President Bush Reinforces His Support for Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week, President Bush sat down with two reporters from the Times (U.K.) ahead of the G8 Summit. At one point, the conversation turned to energy policy, global warming and climate change:

I believe that greenhouse gases are creating a problem, a long-term problem that we got to deal with. And step one of dealing with it is to fully understand the nature of the problem so that the solutions that follow make sense.

There's an interesting confluence now between dependency upon fossil fuels from a national economic security perspective, as well as the consequences of burning fossil fuels for greenhouse gases. And that's why it's important for our country to do two things.

One is to diversify away from fossil fuels, which we're trying to do. I think we're spending more money than any collection of nations when it comes to not only research and development of new technologies, but of the science of global warming. You know, laid out an initiative for hydrogen fuel cells. We're doing a lot of work on carbon sequestration. We hope to have zero emissions coal-fired electricity plants available for the United States as well as neighbours and friends and developing nations.

I'm a big believer that the newest generation of nuclear power ought to be a source of energy and we ought to be sharing these technologies with developing countries.

It's probably important to note that sharing U.S. nuclear technology with India is a major pillar of the new strategic relationship between the two countries.

UPDATE: Russ Steele has some related thoughts.

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

President Bush Reinforces His Support for Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week, President Bush sat down with two reporters from the Times (U.K.) ahead of the G8 Summit. At one point, the conversation turned to energy policy, global warming and climate change:

I believe that greenhouse gases are creating a problem, a long-term problem that we got to deal with. And step one of dealing with it is to fully understand the nature of the problem so that the solutions that follow make sense.

There's an interesting confluence now between dependency upon fossil fuels from a national economic security perspective, as well as the consequences of burning fossil fuels for greenhouse gases. And that's why it's important for our country to do two things.

One is to diversify away from fossil fuels, which we're trying to do. I think we're spending more money than any collection of nations when it comes to not only research and development of new technologies, but of the science of global warming. You know, laid out an initiative for hydrogen fuel cells. We're doing a lot of work on carbon sequestration. We hope to have zero emissions coal-fired electricity plants available for the United States as well as neighbours and friends and developing nations.

I'm a big believer that the newest generation of nuclear power ought to be a source of energy and we ought to be sharing these technologies with developing countries.

It's probably important to note that sharing U.S. nuclear technology with India is a major pillar of the new strategic relationship between the two countries.

UPDATE: Russ Steele has some related thoughts.

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

Grassroots Environmentalists Begin to Rebel on Nuclear Opposition

Last week, a coalition of 232 environmental groups released a statement reiterating their opposition to the expansion of the use of nuclear energy. One of the organizations that signed on to the document was the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG), that state's chapter of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, U.S. PIRG.

Reading through their statement, you'd get the impression that just about everybody inside these these organizations was dead set against nuclear energy.

And that impression would be wrong.

Recently, blogger and WISPIRG supporter Phil Nelson received an email from Jennifer Giegerich, WISPIRG's State Director, urging him to join the fight against the incentives for new nuclear build contained in the comprehensive energy bill that just passed the Senate yesterday.

Phil had other ideas. He expressed them in an email he recently set to WISPIRG and published on his blog:

I am a paying member and long time supporter of your organization, however I really disagree with your point of view on this topic. I live in Green Bay, within site of a large coal pile and downwind of the output of the Pulliam power plant as well as an industrial stack. Between coal dust from the piles and output of the stacks, I have to breathe this every day. I have to clean it off my house every day. The consequences are real, and they are real now, something that is not the case with the 2 nuclear power plants within 30 miles of my house . . .

The policies WISPIRG and others support can at best only slow the hard decisions about what to do, unfortunately prolonging the existing problems rather than building a complete vision of a long term strategy that could actually work. I think nuclear power should be in that vision along with a set of inspired plans for dealing with the waste. The waste is a huge problem, but not bigger than the combined size of a Montana strip mines, Green Bay coal piles, coastal oil slicks, melted artic tundra, lost Atlantic shoreline, sunken pacific islands, forests and lakes lost to acid rain or wars fought to "protect" our oil supply. Please consider making some of these hard choices when you formulate your policies going forward.

As we've said before, as hard as some environmental extremists might try, they can't spin away the fact that cracks are developing in their community when it comes to nuclear energy.

POSTSCRIPT: The two plants that Phil refers to are Kewaunee in Carlton Township, and Point Beach 1 and 2 in Two Creeks. Together, these three reactors supply more than 20 percent of Wisconsin's electricity.

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

Grassroots Environmentalists Begin to Rebel on Nuclear Opposition

Last week, a coalition of 232 environmental groups released a statement reiterating their opposition to the expansion of the use of nuclear energy. One of the organizations that signed on to the document was the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG), that state's chapter of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, U.S. PIRG.

Reading through their statement, you'd get the impression that just about everybody inside these these organizations was dead set against nuclear energy.

And that impression would be wrong.

Recently, blogger and WISPIRG supporter Phil Nelson received an email from Jennifer Giegerich, WISPIRG's State Director, urging him to join the fight against the incentives for new nuclear build contained in the comprehensive energy bill that just passed the Senate yesterday.

Phil had other ideas. He expressed them in an email he recently set to WISPIRG and published on his blog:

I am a paying member and long time supporter of your organization, however I really disagree with your point of view on this topic. I live in Green Bay, within site of a large coal pile and downwind of the output of the Pulliam power plant as well as an industrial stack. Between coal dust from the piles and output of the stacks, I have to breathe this every day. I have to clean it off my house every day. The consequences are real, and they are real now, something that is not the case with the 2 nuclear power plants within 30 miles of my house . . .

The policies WISPIRG and others support can at best only slow the hard decisions about what to do, unfortunately prolonging the existing problems rather than building a complete vision of a long term strategy that could actually work. I think nuclear power should be in that vision along with a set of inspired plans for dealing with the waste. The waste is a huge problem, but not bigger than the combined size of a Montana strip mines, Green Bay coal piles, coastal oil slicks, melted artic tundra, lost Atlantic shoreline, sunken pacific islands, forests and lakes lost to acid rain or wars fought to "protect" our oil supply. Please consider making some of these hard choices when you formulate your policies going forward.

As we've said before, as hard as some environmental extremists might try, they can't spin away the fact that cracks are developing in their community when it comes to nuclear energy.

POSTSCRIPT: The two plants that Phil refers to are Kewaunee in Carlton Township, and Point Beach 1 and 2 in Two Creeks. Together, these three reactors supply more than 20 percent of Wisconsin's electricity.

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

One of These Things is Not Like the Other...

Can you tell the difference?

This photo is from the pro-nuclear rally in Jackson today:



This one is from the anti-nuclear protest a short time later:



Hint: Count the heads!

One of These Things is Not Like the Other...

Can you tell the difference?

This photo is from the pro-nuclear rally in Jackson today:



This one is from the anti-nuclear protest a short time later:



Hint: Count the heads!

