence cannot store waste anywhere it will be welcomed. An axiom: Put all your eggs in one basket and watch that basket.

Blogger John Starley likes the idea.

George Will on Yucca Mountain, Part II

In the second part of his two-part series on Yucca Mountain (click here for our post on Part I), George Will comes to this conclusion:

The nation should generate much more than the one-fifth of its electricity nuclear power currently produces. Forty percent of the Navy is nuclear-powered. More nuclear waste is produced daily.

Nevada has two tactics. It is insisting on a degree of certainty -- absolute certainty, over 100 millennia -- that is unreasonable, even considering the stakes. And it is making testable assertions about geological and metallurgical matters about which scientists are reaching conclusions that are beyond reasonable doubts.

Three truths: America must store nuclear waste more safely, can never prove perfect safety forever and hence cannot store waste anywhere it will be welcomed. An axiom: Put all your eggs in one basket and watch that basket.

Blogger John Starley likes the idea.

New Blog on Nuclear Engineering

I was pleased to come across a new blog on Nuclear Engineering. Click here for the first post, an e-mail Q&A with a student.

New Blog on Nuclear Engineering

I was pleased to come across a new blog on Nuclear Engineering. Click here for the first post, an e-mail Q&A with a student.

New Nuclear Build and Industry Incentives

From Cap Weinberger's column in the latest edition of Forbes:

At the beginning of his first term President Bush stated the need for more reliable supplies of reasonably priced, environmentally responsible energy to be produced domestically. For four long years Congress paid but scant attention to his call. The President quite properly reminded Congress in his State of the Union address that our future economic growth will require far more energy production at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy. In order to jump-start our nuclear energy program, we will need to reduce the regulatory delays and hurdles that now stand in the path of any utility ready to invest in the long, costly effort required to build nuclear power plants.

To learn more about exactly just what incentives would be appropriate, click here for a report from the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's Nuclear Energy Task Force.

New Nuclear Build and Industry Incentives

From Cap Weinberger's column in the latest edition of Forbes:

At the beginning of his first term President Bush stated the need for more reliable supplies of reasonably priced, environmentally responsible energy to be produced domestically. For four long years Congress paid but scant attention to his call. The President quite properly reminded Congress in his State of the Union address that our future economic growth will require far more energy production at home, including safe, clean nuclear energy. In order to jump-start our nuclear energy program, we will need to reduce the regulatory delays and hurdles that now stand in the path of any utility ready to invest in the long, costly effort required to build nuclear power plants.

To learn more about exactly just what incentives would be appropriate, click here for a report from the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board's Nuclear Energy Task Force.

Wind Power and Its Environmental Footprint

From the Rice Lake (Wisc.) Chronotype:

State officials say a planned wind farm next to the Horicon Marsh in east central Wisconsin raises concerns the turbines could harm large migrating birds such as sandhill cranes and also could endanger the thousands of bats that hibernate at a nearby abandoned mine.

The draft environmental impact statement issued Tuesday suggests raptors and small birds could also be at risk from the 133 wind turbines proposed by the Forward Wind Energy Center.

Authors of the statement are critical of the developers for not having their studies include the types of birds located in areas closest to Horicon. Those studies focused on other wind energy projects and found little evidence of damage to birds, but none of the studies approximated conditions around Horicon, the report said.

Going forward, America and the world are going to need a lot more electricity, and we're going to have to rely on a diverse portfolio of sources of generation -- and every one of those comes with one kind of environmental opportunity cost or another.

There is no single magic bullet.

Wind Power and Its Environmental Footprint

From the Rice Lake (Wisc.) Chronotype:

State officials say a planned wind farm next to the Horicon Marsh in east central Wisconsin raises concerns the turbines could harm large migrating birds such as sandhill cranes and also could endanger the thousands of bats that hibernate at a nearby abandoned mine.

The draft environmental impact statement issued Tuesday suggests raptors and small birds could also be at risk from the 133 wind turbines proposed by the Forward Wind Energy Center.

Authors of the statement are critical of the developers for not having their studies include the types of birds located in areas closest to Horicon. Those studies focused on other wind energy projects and found little evidence of damage to birds, but none of the studies approximated conditions around Horicon, the report said.

Going forward, America and the world are going to need a lot more electricity, and we're going to have to rely on a diverse portfolio of sources of generation -- and every one of those comes with one kind of environmental opportunity cost or another.

There is no single magic bullet.