Pro-Nukes rally in Jackson, MS

I would like to add a few details to Eric’s post about the events in Mississippi.

First, I would like to congratulate the folks of the local Mississippi section of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) for taking the lead in organizing such a successful event. I would also like to thank the NA-YGN members that have supported the efforts. Members of the chapter in Charlotte, NC even created and sent posters to demonstrate their support!

Today began with a media blitz. Michael Stuart, North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) Public Information chair, and Scott Peterson, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Vice-President of Communications, were interviewed on the morning talk show of WAPT, the local ABC affiliate.

At the same time, Norris McDonald, president of the African American Environmentalist Association, and Jim Reinsch, president of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and president of Bechtel Power Corporation, appeared on a similar talk show on WAPT, the local NBC affiliate.

Not wanting to exclude people that were already engaged in their morning commute, NA-YGN members Kelly Taylor and Bill Casino were guests for the Paul Gallo show which was described to me as the biggest morning radio show in Mississippi. Participating by telephone were a local anti-nuclear activist and Jim Riccio from Greenpeace in Washington, DC. At one point, Riccio was spewing untruths about the security and functioning of a power plant control room. As a former licensed operator, Kelly responded with the facts. Gallo then chastened Riccio telling him that he loses credibility when he regurgitates information he gleaned from questionable media sources in the presence of someone who has experience operating a plant.

The pro-nuclear rally went very well, though temperatures soared into the 90s. About 85 people were there holding banners, carrying signs, and even participating in chants led by Norris McDonald! The speakers at the rally included:

Jim Reinsch
Mayor Amelda Arnold, City of Port Gibson, Miss.
Norris McDonald
Michael Stuart
James Miller, County Administrator, Claiborne County
Scott Peterson

Local news outlets covered the rally for their noon broadcasts. When I spoke to Kelly, she told me that an anti-nuclear rally was scheduled to begin shortly at the Capitol, and unfortunately, it had started to rain.

As Eric mentioned, the ANS and NA-YGN crew are heading to Port Gibson tonight for the NRC hearing and we will post reports as soon as we get them.

Pro-Nukes rally in Jackson, MS

I would like to add a few details to Eric’s post about the events in Mississippi.

First, I would like to congratulate the folks of the local Mississippi section of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) for taking the lead in organizing such a successful event. I would also like to thank the NA-YGN members that have supported the efforts. Members of the chapter in Charlotte, NC even created and sent posters to demonstrate their support!

Today began with a media blitz. Michael Stuart, North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) Public Information chair, and Scott Peterson, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Vice-President of Communications, were interviewed on the morning talk show of WAPT, the local ABC affiliate.

At the same time, Norris McDonald, president of the African American Environmentalist Association, and Jim Reinsch, president of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and president of Bechtel Power Corporation, appeared on a similar talk show on WAPT, the local NBC affiliate.

Not wanting to exclude people that were already engaged in their morning commute, NA-YGN members Kelly Taylor and Bill Casino were guests for the Paul Gallo show which was described to me as the biggest morning radio show in Mississippi. Participating by telephone were a local anti-nuclear activist and Jim Riccio from Greenpeace in Washington, DC. At one point, Riccio was spewing untruths about the security and functioning of a power plant control room. As a former licensed operator, Kelly responded with the facts. Gallo then chastened Riccio telling him that he loses credibility when he regurgitates information he gleaned from questionable media sources in the presence of someone who has experience operating a plant.

The pro-nuclear rally went very well, though temperatures soared into the 90s. About 85 people were there holding banners, carrying signs, and even participating in chants led by Norris McDonald! The speakers at the rally included:

Jim Reinsch
Mayor Amelda Arnold, City of Port Gibson, Miss.
Norris McDonald
Michael Stuart
James Miller, County Administrator, Claiborne County
Scott Peterson

Local news outlets covered the rally for their noon broadcasts. When I spoke to Kelly, she told me that an anti-nuclear rally was scheduled to begin shortly at the Capitol, and unfortunately, it had started to rain.

As Eric mentioned, the ANS and NA-YGN crew are heading to Port Gibson tonight for the NRC hearing and we will post reports as soon as we get them.

The ESP Hearing in Grand Gulf, Mississippi

Tonight at City Hall in Port Gibson, Mississippi, the NRC will conduct a public hearing on the draft environmental impact statement concerning Entergy's application for an early site permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf ESP site.

Starting early this morning, NEI Nuclear Notes contributors Kelly Taylor and Michael Stuart have been on the scene in the state capital of Jackson, talking to the media about the benefits of nuclear energy, and what a new plant could do for the local and regional economy.

And, as Charles Seabrook of the Cox News Service recently reported, the locals are excited at the prospect of the construction of a new plant:

The local enthusiasm for a new plant was a major reason for Port Gibson's inclusion last week on NuStart's list of finalists. Later this year, the consortium will choose two sites to apply for licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at which to build and operate nuclear power plants. Obtaining a license could take years.
In December, the Claiborne County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in support of a new plant after Entergy announced that Port Gibson was being eyed as a possible site. Inclusion on NuStart's list will make the town's bid even stronger.

"We want a new nuclear plant here," said Charles Shorts, the board's president. "We want everyone to understand that."

Port Gibson's mayor and board of aldermen also passed resolutions in early January, strongly encouraging the industry to build another Grand Gulf reactor.

"Nuclear energy is a safe, low-cost, emission-free source of power that is not dependent on foreign oil and gas," said Mayor Amelda Arnold. "We need more of it."

Yesterday I checked in with my colleague David Bradish to get a better idea on just how a new plant at Grand Gulf might help meet local electricity demand in the near future.

Mississippi is part of the Southeast Electric Reliability Council (SERC), an area that comprises all or part of 10 states. According to EIA, electricity demand in the area will increase 51% by 2025 (1.9% per year). More importantly, nuclear's contribution to electrical generation will peak in 2015 -- which means that the only way to add more non-emitting baseload generation would be by building a new nuclear power plant.

Pro-nuclear protesters at the Capitol
At 11:30 a.m. local time, Entergy employees and other concerned citizens took their case to the Capitol in Jackson, and held a rally in support of the plant. This is something the industry is doing more often these days, as it gets more aggressive in delivering the facts on nuclear energy to the public.

Kelly and Mike are now off to Port Gibson to attend the hearing, and they've both promised me a report once the hearing is through. Stay tuned for more details.

The ESP Hearing in Grand Gulf, Mississippi

Tonight at City Hall in Port Gibson, Mississippi, the NRC will conduct a public hearing on the draft environmental impact statement concerning Entergy's application for an early site permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf ESP site.

Starting early this morning, NEI Nuclear Notes contributors Kelly Taylor and Michael Stuart have been on the scene in the state capital of Jackson, talking to the media about the benefits of nuclear energy, and what a new plant could do for the local and regional economy.