Xcel Energy Applies for Renewal of Monticello License

From the Twin Cities Business Journal:

Xcel Energy Inc. has applied with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to renew its operating license for its Monticello nuclear power plant, the company announced Thursday.

The Minneapolis-based utility company requested a 20-year extension for the single-unit, 600-megawatt plant. Its current 40-year license expires in 2010.

Hudson, Wis.-based Nuclear Management Co., which operates the facilities the Xcel, filed the application at Xcel's direction.

As we mentioned earlier, the NRC license renewal process is one of the great success stories of the American utility industry.

Xcel Energy Applies for Renewal of Monticello License

From the Twin Cities Business Journal:

Xcel Energy Inc. has applied with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to renew its operating license for its Monticello nuclear power plant, the company announced Thursday.

The Minneapolis-based utility company requested a 20-year extension for the single-unit, 600-megawatt plant. Its current 40-year license expires in 2010.

Hudson, Wis.-based Nuclear Management Co., which operates the facilities the Xcel, filed the application at Xcel's direction.

As we mentioned earlier, the NRC license renewal process is one of the great success stories of the American utility industry.

Susquehanna Sets Refueling Record

Congratulations to the team at Susquehanna on this achievement:

It was anything but business as usual when PPL Corporation reconnected Unit 2 of the Susquehanna nuclear power plant to the electrical transmission network early this morning (3/24).

It was business better than usual.

Employees and contractors safely completed a 26-day refueling and inspection outage - the shortest in the plant’s 20-year history.

"This achievement is the result of significant improvements to processes and planning that we have made over the past several years," said Bob Saccone, vice president-Nuclear Operations. "Employees thoughtfully reviewed and researched plant and industry experience to identify improvements that would not sacrifice safety."

The improvements include better planning, earlier inspection of equipment, performing more work simultaneously and using new equipment to perform routine tasks more efficiently.

Again, it's a familiar storyline.

Susquehanna Sets Refueling Record

Congratulations to the team at Susquehanna on this achievement:

It was anything but business as usual when PPL Corporation reconnected Unit 2 of the Susquehanna nuclear power plant to the electrical transmission network early this morning (3/24).

It was business better than usual.

Employees and contractors safely completed a 26-day refueling and inspection outage - the shortest in the plant’s 20-year history.

"This achievement is the result of significant improvements to processes and planning that we have made over the past several years," said Bob Saccone, vice president-Nuclear Operations. "Employees thoughtfully reviewed and researched plant and industry experience to identify improvements that would not sacrifice safety."

The improvements include better planning, earlier inspection of equipment, performing more work simultaneously and using new equipment to perform routine tasks more efficiently.

Again, it's a familiar storyline.

Brookings Event On New Media

Earlier this week, the Brookings Institution held a panel discussion on Blogs and New Media that was moderated by E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post. For a transcript of the meeting, click here (PDF).

Thanks to Tom Biro for the link.

Brookings Event On New Media

Earlier this week, the Brookings Institution held a panel discussion on Blogs and New Media that was moderated by E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post. For a transcript of the meeting, click here (PDF).

Thanks to Tom Biro for the link.

Does America Have a Hydrogen-Powered Future?

Using rising gas prices as the background, Knight Ridder's Robert Boyd is taking a look at the future of hydrogen-powered vehicles:

But the cost of delivering a hydrogen-powered car to market is a major obstacle, as is the cost of converting tens of thousands of service stations from gasoline to hydrogen. Despite its abundance in nature, producing hydrogen in a usable form costs three to four times more than refining crude oil into gasoline.

What's more, while burning hydrogen is non-polluting, generating the electric power needed to produce it, say by splitting water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen, could produce more pollution.

Scientists are experimenting with enlisting living organisms, such as bacteria and algae, that can make hydrogen from sunlight and are seeking ways to generate hydrogen from nuclear and solar power. The costs of such technologies are still unknown.

The higher the cost of gasoline, however, the more competitive hydrogen will be, said Thomas Sheahen, an analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Washington office.

"At most, the cost (of hydrogen) should equal the cents-per-mile cost of gasoline," said Steve Chalk, the Energy Department's National Hydrogen Program manager. "I hope it will be lower."

For more information on the future of the hydrogen economy from NEI, click here.

Does America Have a Hydrogen-Powered Future?