And, as Charles Seabrook of the Cox News Service recently reported, the locals are excited at the prospect of the construction of a new plant:

The local enthusiasm for a new plant was a major reason for Port Gibson's inclusion last week on NuStart's list of finalists. Later this year, the consortium will choose two sites to apply for licenses from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at which to build and operate nuclear power plants. Obtaining a license could take years.
In December, the Claiborne County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in support of a new plant after Entergy announced that Port Gibson was being eyed as a possible site. Inclusion on NuStart's list will make the town's bid even stronger.

"We want a new nuclear plant here," said Charles Shorts, the board's president. "We want everyone to understand that."

Port Gibson's mayor and board of aldermen also passed resolutions in early January, strongly encouraging the industry to build another Grand Gulf reactor.

"Nuclear energy is a safe, low-cost, emission-free source of power that is not dependent on foreign oil and gas," said Mayor Amelda Arnold. "We need more of it."

Yesterday I checked in with my colleague David Bradish to get a better idea on just how a new plant at Grand Gulf might help meet local electricity demand in the near future.

Mississippi is part of the Southeast Electric Reliability Council (SERC), an area that comprises all or part of 10 states. According to EIA, electricity demand in the area will increase 51% by 2025 (1.9% per year). More importantly, nuclear's contribution to electrical generation will peak in 2015 -- which means that the only way to add more non-emitting baseload generation would be by building a new nuclear power plant.

Pro-nuclear protesters at the Capitol
At 11:30 a.m. local time, Entergy employees and other concerned citizens took their case to the Capitol in Jackson, and held a rally in support of the plant. This is something the industry is doing more often these days, as it gets more aggressive in delivering the facts on nuclear energy to the public.

Kelly and Mike are now off to Port Gibson to attend the hearing, and they've both promised me a report once the hearing is through. Stay tuned for more details.

The Regulatory Environment in Nuclear Energy

In an analysis of an editorial in Sunday's New York Times, Half Sigma makes a case for nuclear energy:

But the NY Times editorial fails the mention the most important thing our government should be doing, which is to allow the use of nuclear power again. I say 'allow'” because our policies make it clear that nuclear power is not favored. After the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station fiasco in which billions of dollars were spent to build a power plant that was then closed and never used, no private company is going to build a nuclear power plant again unless the regulatory environment is changed, and that requires government action.

Actually, a lot about the regulatory environment has improved in recent years -- so much so, that the NuStart Energy consortium is committed to testing the new combined construction and operating license (COL) process that could lead to the construction of a new nuclear power plant.

There have been other changes as well, in particular, the rise of safety-focused regulation and the application of the principle of "realistic conservatism" on the part of the NRC and reactor operators. Back in March, NEI President and CEO Skip Bowman addressed this issue at the NRC's annual Regulatory Information Conference:

In short, reactor safety, security and emergency planning should work synergistically, in a conservative, but realistic way, to protect public health and safety regardless of whether challenges to plant safety are operational, acts of God, or acts of terrorists.

In the past, pure deterministic regulatory approaches led, in some cases, to gross over design in the zeal to build in unrealistic margins to protect against unrealistic events. This new concept, introduced only a few years ago, calls for application of realistic engineering, physics and experience centered on safety.

The NRC took the first step in this direction when it transformed the reactor oversight process to common sense, objective criteria that are focused on those systems and components that are most important to safety.

First thought to be unworkable, the safety-focused reactor oversight process demonstrates that this concept can work and bring practical discipline and rigor to the process.

Indeed, much has changed about the regulatory process in recent years. So much so, that NRC Chairman Nils Diaz has said that no one can credibly claim that the NRC's regulatory oversight process is standing in the way of new plant construction.

Granted, there is still plenty of uncertainty to deal with, including making sure that the new COL process works as intended. Eventual passage of the energy bill will help too. So while some obstacles remain to the construction of new nuclear capacity, the landscape is looking brighter for the nuclear sector than it has in several decades.

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

The Regulatory Environment in Nuclear Energy

In an analysis of an editorial in Sunday's New York Times, Half Sigma makes a case for nuclear energy:

But the NY Times editorial fails the mention the most important thing our government should be doing, which is to allow the use of nuclear power again. I say 'allow'” because our policies make it clear that nuclear power is not favored. After the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station fiasco in which billions of dollars were spent to build a power plant that was then closed and never used, no private company is going to build a nuclear power plant again unless the regulatory environment is changed, and that requires government action.

Actually, a lot about the regulatory environment has improved in recent years -- so much so, that the NuStart Energy consortium is committed to testing the new combined construction and operating license (COL) process that could lead to the construction of a new nuclear power plant.

There have been other changes as well, in particular, the rise of safety-focused regulation and the application of the principle of "realistic conservatism" on the part of the NRC and reactor operators. Back in March, NEI President and CEO Skip Bowman addressed this issue at the NRC's annual Regulatory Information Conference:

In short, reactor safety, security and emergency planning should work synergistically, in a conservative, but realistic way, to protect public health and safety regardless of whether challenges to plant safety are operational, acts of God, or acts of terrorists.

In the past, pure deterministic regulatory approaches led, in some cases, to gross over design in the zeal to build in unrealistic margins to protect against unrealistic events. This new concept, introduced only a few years ago, calls for application of realistic engineering, physics and experience centered on safety.

The NRC took the first step in this direction when it transformed the reactor oversight process to common sense, objective criteria that are focused on those systems and components that are most important to safety.

First thought to be unworkable, the safety-focused reactor oversight process demonstrates that this concept can work and bring practical discipline and rigor to the process.

Indeed, much has changed about the regulatory process in recent years. So much so, that NRC Chairman Nils Diaz has said that no one can credibly claim that the NRC's regulatory oversight process is standing in the way of new plant construction.

Granted, there is still plenty of uncertainty to deal with, including making sure that the new COL process works as intended. Eventual passage of the energy bill will help too. So while some obstacles remain to the construction of new nuclear capacity, the landscape is looking brighter for the nuclear sector than it has in several decades.

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

France to Host ITER

From Reuters:

Science's quest to find a cheap and inexhaustible way to meet global energy needs took a major step forward on Tuesday when a 30-nation consortium chose France to host the world's first nuclear fusion reactor.

After months of wrangling, France defeated a bid from Japan and signed a deal to site the 10-billion-euroexperimental reactor in Cadarache, near Marseille.

The project will seek to turn seawater into fuel by mimicking the way the sun produces energy. It would be cleaner than current nuclear reactors, would not rely on enriched uranium fuel or produce plutonium.

But critics argue it could be at least 50 years before a commercially viable reactor is built, if at all.

For more details on the project, click here.

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

France to Host ITER

From Reuters:

Science's quest to find a cheap and inexhaustible way to meet global energy needs took a major step forward on Tuesday when a 30-nation consortium chose France to host the world's first nuclear fusion reactor.

After months of wrangling, France defeated a bid from Japan and signed a deal to site the 10-billion-euroexperimental reactor in Cadarache, near Marseille.

The project will seek to turn seawater into fuel by mimicking the way the sun produces energy. It would be cleaner than current nuclear reactors, would not rely on enriched uranium fuel or produce plutonium.

But critics argue it could be at least 50 years before a commercially viable reactor is built, if at all.

For more details on the project, click here.

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

Senate Passes Energy Bill 85-12; Conference With House is Next

That's the news from the Senate floor. We'll post the roll call when it becomes available. Up next is the conference with the House, where the differences between the House and Senate version of the bill will be reconciled. If all goes according to plan, the bill should reach the President's desk before the start of the August recess.

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

Senate Passes Energy Bill 85-12; Conference With House is Next

That's the news from the Senate floor. We'll post the roll call when it becomes available. Up next is the conference with the House, where the differences between the House and Senate version of the bill will be reconciled. If all goes according to plan, the bill should reach the President's desk before the start of the August recess.

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

Blogger Takes on Caldicott

Helen Caldicott is at it again, fortunately this time, we're not the only ones who are noticing. Here's The View from Benambra:

[T]he biggest problem with Caldicott's argument is that she doesn't examine the alternatives. And, even if we accept nuclear power is bad, the alternatives are far worse.

Sure, we have to store nuclear waste for an indefinite period. That's not unique. There is also considerable amounts of other toxic industrial waste that humanity is currently storing indefinitely - in countries with nuclear power programs nuclear waste represents only 1% of the stuff they have to store. And, as for spreading pollutants over its neighbours, I go back to it again; coal kills almost as many Yanks annually as car accidents do. Given the choice between nuclear and coal - and, whether Dr. Caldicott likes it or not, that's what the choice will likely be - I'll take nuclear any day.

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

Blogger Takes on Caldicott

Helen Caldicott is at it again, fortunately this time, we're not the only ones who are noticing. Here's The View from Benambra:

[T]he biggest problem with Caldicott's argument is that she doesn't examine the alternatives. And, even if we accept nuclear power is bad, the alternatives are far worse.

Sure, we have to store nuclear waste for an indefinite period. That's not unique. There is also considerable amounts of other toxic industrial waste that humanity is currently storing indefinitely - in countries with nuclear power programs nuclear waste represents only 1% of the stuff they have to store. And, as for spreading pollutants over its neighbours, I go back to it again; coal kills almost as many Yanks annually as car accidents do. Given the choice between nuclear and coal - and, whether Dr. Caldicott likes it or not, that's what the choice will likely be - I'll take nuclear any day.

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

Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

Meet Brian Horvath.

Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

Meet Brian Horvath.

The Choice for American Environmentalists

In a post about climate change legislation, John Atkinson lays out the choice environmentalists have to make about nuclear energy:

At the end of the day, this means that many American environmentalists still want to prioritize the proven-but- extremely-small environmental risks associated with nuclear power plants above the theoretical-but- seemingly-likely environmental risks from climate change - orrrr, they are still in denial of the fact that they have to make this choice. I'm guessing that the latter is more the case.

Here's one example of what John is talking about.

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

The Choice for American Environmentalists

In a post about climate change legislation, John Atkinson lays out the choice environmentalists have to make about nuclear energy:

At the end of the day, this means that many American environmentalists still want to prioritize the proven-but- extremely-small environmental risks associated with nuclear power plants above the theoretical-but- seemingly-likely environmental risks from climate change - orrrr, they are still in denial of the fact that they have to make this choice. I'm guessing that the latter is more the case.

Here's one example of what John is talking about.

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

Why Oswego is "Anti-Anti-Nuclear"

Over the past few months, we've been following news coming out of Oswego, New York that local residents there are lobbying hard for a new nuclear reactor. Over the weekend, reporter Michael Risint of the Journal News, one of the newspapers that most closely follows news coming out of the Indian Point Energy Center, took a trip to Oswego to see why that was the case:

"You tend to hear 'Indian Point, Indian Point,' " said Jill Lyons, a Constellation spokeswoman, referring to industry chatter about nuclear plant opposition. "But the community (here) tends to be anti-anti-nuclear."

Further . . .

But for many in and around Oswego, nuclear energy means a paycheck. Colleen Caramella has worked at FitzPatrick for 18 years and said the plant gives her, her husband, Joe, (a five-year employee) and their three sons a stable life. Amy Skinner's husband is an operator at Constellation.

"I don't think there's any downside (to a fourth reactor)," Skinner said as her children, Garrett, 9, and Kelly, 6, swam in the family's in-ground pool, the plant's tower hidden behind the trees.

Thanks to the Oswego Blog for the pointer.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Why Oswego is "Anti-Anti-Nuclear"

Over the past few months, we've been following news coming out of Oswego, New York that local residents there are lobbying hard for a new nuclear reactor. Over the weekend, reporter Michael Risint of the Journal News, one of the newspapers that most closely follows news coming out of the Indian Point Energy Center, took a trip to Oswego to see why that was the case:

"You tend to hear 'Indian Point, Indian Point,' " said Jill Lyons, a Constellation spokeswoman, referring to industry chatter about nuclear plant opposition. "But the community (here) tends to be anti-anti-nuclear."

Further . . .

But for many in and around Oswego, nuclear energy means a paycheck. Colleen Caramella has worked at FitzPatrick for 18 years and said the plant gives her, her husband, Joe, (a five-year employee) and their three sons a stable life. Amy Skinner's husband is an operator at Constellation.

"I don't think there's any downside (to a fourth reactor)," Skinner said as her children, Garrett, 9, and Kelly, 6, swam in the family's in-ground pool, the plant's tower hidden behind the trees.

Thanks to the Oswego Blog for the pointer.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

India Nuclear Energy Update

It looks like cooperation in the civilian nuclear energy sector will be on the table when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visits Washington next month:

Assessing the weekend talks with the visiting US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, officials here described the talks on nuclear cooperation as “work in progress”.

“The declaratory phase on the intent to cooperate on nuclear energy is over,” the officials said. But they added that negotiations on the specifics might go right down to the wire.

Singh and Bush are due to meet in Washington on July 18.

Both sides are aware that concrete cooperation in the nuclear energy area is necessary to demonstrate the seriousness of the plans to transform Indo-US relations.

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

India Nuclear Energy Update

It looks like cooperation in the civilian nuclear energy sector will be on the table when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visits Washington next month:

Assessing the weekend talks with the visiting US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, officials here described the talks on nuclear cooperation as “work in progress”.

“The declaratory phase on the intent to cooperate on nuclear energy is over,” the officials said. But they added that negotiations on the specifics might go right down to the wire.

Singh and Bush are due to meet in Washington on July 18.

Both sides are aware that concrete cooperation in the nuclear energy area is necessary to demonstrate the seriousness of the plans to transform Indo-US relations.