Using rising gas prices as the background, Knight Ridder's Robert Boyd is taking a look at the future of hydrogen-powered vehicles:

But the cost of delivering a hydrogen-powered car to market is a major obstacle, as is the cost of converting tens of thousands of service stations from gasoline to hydrogen. Despite its abundance in nature, producing hydrogen in a usable form costs three to four times more than refining crude oil into gasoline.

What's more, while burning hydrogen is non-polluting, generating the electric power needed to produce it, say by splitting water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen, could produce more pollution.

Scientists are experimenting with enlisting living organisms, such as bacteria and algae, that can make hydrogen from sunlight and are seeking ways to generate hydrogen from nuclear and solar power. The costs of such technologies are still unknown.

The higher the cost of gasoline, however, the more competitive hydrogen will be, said Thomas Sheahen, an analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's Washington office.

"At most, the cost (of hydrogen) should equal the cents-per-mile cost of gasoline," said Steve Chalk, the Energy Department's National Hydrogen Program manager. "I hope it will be lower."

For more information on the future of the hydrogen economy from NEI, click here.

U.S. Government to Track Greenhouse Gas Emissions

From the Associated Press:

The government will start keeping track of all the "greenhouse" gases that farmers and foresters voluntarily reduce to help combat global warming.

Officials in the Energy and Agriculture departments issued guidelines Wednesday for counting those efforts. They said the action indicates how seriously the Bush administration views the problem of gases that trap heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.

For more on the program, click here.

U.S. Government to Track Greenhouse Gas Emissions

From the Associated Press:

The government will start keeping track of all the "greenhouse" gases that farmers and foresters voluntarily reduce to help combat global warming.

Officials in the Energy and Agriculture departments issued guidelines Wednesday for counting those efforts. They said the action indicates how seriously the Bush administration views the problem of gases that trap heat in the atmosphere like a greenhouse.

For more on the program, click here.

George Will on Yucca Mountain

In a column that began running nationwide today, George Will takes a look at the stakes involved with the Yucca Mountain Project:

One-fifth of the nation's electricity is generated by nuclear power. Were that share substantially increased, that would reduce dependence on fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) that have large environmental and geopolitical drawbacks. Also, 40 percent of the Navy's fleet is nuclear-powered. Nuclear power plants have created almost 50,000 metric tons of spent fuel, with more produced daily. Once solidified, today's 100 million gallons of nuclear waste from past reprocessing activities will also be placed in the repository . . .

The dueling is about whether safe storage of the waste can be guaranteed for 10,000 years, or perhaps a million years -- the span of projected geological stability for the mountain area. That is quite a while: 10,000 years ago, agriculture was just being born as humans, moving beyond a hunter-gatherer economy, were learning to domesticate plants.

Part II appears in syndication around the country on Sunday.

NEI has wide variety of materials concerning the Yucca project -- with our Yucca Mountain Resource Book being a good place to start. For a complete overview on used nuclear fuel, click here.

George Will on Yucca Mountain

In a column that began running nationwide today, George Will takes a look at the stakes involved with the Yucca Mountain Project:

One-fifth of the nation's electricity is generated by nuclear power. Were that share substantially increased, that would reduce dependence on fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) that have large environmental and geopolitical drawbacks. Also, 40 percent of the Navy's fleet is nuclear-powered. Nuclear power plants have created almost 50,000 metric tons of spent fuel, with more produced daily. Once solidified, today's 100 million gallons of nuclear waste from past reprocessing activities will also be placed in the repository . . .

The dueling is about whether safe storage of the waste can be guaranteed for 10,000 years, or perhaps a million years -- the span of projected geological stability for the mountain area. That is quite a while: 10,000 years ago, agriculture was just being born as humans, moving beyond a hunter-gatherer economy, were learning to domesticate plants.

Part II appears in syndication around the country on Sunday.

NEI has wide variety of materials concerning the Yucca project -- with our Yucca Mountain Resource Book being a good place to start. For a complete overview on used nuclear fuel, click here.

Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy

Pete Geddes, program director for the Foundation for research on Economics and the Environment, had this to say about nuclear energy in a recent issue of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

All energy production has environmental impacts. For example, wind farms cause visual and noise pollution and kill birds. Our choices involve trading off among imperfect alternatives.

Is it time we rethink opposition to nuclear power? James Lovelock, promoter of the Gaia hypothesis, believes so. He writes: “Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media.… [N]uclear energy… has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. I entreat my friends… to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy.”

For more on James Lovelock, click here. For a previous post on Dr. Lovelock's recent speech at the Canadian Nuclear Association, click here. Thanks to Obsidian Wings for the link.

Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy

Pete Geddes, program director for the Foundation for research on Economics and the Environment, had this to say about nuclear energy in a recent issue of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

All energy production has environmental impacts. For example, wind farms cause visual and noise pollution and kill birds. Our choices involve trading off among imperfect alternatives.

Is it time we rethink opposition to nuclear power? James Lovelock, promoter of the Gaia hypothesis, believes so. He writes: “Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media.… [N]uclear energy… has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. I entreat my friends… to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy.”

For more on James Lovelock, click here. For a previous post on Dr. Lovelock's recent speech at the Canadian Nuclear Association, click here. Thanks to Obsidian Wings for the link.

Ontario Approves Bruce Re-Start

With the Province of Ontario determined to shut down 7,600 megawatts of coal fired electric generating capacity by 2008 in order to reduce emissions, it's looking to nuclear energy to fill the gap:

The Ontario Energy Minister announced yesterday that a tentative agreement has been reached with Bruce Power to restart Units 1 and 2 at the Bruce A nuclear generating station in Kincardine. The agreement has been approved in principle by the boards of directors of the major partners of Bruce Power and is now under review by the Ontario government. The government had issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in June 2004 for 2,500 MW of new generation and/or conservation in Ontario.

For a previous post on the future of nuclear energy in Canada, click here.

Ontario Approves Bruce Re-Start

With the Province of Ontario determined to shut down 7,600 megawatts of coal fired electric generating capacity by 2008 in order to reduce emissions, it's looking to nuclear energy to fill the gap:

The Ontario Energy Minister announced yesterday that a tentative agreement has been reached with Bruce Power to restart Units 1 and 2 at the Bruce A nuclear generating station in Kincardine. The agreement has been approved in principle by the boards of directors of the major partners of Bruce Power and is now under review by the Ontario government. The government had issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in June 2004 for 2,500 MW of new generation and/or conservation in Ontario.

For a previous post on the future of nuclear energy in Canada, click here.

Scotland in a Tight Spot

From the BBC:

A new nuclear power station may be necessary to prevent the "lights going out" in Scotland in the not-too-distant future, according to MPs.

A report by Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee demands an audit of energy resources and suggests a renewed role for nuclear power and coal.

Two nuclear power plants generate much of Scotland's energy but they are reaching the end of their lives.

MPs have concluded that renewable energy and imports cannot plug the gap.

This is a story we've heard before in Europe. And one we'll probably hear again.

Thanks to Rising Slowly for the tip.

Scotland in a Tight Spot

From the BBC:

A new nuclear power station may be necessary to prevent the "lights going out" in Scotland in the not-too-distant future, according to MPs.

A report by Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee demands an audit of energy resources and suggests a renewed role for nuclear power and coal.

Two nuclear power plants generate much of Scotland's energy but they are reaching the end of their lives.

MPs have concluded that renewable energy and imports cannot plug the gap.

This is a story we've heard before in Europe. And one we'll probably hear again.

Thanks to Rising Slowly for the tip.

More on the Uranium Market

WNA has just updated a pair of briefing papers concerning uranium markets. Click here for a paper on Canada, and here for a look at Australia. And finally, click here to register for World Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2005, scheduled for April 12-15 in San Antonio.

More on the Uranium Market

WNA has just updated a pair of briefing papers concerning uranium markets. Click here for a paper on Canada, and here for a look at Australia. And finally, click here to register for World Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2005, scheduled for April 12-15 in San Antonio.

WNA Digest

Click here for the World Nuclear Association weekly news digest.

WNA Digest

Click here for the World Nuclear Association weekly news digest.

Nuclear Energy: Good for Oswego

Here's Oswego, New York Mayor John Gosek on what nuclear energy means to his upstate New York city:

Gosek said he believes Oswego County residents will support the effort and any "naysayers" will be in the minority.

"If you go downstate, or other parts of the country, you say the word nuclear and they're nervous or they're frightened," Gosek said. "But here in Oswego County and the city of Oswego, people know the economic impact of those plants far outweighs any safety concerns."

"It's proven - tested and proven - they've been providing safe, clean nuclear power here for 30 years without any incidents," the mayor added.

Click here for our post from the other day concerning Oswego's interest in speaking with the NuStart consortium. These folks look determined.

Nuclear Energy: Good for Oswego

Here's Oswego, New York Mayor John Gosek on what nuclear energy means to his upstate New York city:

Gosek said he believes Oswego County residents will support the effort and any "naysayers" will be in the minority.