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

Roundup on President Bush's Visit to Calvert Cliffs

Good morning to all of the readers of NEI's Nuclear Energy Overview, our member-only newsletter. The following summary is especially for those of you who have come here looking for a summary of President Bush's historic visit to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, as well as a roundup of reactions from around the Web to the President's speech on expanding the use of nuclear energy. To read our coverage from the June 22 visit, click here. For our followup post on reaction to what the President had to say, click here.

Roundup on President Bush's Visit to Calvert Cliffs

Good morning to all of the readers of NEI's Nuclear Energy Overview, our member-only newsletter. The following summary is especially for those of you who have come here looking for a summary of President Bush's historic visit to Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, as well as a roundup of reactions from around the Web to the President's speech on expanding the use of nuclear energy. To read our coverage from the June 22 visit, click here. For our followup post on reaction to what the President had to say, click here.

On Environmentalists and Nuclear Energy

Yesterday on NPR's program, Day by Day, correspondent Mike Pesca filed a report that the broadcaster slugged, "Environmentalists Reconsider Nuclear Energy." But after listening to the report, I'd have to say that it left the impression that serious environmentalists weren't really reconsidering their position at all.

Instead of talking to, or mentioning figures like Patrick Moore, James Lovelock and Stewart Brand, Pesca only did interviews with Navin Nyack of U.S. PIRG and Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense. Nyack, as you would have to expect, was hostile, while Krupp's support seemed lukewarm at best. l

At one point in the piece, Nyack began to mention all of the environmental groups that have taken a public stance against nuclear energy. But as we saw last week with the press announcement concerning a coalition of groups repeating their opposition to nuclear energy, those numbers seem to have been padded. And I'll reiterate a point I've made before: the list that was released that day communicated more about the mainstream environmental groups who weren't listed than the ones it did.

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

On Environmentalists and Nuclear Energy

Yesterday on NPR's program, Day by Day, correspondent Mike Pesca filed a report that the broadcaster slugged, "Environmentalists Reconsider Nuclear Energy." But after listening to the report, I'd have to say that it left the impression that serious environmentalists weren't really reconsidering their position at all.

Instead of talking to, or mentioning figures like Patrick Moore, James Lovelock and Stewart Brand, Pesca only did interviews with Navin Nyack of U.S. PIRG and Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense. Nyack, as you would have to expect, was hostile, while Krupp's support seemed lukewarm at best. l

At one point in the piece, Nyack began to mention all of the environmental groups that have taken a public stance against nuclear energy. But as we saw last week with the press announcement concerning a coalition of groups repeating their opposition to nuclear energy, those numbers seem to have been padded. And I'll reiterate a point I've made before: the list that was released that day communicated more about the mainstream environmental groups who weren't listed than the ones it did.

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

Futurepundit on Wind Energy

Over at Futurepundit earlier this week, Randall Parker engaged in a detailed discussion of wind energy and its drawbacks:

I like scenic vistas. I don't understand why environmental groups are willing to support wind power. Would they rather ruin scenic vistas than build nuclear power plants? I guess so. They even want to use taxpayers money and higher electric prices to subsidize the ruin of scenery. How about you? do you mind seeing wind towers 20 miles off on mountain tops or coast lines? I can see putting them 30 miles offshore beyond view of most people.

As we mentioned on Wednesday, nuclear has a much smaller footprint than wind, due in part to its tremendous advantage in operational efficiency.

Now does that mean we should stop investing in wind power? No, not at all. Wind is a promising technology that someday may provide more electrical energy than the small fraction that it does today. But when it comes to meeting near-term demand for electricity in the next 25 years, nuclear needs to be part of the solution.

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

Futurepundit on Wind Energy

Over at Futurepundit earlier this week, Randall Parker engaged in a detailed discussion of wind energy and its drawbacks:

I like scenic vistas. I don't understand why environmental groups are willing to support wind power. Would they rather ruin scenic vistas than build nuclear power plants? I guess so. They even want to use taxpayers money and higher electric prices to subsidize the ruin of scenery. How about you? do you mind seeing wind towers 20 miles off on mountain tops or coast lines? I can see putting them 30 miles offshore beyond view of most people.

As we mentioned on Wednesday, nuclear has a much smaller footprint than wind, due in part to its tremendous advantage in operational efficiency.

Now does that mean we should stop investing in wind power? No, not at all. Wind is a promising technology that someday may provide more electrical energy than the small fraction that it does today. But when it comes to meeting near-term demand for electricity in the next 25 years, nuclear needs to be part of the solution.

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

More Bloggers For Nuclear Energy

Some talk has been generated around the Blogosphere about President Bush's visit to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, and the renewal of his call for America to make expanded use of nuclear energy.

Reality Hammer: "It's about time . . . You cannot wait until the price of oil reaches $100 a barrel!"

Jon Whitelaw: "Welcome to our future, it looks bright indeed, and Bush has made a step in the right direction with this news."

Rich Tehrani: " Nuclear is an option that if deployed securely, can work well to help supply part of the world's energy needs."

More later.

UPDATE: Rhyme of the Day has some interesting thoughts:

This message is brought to you by nuclear power. Well, 70% of it, anyway.

That's the percentage of Chicago electricity that comes from nukes, and they're talking about building a new one! I'm rather relieved see that nuclear energy is somehow becoming politically acceptable again.

ANOTHER UPDATE: There's plenty of local reaction from around the nation as well. Here's one report from California's Central Coast:

Here on the Central Coast, those responsible for operating Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant say they are encouraged by the Commander-in-Chief's comments.

"People are starting to realize and focus on that this is an important asset that nuclear power brings to the table," says Jeff Lewis, of PG&E.

The President's speech has people thinking in East Tennessee and Illinois as well.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's Eric Hopp:

For once, I will have to agree with President Bush. We do need to start looking at designing and building new nuclear power plants. The technology has certainly advanced dramatically in the last 30 years. We need to start looking at new, innovative designs for nuclear reactors which can incorporate better environmental and safety concerns. This is certainly one method to reduce U.S. oil consumption for its energy needs.

When it comes to new plant designs, that means Generation IV. Later, Eric does express some concerns about the way plants are regulated. For those of you who want to investigate the issue further, you might want to read Skip Bowman's speech from the NRC's Regulatory Information Conference from last March.

AFTERNOON UPDATE: The newswire over at the Huffington Post ran an item on Matt Wald's story in the New York Times, and some of the comments are very revealing. Here's one comment that came in response to a challenge to see if anyone would be willing to live near a nuclear power plant:

I've lived by a plant for many years and I don't think its a big deal. Where else are we going to get the power we need? I've yet to hear a viable alternative to nuclear power.

The following came in response to concerns about reactor safety:

A nuclear plant is not a nuclear bomb.

Building nuclear plants with modern technology is a smart thing to do.

And any of the stopglobalwarming.com crowd should be happy to get behind this.

Some commenters were evidently fed up with radical environmentalists:

Its time to put up or shut up. Either the environmental movement is interested in saving up from global warming- or its all a smokescreen for their war on industrialism.

Let's end on this surprisingly well informed comment:

Solar, wind, and the like need another 25-50 years of investment, and even then they will be a relatively small percentage of the energy mix. Today they comprise less than 1%.

Nuclear is the way to go...which will help bring down the price of electricity, thus making electric cars more viable (battery technologies are continuing to make huge strides as well, and investment in nuclear energy will indirectly fuel even more R&D into battery technology).

As for the "security threat" of nuclear power plants: let's just say that they will be far better protected than all the mass-transit systems and bridges that have somehow emerged from 9/11 unscathed. Stop the fearmongering.

More later.

FINAL UPDATE: Here's Matt from Matt's Blog:

Why don't the environmentalists realize that nuclear power is the only viable option on the table that offers the energy we need without release CO2 or toxins? Windmills and hybrids are totally insufficient. In fact, they are insignificant.

I disagree with the assertion that safety concerns have not been addressed. Accidents (or mistakes) like those in the past are not feasible in modern nuclear facilities.

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

More Bloggers For Nuclear Energy

Some talk has been generated around the Blogosphere about President Bush's visit to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, and the renewal of his call for America to make expanded use of nuclear energy.

Reality Hammer: "It's about time . . . You cannot wait until the price of oil reaches $100 a barrel!"

Jon Whitelaw: "Welcome to our future, it looks bright indeed, and Bush has made a step in the right direction with this news."

Rich Tehrani: " Nuclear is an option that if deployed securely, can work well to help supply part of the world's energy needs."

More later.

UPDATE: Rhyme of the Day has some interesting thoughts:

This message is brought to you by nuclear power. Well, 70% of it, anyway.

That's the percentage of Chicago electricity that comes from nukes, and they're talking about building a new one! I'm rather relieved see that nuclear energy is somehow becoming politically acceptable again.

ANOTHER UPDATE: There's plenty of local reaction from around the nation as well. Here's one report from California's Central Coast:

Here on the Central Coast, those responsible for operating Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant say they are encouraged by the Commander-in-Chief's comments.

"People are starting to realize and focus on that this is an important asset that nuclear power brings to the table," says Jeff Lewis, of PG&E.

The President's speech has people thinking in East Tennessee and Illinois as well.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's Eric Hopp:

For once, I will have to agree with President Bush. We do need to start looking at designing and building new nuclear power plants. The technology has certainly advanced dramatically in the last 30 years. We need to start looking at new, innovative designs for nuclear reactors which can incorporate better environmental and safety concerns. This is certainly one method to reduce U.S. oil consumption for its energy needs.

When it comes to new plant designs, that means Generation IV. Later, Eric does express some concerns about the way plants are regulated. For those of you who want to investigate the issue further, you might want to read Skip Bowman's speech from the NRC's Regulatory Information Conference from last March.

AFTERNOON UPDATE: The newswire over at the Huffington Post ran an item on Matt Wald's story in the New York Times, and some of the comments are very revealing. Here's one comment that came in response to a challenge to see if anyone would be willing to live near a nuclear power plant:

I've lived by a plant for many years and I don't think its a big deal. Where else are we going to get the power we need? I've yet to hear a viable alternative to nuclear power.

The following came in response to concerns about reactor safety:

A nuclear plant is not a nuclear bomb.

Building nuclear plants with modern technology is a smart thing to do.

And any of the stopglobalwarming.com crowd should be happy to get behind this.

Some commenters were evidently fed up with radical environmentalists:

Its time to put up or shut up. Either the environmental movement is interested in saving up from global warming- or its all a smokescreen for their war on industrialism.

Let's end on this surprisingly well informed comment:

Solar, wind, and the like need another 25-50 years of investment, and even then they will be a relatively small percentage of the energy mix. Today they comprise less than 1%.

Nuclear is the way to go...which will help bring down the price of electricity, thus making electric cars more viable (battery technologies are continuing to make huge strides as well, and investment in nuclear energy will indirectly fuel even more R&D into battery technology).

As for the "security threat" of nuclear power plants: let's just say that they will be far better protected than all the mass-transit systems and bridges that have somehow emerged from 9/11 unscathed. Stop the fearmongering.

More later.

FINAL UPDATE: Here's Matt from Matt's Blog:

Why don't the environmentalists realize that nuclear power is the only viable option on the table that offers the energy we need without release CO2 or toxins? Windmills and hybrids are totally insufficient. In fact, they are insignificant.

I disagree with the assertion that safety concerns have not been addressed. Accidents (or mistakes) like those in the past are not feasible in modern nuclear facilities.

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

President Bush at Calvert Cliffs

The following is an excerpt from the speech President Bush delivered today at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Lusby, MD:

The energy bill will also help us expand our use of the one energy source that is completely domestic, plentiful in quantity, environmentally friendly, and able to generate massive amounts of electricity, and that's nuclear power. (Applause.)

Today, there are 103 nuclear plants in America. They produce about 20 percent of the nation's electricity without producing a single pound of air pollution or greenhouse gases. I think you told me that 20 percent of all Maryland's electricity is produced here at this plant. Without these nuclear plants, America would released nearly 700 million metric tons more carbon dioxide into the air each year. That's about the same amount of carbon dioxide that now comes from all our cars and trucks.

Across this state, Maryland has looked to Calvert Cliffs to keep their lights on and to keep their land, air and water clean. In other words, you're generating electricity and helping the environment at the same time. That's an important combination of talents and -- it's an important combination of -- that the American people have got to understand it's possible when we expand nuclear power.

Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy. People out here practice a lot of safety, they're good at it. You've got nuclear engineers and experts that spend a lot of time maintaining a safe environment. Just ask the people that work here. You wouldn't be coming here if it wasn't safe, I suspect. (Laughter.)

Some Americans remember the problems of the nuclear plants -- that the nuclear plants had back in the 1970s. We all remember those days. That frightened a lot of folks. People have got to understand that advances in sciences and engineering and plant design have made nuclear plants far safer, far safer than ever before. Workers and managers are trained and committed and spend hours working on nuclear safety, and that's good. And they do such a good job here at Calvert Cliffs that this was the first nuclear plant in America to gets its operating license renewed. And I congratulate you. (Applause.)

There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner, safer nation. Slowly but surely, people are beginning to look at the facts. One of the reasons I've come to this plant is to help people understand the difference between fact and fiction. Yet, even though there has been a growing consensus over time, America has not ordered a nuclear plant since the 1970s. By contrast, France has built 58 nuclear plants in the same period of time. By contrast, China now has eight nuclear plants in the works and plans to build at least 40 more over the next two decades.

In the 21st century, our nation will need more electricity, more safe, clean, reliable electricity. It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again. (Applause.)