"If you go downstate, or other parts of the country, you say the word nuclear and they're nervous or they're frightened," Gosek said. "But here in Oswego County and the city of Oswego, people know the economic impact of those plants far outweighs any safety concerns."

"It's proven - tested and proven - they've been providing safe, clean nuclear power here for 30 years without any incidents," the mayor added.

Click here for our post from the other day concerning Oswego's interest in speaking with the NuStart consortium. These folks look determined.

More From the IAEA Meeting in Paris

The IAEA conference on the future of nuclear energy wrapped up in Paris today, with 74 nations signing a statement broadly endorsing the increased adoption of nuclear energy and praising it for not generating "air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions" and for being "a proven technology" that can "make a major contribution to meeting energy needs and sustaining the world's development in the 21st century". But this passage from an Agence-France Press wire story about the conference caught my eye as well:

Among the dissenters to the endorsement for nuclear energy were countries like Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden which are phasing out nuclear energy and others like Austria which are against nuclear power but attended the conference. Officials did not provide details on individual nations.

A diplomat present at the conference said however "give five years and most of Europe will change direction in favour of nuclear energy" since it is relatively inexpensive and other alternative power sources such as wind energy can not make up in large percentages for significantly reduced oil use.

A little less than two weeks ago, we noted that the German utility executive who negotiated the deal to phase out that nation's nuclear capacity had predicted that it would eventually be reversed. And click here for a pointer to a piece on how the nuclear phaseout and adoption of wind power is costing German ratepayers more than they bargained for.

In a message read to the conference, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman had this to say:

In a message to the conference, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman cited a University of Chicago study that showed nuclear power "can become competitive with electricity produced by plants fueled by coal or gas" because of new technologies delivering more-efficient reactors.

Echoing recent comments by President Bush, Bodman said: "America hasn't ordered a new nuclear-power plant since the 1970s, and it's time to start building again."

For more on the University of Chicago study, click here. Meanwhile, Korea's Science and Technology Minister gave nuclear energy a strong endorsement of having a place in his nation's energy future:

Science-Technology Minister Oh Myung made the point Monday during a ministerial conference on the future of nuclear power held in Paris, backed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Science-Technology Minister Oh Myung made the point Monday during a ministerial conference on the future of nuclear power held in Paris, backed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). ``I am confident that nuclear energy will contribute to preventing global warming, resolving world energy problems, promoting human welfare and progressing the world economy,’’ Oh said.

He went on to say that he believes another nuclear renaissance will take place in the future and the global community should assign a larger role to the energy source.

More From the IAEA Meeting in Paris

The IAEA conference on the future of nuclear energy wrapped up in Paris today, with 74 nations signing a statement broadly endorsing the increased adoption of nuclear energy and praising it for not generating "air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions" and for being "a proven technology" that can "make a major contribution to meeting energy needs and sustaining the world's development in the 21st century". But this passage from an Agence-France Press wire story about the conference caught my eye as well:

Among the dissenters to the endorsement for nuclear energy were countries like Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden which are phasing out nuclear energy and others like Austria which are against nuclear power but attended the conference. Officials did not provide details on individual nations.

A diplomat present at the conference said however "give five years and most of Europe will change direction in favour of nuclear energy" since it is relatively inexpensive and other alternative power sources such as wind energy can not make up in large percentages for significantly reduced oil use.

A little less than two weeks ago, we noted that the German utility executive who negotiated the deal to phase out that nation's nuclear capacity had predicted that it would eventually be reversed. And click here for a pointer to a piece on how the nuclear phaseout and adoption of wind power is costing German ratepayers more than they bargained for.

In a message read to the conference, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman had this to say:

In a message to the conference, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman cited a University of Chicago study that showed nuclear power "can become competitive with electricity produced by plants fueled by coal or gas" because of new technologies delivering more-efficient reactors.

Echoing recent comments by President Bush, Bodman said: "America hasn't ordered a new nuclear-power plant since the 1970s, and it's time to start building again."

For more on the University of Chicago study, click here. Meanwhile, Korea's Science and Technology Minister gave nuclear energy a strong endorsement of having a place in his nation's energy future:

Science-Technology Minister Oh Myung made the point Monday during a ministerial conference on the future of nuclear power held in Paris, backed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Science-Technology Minister Oh Myung made the point Monday during a ministerial conference on the future of nuclear power held in Paris, backed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). ``I am confident that nuclear energy will contribute to preventing global warming, resolving world energy problems, promoting human welfare and progressing the world economy,’’ Oh said.

He went on to say that he believes another nuclear renaissance will take place in the future and the global community should assign a larger role to the energy source.

Colorado Uranium Mining Makes A Comeback

With spot market prices for Uranium rising, there's been a revival in minining operations according to the Rocky Mountain News:

The rough and rocky terrain of southwest Colorado is once again luring miners with its promise of yellow wealth - not gold but uranium.

Three uranium mines, shuttered in the mid-1980s, were reopened in the past two years. The revival of another two is on the anvil this year. And many prospectors are scoping out the Colorado Plateau in hopes of striking rich ore deposits . . .

The uranium ore grade mined in Colorado is much lower than the ore grades mined in Australia or Canada, Farrell said, which is partly why production stopped following the 1980s. Given the prices, it makes more sense to open previously shuttered mines in Montrose County along the Western Slope.

And in Colorado towns like Gateway, the revival is being hailed as great news.

Colorado Uranium Mining Makes A Comeback

With spot market prices for Uranium rising, there's been a revival in minining operations according to the Rocky Mountain News:

The rough and rocky terrain of southwest Colorado is once again luring miners with its promise of yellow wealth - not gold but uranium.

Three uranium mines, shuttered in the mid-1980s, were reopened in the past two years. The revival of another two is on the anvil this year. And many prospectors are scoping out the Colorado Plateau in hopes of striking rich ore deposits . . .

The uranium ore grade mined in Colorado is much lower than the ore grades mined in Australia or Canada, Farrell said, which is partly why production stopped following the 1980s. Given the prices, it makes more sense to open previously shuttered mines in Montrose County along the Western Slope.

And in Colorado towns like Gateway, the revival is being hailed as great news.

Mayor Makes Pitch for New Nuclear Plant

Oswego, New York Mayor John Gosek wants to bring a new nuclear power plant to his city:

He said he wants to get the city, county, and other interests such as local unions together to "become proactive" and encourage the company to bring the project, and the jobs that would come with it, to Oswego County.

"These economic times are difficult, so let's try to get these guys," Gosek said. "I don't know what we've got to lose. Worst thing we can say about it is 'no,' right?"

Nine Mile Point in Scriba is home to three nuclear plants. Two reactors, Nine Mile Point 1 and 2, are run Baltimore-based Constellation Energy. The third, James A. FitzPatrick plant, is owned by New Orleans-based Entergy.

"We desperately could use a nuclear plant," said Gosek. "We have a workforce here that's built three of them. Let's try to bring it to Oswego."

The Oswego City Administrative Service Committee is scheduled to discuss the mayor's proposition tonight. They will meet immediately after the city physical services committee at 7 p.m.

For more on the NuStart Consortium, as well as the other two industry groups working together on new nuclear capacity, click here. To read more about Nine Mile Point and Fitzpatrick plants, click here.

Mayor Makes Pitch for New Nuclear Plant

Oswego, New York Mayor John Gosek wants to bring a new nuclear power plant to his city:

He said he wants to get the city, county, and other interests such as local unions together to "become proactive" and encourage the company to bring the project, and the jobs that would come with it, to Oswego County.

"These economic times are difficult, so let's try to get these guys," Gosek said. "I don't know what we've got to lose. Worst thing we can say about it is 'no,' right?"

Nine Mile Point in Scriba is home to three nuclear plants. Two reactors, Nine Mile Point 1 and 2, are run Baltimore-based Constellation Energy. The third, James A. FitzPatrick plant, is owned by New Orleans-based Entergy.

"We desperately could use a nuclear plant," said Gosek. "We have a workforce here that's built three of them. Let's try to bring it to Oswego."

The Oswego City Administrative Service Committee is scheduled to discuss the mayor's proposition tonight. They will meet immediately after the city physical services committee at 7 p.m.

For more on the NuStart Consortium, as well as the other two industry groups working together on new nuclear capacity, click here. To read more about Nine Mile Point and Fitzpatrick plants, click here.

Ex-Duke President Takes Over at British Energy

Former Duke Power President William Coley has been named chief executive of British Energy Group, plc, succeeding Michael Alexander. British Energy is the largest producer of nuclear energy in the U.K.