We're taking practical steps to encourage new construction of power plants. Three years ago, we launched the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative, which is a $1.1 billion partnership between government and industry to coordinate the ordering of new plants. The Department of Energy is working with Congress to reduce uncertainty in the nuclear plant licensing process. Look, you don't want to go out and build a plant, spend all the money, and have the license jerked at the last minute. (Laughter.) Nobody's going to spend money if that's the case.

And so we want to have a rational way to move forward, and one rational way to move forward is to provide incentives for new construction such as federal risk insurance, to help the builders of the first four plants -- that's what's now embedded in the energy bill -- first four plants against lawsuits and bureaucratic obstacles and other delays beyond their control. In other words, there's a rational approach for the federal government -- on the one hand, to convince the American people nuclear power is safe, that it makes sense for our consumers, it makes sense for the long-term economic security of our country to expand nuclear power; and on the other hand, say to those who are risking capital, here's some help, here's some ways we can provide incentive for you to move forward with the construction of plants.

To read the entire wavefront of news coverage on the President's speech, click here for a Google News search. And judging by some of the clips, it looks like the President's message got through.

UPDATE: For a video report from Baltimore's WBAL-TV, click here. NEI's own Steve Kerekes will be interviewed on WAVA-FM here in Washington at 6:15 p.m. EDT. Click here to listen live. And finally, look for a piece on nuclear energy on tonight's edition of NBC Nightly News.

BLOGOSPHERE REACTION UPDATE: Jason Cuevas liked what he heard from the President today:

I totally agree that we need to build more nuclear plants. There is an enviromental issue of radioactive waste, but it is not as big an issue as what oil and coal do to our enviroment. Not to mention that they are resources that will run out while nuclear power is endless. We need to find other sources for more of our power and nuclear power really is the most viable option.

Over at Truth in Politics, Joe is offering up an interesting deal:

But I'm fine with more nuclear power plants as long as they match it with renewable resources. If they construct 1 Megawatt of nuclear production, I want another 1 Megawatt of wind production, by the same folks.

Unfortunately, one megawatt of nuclear electric generating capacity and one megawatt of wind electric generating capacity are not the same. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, you need to understand operational efficiency:

Operational Efficiency is measured using a measure called capacity factor. Capacity factor is the ratio of the total electricity that a plant produced during a year compared to the total potential electricity that would have been produced if the plant operated at 100 percent power during every hour of the year. It is essentially the percentage of electricity that a plant produced compared to the electricity that it could have produced operating constantly at peak output.

In 2004, according to the Energy Information Administration, the capacity factor of nuclear energy averaged 90.5 percent. Wind energy's capacity factor was only 32.1 percent. So, roughly, one megawatt of nuclear is about three times as efficient as wind.

Here's another way to look at it. According to my colleague David Bradish, replacing a typical nuclear power plant of 1,000 megawatts capacity would require a wind farm covering 150,000 acres. In some cases, nuclear energy's footprint is even smaller. For example, the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant's two reactors have a capacity of 1,900 megawatts, yet the plant sits on a site of only 500 acres.

Now let's take it up another level. In total, the electric generating capacity of America's 103 nuclear power plants is about 100,000 megawatts. If you wanted to replace that capacity with wind power, it would take a wind farm the size of the state of Wisconsin.

The Left Coaster is skeptical:

Sure, Pete Domenici and others in the GOP leadership will pat themselves on the back for getting their arms twisted and passing something this year that in truth does nothing to address global warming or make us energy independent.

Really? Here are some numbers to keep in mind when it comes to nuclear energy and avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions:

Over one-third of total voluntary greenhouse gas emissions reductions. According to the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, nuclear power plants were responsible for 37 percent of the total voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions reported by U.S. companies in 2003. Nuclear plants reported avoiding 122 million metric tons of CO2 that year. In 2002, nuclear power plants were responsible for 35 percent of total voluntary reductions, avoiding 131 million metric tons of CO2.

Global benefits of nuclear energy. Worldwide, 441 nuclear power plants in 31 nations produce 16 percent of the world's electricity. By replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation, nuclear plants in 2004 reduced CO2 emissions by more than 700 million metric tons.

Something to think about.

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

President Bush at Calvert Cliffs

The following is an excerpt from the speech President Bush delivered today at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Lusby, MD:

The energy bill will also help us expand our use of the one energy source that is completely domestic, plentiful in quantity, environmentally friendly, and able to generate massive amounts of electricity, and that's nuclear power. (Applause.)

Today, there are 103 nuclear plants in America. They produce about 20 percent of the nation's electricity without producing a single pound of air pollution or greenhouse gases. I think you told me that 20 percent of all Maryland's electricity is produced here at this plant. Without these nuclear plants, America would released nearly 700 million metric tons more carbon dioxide into the air each year. That's about the same amount of carbon dioxide that now comes from all our cars and trucks.

Across this state, Maryland has looked to Calvert Cliffs to keep their lights on and to keep their land, air and water clean. In other words, you're generating electricity and helping the environment at the same time. That's an important combination of talents and -- it's an important combination of -- that the American people have got to understand it's possible when we expand nuclear power.

Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy. People out here practice a lot of safety, they're good at it. You've got nuclear engineers and experts that spend a lot of time maintaining a safe environment. Just ask the people that work here. You wouldn't be coming here if it wasn't safe, I suspect. (Laughter.)

Some Americans remember the problems of the nuclear plants -- that the nuclear plants had back in the 1970s. We all remember those days. That frightened a lot of folks. People have got to understand that advances in sciences and engineering and plant design have made nuclear plants far safer, far safer than ever before. Workers and managers are trained and committed and spend hours working on nuclear safety, and that's good. And they do such a good job here at Calvert Cliffs that this was the first nuclear plant in America to gets its operating license renewed. And I congratulate you. (Applause.)

There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner, safer nation. Slowly but surely, people are beginning to look at the facts. One of the reasons I've come to this plant is to help people understand the difference between fact and fiction. Yet, even though there has been a growing consensus over time, America has not ordered a nuclear plant since the 1970s. By contrast, France has built 58 nuclear plants in the same period of time. By contrast, China now has eight nuclear plants in the works and plans to build at least 40 more over the next two decades.

In the 21st century, our nation will need more electricity, more safe, clean, reliable electricity. It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again. (Applause.)

We're taking practical steps to encourage new construction of power plants. Three years ago, we launched the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative, which is a $1.1 billion partnership between government and industry to coordinate the ordering of new plants. The Department of Energy is working with Congress to reduce uncertainty in the nuclear plant licensing process. Look, you don't want to go out and build a plant, spend all the money, and have the license jerked at the last minute. (Laughter.) Nobody's going to spend money if that's the case.

And so we want to have a rational way to move forward, and one rational way to move forward is to provide incentives for new construction such as federal risk insurance, to help the builders of the first four plants -- that's what's now embedded in the energy bill -- first four plants against lawsuits and bureaucratic obstacles and other delays beyond their control. In other words, there's a rational approach for the federal government -- on the one hand, to convince the American people nuclear power is safe, that it makes sense for our consumers, it makes sense for the long-term economic security of our country to expand nuclear power; and on the other hand, say to those who are risking capital, here's some help, here's some ways we can provide incentive for you to move forward with the construction of plants.