Ex-Duke President Takes Over at British Energy

Former Duke Power President William Coley has been named chief executive of British Energy Group, plc, succeeding Michael Alexander. British Energy is the largest producer of nuclear energy in the U.K.

Stanley Crouch on the Future of Nuclear Energy

In today's edition of the New York Daily News, columnist Stanley Crouch says it's time for America to change its thinking about nuclear energy:

It is time to recognize what even France understands, which is that nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest and least expensive way to get beyond oil dependency. In our case, we also have hazardous things that happen to economically disadvantaged people through the emissions of coal burning.

We are due for a major reconstruction of our thinking about nuclear power. I do not mean that everyone is supposed to lie down and go to sleep, forgetting about everything on the basis of what some energy company says. But I expect our nation to grow up and move free of an irrational fear of technology.

And Crouch also takes a moment to take the opponents of the Indian Point Nuclear Plant to task:

The facts are on the side of Indian Point, and we will better understand where we are when we look closely at those facts. We should not allow ourselves to be manipulated by those ideologues who pretend to hate big oil and the destruction of the environment but are not willing to consider an alternative that has proven itself the world over.

Thanks to RWDB for the link.

Stanley Crouch on the Future of Nuclear Energy

In today's edition of the New York Daily News, columnist Stanley Crouch says it's time for America to change its thinking about nuclear energy:

It is time to recognize what even France understands, which is that nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest and least expensive way to get beyond oil dependency. In our case, we also have hazardous things that happen to economically disadvantaged people through the emissions of coal burning.

We are due for a major reconstruction of our thinking about nuclear power. I do not mean that everyone is supposed to lie down and go to sleep, forgetting about everything on the basis of what some energy company says. But I expect our nation to grow up and move free of an irrational fear of technology.

And Crouch also takes a moment to take the opponents of the Indian Point Nuclear Plant to task:

The facts are on the side of Indian Point, and we will better understand where we are when we look closely at those facts. We should not allow ourselves to be manipulated by those ideologues who pretend to hate big oil and the destruction of the environment but are not willing to consider an alternative that has proven itself the world over.

Thanks to RWDB for the link.

Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

In a discussion about sustainable energy, Phil Windley says that nuclear energy is looking good:

Don’t get me wrong, sustainable energy would be nice, but sustainability makes the problem much more difficult. Rather than looking for the next stone to step onto, we’ve got to somehow find the answer for all time. We don’t. There’s no doubt that we have to find something other than petrochemicals to serve as an energy source, but finding the next stone will be hard enough without looking for Nirvana. Personally, I think nuclear energy has a lot going for it.

Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

In a discussion about sustainable energy, Phil Windley says that nuclear energy is looking good:

Don’t get me wrong, sustainable energy would be nice, but sustainability makes the problem much more difficult. Rather than looking for the next stone to step onto, we’ve got to somehow find the answer for all time. We don’t. There’s no doubt that we have to find something other than petrochemicals to serve as an energy source, but finding the next stone will be hard enough without looking for Nirvana. Personally, I think nuclear energy has a lot going for it.

IAEA Meeting in Paris

In Paris this week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is co-hosting a conference in conjunction with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on "Nuclear Power for the 21st Century".

IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei made his opening statement earlier today. Click here for the Retures digest on his speech:

"All indicators show that an increased level of emphasis on subjects such as fast growing energy demands, security of energy supply, and the risk of climate change are driving a reconsideration, in some quarters, of the need for greater investment in nuclear power," ElBaradei said.

"The IAEA's low projection, based on the most conservative assumptions, predicts 427 gigawatts of global nuclear energy capacity in 2020, the equivalent of 127 more 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants than previous projections," he said.

ElBaradei pointed to nuclear energy policy plans in China, Finland, the United States and possibly Poland as proof that nuclear power may be returning to vogue.

At the same conference, Indonesia's delegate to the conference, Thomas Aquino Sriwidjaja, said the nation was committed to building a nuclear power plant in the next decade.

In conjunction with the confernece, Donald Johnston, Secretary General of the OECD, wrote an Op Ed in the International Herald Tribune:

The future of energy is not the future of any one part of the globe: It is the future of the fragile planet Earth. To safeguard our planet, we must mobilize expertise and resources in support of accelerated energy research.

Nuclear is one of many options, but it is the one with the greatest promise at the moment. Our responsibility is to ensure that our planet survives in a condition hospitable to human life. That, and not a predetermined refusal to consider viable alternatives, must be our promise to future generations.

IAEA Meeting in Paris

In Paris this week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is co-hosting a conference in conjunction with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on "Nuclear Power for the 21st Century".

IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei made his opening statement earlier today. Click here for the Retures digest on his speech:

"All indicators show that an increased level of emphasis on subjects such as fast growing energy demands, security of energy supply, and the risk of climate change are driving a reconsideration, in some quarters, of the need for greater investment in nuclear power," ElBaradei said.

"The IAEA's low projection, based on the most conservative assumptions, predicts 427 gigawatts of global nuclear energy capacity in 2020, the equivalent of 127 more 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants than previous projections," he said.

ElBaradei pointed to nuclear energy policy plans in China, Finland, the United States and possibly Poland as proof that nuclear power may be returning to vogue.

At the same conference, Indonesia's delegate to the conference, Thomas Aquino Sriwidjaja, said the nation was committed to building a nuclear power plant in the next decade.

In conjunction with the confernece, Donald Johnston, Secretary General of the OECD, wrote an Op Ed in the International Herald Tribune:

The future of energy is not the future of any one part of the globe: It is the future of the fragile planet Earth. To safeguard our planet, we must mobilize expertise and resources in support of accelerated energy research.

Nuclear is one of many options, but it is the one with the greatest promise at the moment. Our responsibility is to ensure that our planet survives in a condition hospitable to human life. That, and not a predetermined refusal to consider viable alternatives, must be our promise to future generations.

GAO Report on 21st Century Energy Demand

From a GAO report on energy demand in the 21st century (from the abstract):

[A]ll of the major fuel sources--traditional and renewable--face environmental, economic, or other constraints or trade-offs in meeting projected demand. Consequently, all energy sources will be important in meeting expected consumer demand in the next 20 years and beyond.

Thanks to Lynn Kiesling for the link.

GAO Report on 21st Century Energy Demand

From a GAO report on energy demand in the 21st century (from the abstract):

[A]ll of the major fuel sources--traditional and renewable--face environmental, economic, or other constraints or trade-offs in meeting projected demand. Consequently, all energy sources will be important in meeting expected consumer demand in the next 20 years and beyond.

Thanks to Lynn Kiesling for the link.

President Bush on the Energy Bill

From a speech by President Bush, delivered today at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, Florida:

I'm looking forward togetting a final budget to my desk that's wise about how we spend your money that's also wise about making sure you got money in your pocket. And you'regoing to need it, because, unfortunately, energy prices are going up. And I know you're concerned about it. And I'm concerned about it, too. I was concerned about it in 2001, when we put together a strategy, an energy strategy, part of which required action by the United States Congress that would encourage conservation, encourage the use of renewable sources of energy like ethanol and biodiesel, that encouraged research and development to figure out better ways to use energy in the long run -- because one of these days we're going to have to change the nature of the automobile by driving hydrogen-powered automobiles, to become less dependent on sources of energy. In other words, there's a lot of things we need to be doing now.

I know we need to be building LNG -- liquified natural gas terminals. We need to do more on nuclear power. Congress needs to get an energy bill. We've been debating whether or not there ought to be an energy bill to my desk now for four years. And that's too much talk, given the fact that consumers are beginning to hurt; too much talk given the fact that the -- we're too dependent on foreign sources of energy. I'm concerned about the energy, and Congress needs to be concerned.

President Bush on the Energy Bill

From a speech by President Bush, delivered today at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, Florida:

I'm looking forward togetting a final budget to my desk that's wise about how we spend your money that's also wise about making sure you got money in your pocket. And you'regoing to need it, because, unfortunately, energy prices are going up. And I know you're concerned about it. And I'm concerned about it, too. I was concerned about it in 2001, when we put together a strategy, an energy strategy, part of which required action by the United States Congress that would encourage conservation, encourage the use of renewable sources of energy like ethanol and biodiesel, that encouraged research and development to figure out better ways to use energy in the long run -- because one of these days we're going to have to change the nature of the automobile by driving hydrogen-powered automobiles, to become less dependent on sources of energy. In other words, there's a lot of things we need to be doing now.

I know we need to be building LNG -- liquified natural gas terminals. We need to do more on nuclear power. Congress needs to get an energy bill. We've been debating whether or not there ought to be an energy bill to my desk now for four years. And that's too much talk, given the fact that consumers are beginning to hurt; too much talk given the fact that the -- we're too dependent on foreign sources of energy. I'm concerned about the energy, and Congress needs to be concerned.