To read the entire wavefront of news coverage on the President's speech, click here for a Google News search. And judging by some of the clips, it looks like the President's message got through.

UPDATE: For a video report from Baltimore's WBAL-TV, click here. NEI's own Steve Kerekes will be interviewed on WAVA-FM here in Washington at 6:15 p.m. EDT. Click here to listen live. And finally, look for a piece on nuclear energy on tonight's edition of NBC Nightly News.

BLOGOSPHERE REACTION UPDATE: Jason Cuevas liked what he heard from the President today:

I totally agree that we need to build more nuclear plants. There is an enviromental issue of radioactive waste, but it is not as big an issue as what oil and coal do to our enviroment. Not to mention that they are resources that will run out while nuclear power is endless. We need to find other sources for more of our power and nuclear power really is the most viable option.

Over at Truth in Politics, Joe is offering up an interesting deal:

But I'm fine with more nuclear power plants as long as they match it with renewable resources. If they construct 1 Megawatt of nuclear production, I want another 1 Megawatt of wind production, by the same folks.

Unfortunately, one megawatt of nuclear electric generating capacity and one megawatt of wind electric generating capacity are not the same. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, you need to understand operational efficiency:

Operational Efficiency is measured using a measure called capacity factor. Capacity factor is the ratio of the total electricity that a plant produced during a year compared to the total potential electricity that would have been produced if the plant operated at 100 percent power during every hour of the year. It is essentially the percentage of electricity that a plant produced compared to the electricity that it could have produced operating constantly at peak output.

In 2004, according to the Energy Information Administration, the capacity factor of nuclear energy averaged 90.5 percent. Wind energy's capacity factor was only 32.1 percent. So, roughly, one megawatt of nuclear is about three times as efficient as wind.

Here's another way to look at it. According to my colleague David Bradish, replacing a typical nuclear power plant of 1,000 megawatts capacity would require a wind farm covering 150,000 acres. In some cases, nuclear energy's footprint is even smaller. For example, the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant's two reactors have a capacity of 1,900 megawatts, yet the plant sits on a site of only 500 acres.

Now let's take it up another level. In total, the electric generating capacity of America's 103 nuclear power plants is about 100,000 megawatts. If you wanted to replace that capacity with wind power, it would take a wind farm the size of the state of Wisconsin.

The Left Coaster is skeptical:

Sure, Pete Domenici and others in the GOP leadership will pat themselves on the back for getting their arms twisted and passing something this year that in truth does nothing to address global warming or make us energy independent.

Really? Here are some numbers to keep in mind when it comes to nuclear energy and avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions:

Over one-third of total voluntary greenhouse gas emissions reductions. According to the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, nuclear power plants were responsible for 37 percent of the total voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions reported by U.S. companies in 2003. Nuclear plants reported avoiding 122 million metric tons of CO2 that year. In 2002, nuclear power plants were responsible for 35 percent of total voluntary reductions, avoiding 131 million metric tons of CO2.

Global benefits of nuclear energy. Worldwide, 441 nuclear power plants in 31 nations produce 16 percent of the world's electricity. By replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation, nuclear plants in 2004 reduced CO2 emissions by more than 700 million metric tons.

Something to think about.

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

Liveblogging: NEI's John Kane on C-Span's Washington Journal

John Kane, NEI's Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, is appearing on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning at 9:10 a.m. U.S. EDT. He'll be talking about the Energy Bill. Joining him on the program will be Navin Nayak of U.S. PIRG. I'll be following the interview here in the office, live, and be offering running commentary and supporting documents.

To watch, click here. To listen via C-Span Radio, click here. Be sure to hit refresh in your browser periodically, so you get to see all the latest information that I'll be posting.

UPDATE: Moderator mentions the role of U.S. Senator Pete Domenici in the energy bill. For more information on his book on nuclear energy, click here.

Nayak is brining up the issue of waste -- and for the industry the answer is Yucca Mountain. As to cost, we handled the issue of the cost of new nuclear build a few weeks ago, here. And besides, if nobody wants to invest in nuclear energy, then why is Warren Buffet thinking about it?

Safety and security is now being brought up, and the best place to start with that debate is probably our roundup of posts on Time's article on nuclear power plant security. For our archive on safety, click here.

The moderator just brought up the fact that President Bush is going to give a speech at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant later today.

Nayak is calling nuclear, "a polluting energy" claiming that it has to leverage other polluting technologies in order to run itself. Unfortunately, the research concerning lifecycle emissions disputes that claim.

Nayak says that energy isn't a "left-right issue". We agree.

Why is nuclear a better bet right now than renewables? This slide deals with something called "capacity factor" -- an important measure of efficiency. As for Nayak's claim about public opinion, those results are disputed by our own research.

The conversation has turned to the Price-Anderson Act. Click here for a fact sheet.

Nayak says that nuclear energy won't have any impact on America's dependence on foreign sources of energy. But what about nuclear-generated hydrogen?

John is now talking about the new licensing process for nuclear power plants.

Segement concludes. Thanks for sticking with us.

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

Liveblogging: NEI's John Kane on C-Span's Washington Journal

John Kane, NEI's Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, is appearing on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning at 9:10 a.m. U.S. EDT. He'll be talking about the Energy Bill. Joining him on the program will be Navin Nayak of U.S. PIRG. I'll be following the interview here in the office, live, and be offering running commentary and supporting documents.

To watch, click here. To listen via C-Span Radio, click here. Be sure to hit refresh in your browser periodically, so you get to see all the latest information that I'll be posting.

UPDATE: Moderator mentions the role of U.S. Senator Pete Domenici in the energy bill. For more information on his book on nuclear energy, click here.

Nayak is brining up the issue of waste -- and for the industry the answer is Yucca Mountain. As to cost, we handled the issue of the cost of new nuclear build a few weeks ago, here. And besides, if nobody wants to invest in nuclear energy, then why is Warren Buffet thinking about it?

Safety and security is now being brought up, and the best place to start with that debate is probably our roundup of posts on Time's article on nuclear power plant security. For our archive on safety, click here.

The moderator just brought up the fact that President Bush is going to give a speech at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant later today.

Nayak is calling nuclear, "a polluting energy" claiming that it has to leverage other polluting technologies in order to run itself. Unfortunately, the research concerning lifecycle emissions disputes that claim.

Nayak says that energy isn't a "left-right issue". We agree.

Why is nuclear a better bet right now than renewables? This slide deals with something called "capacity factor" -- an important measure of efficiency. As for Nayak's claim about public opinion, those results are disputed by our own research.

The conversation has turned to the Price-Anderson Act. Click here for a fact sheet.

Nayak says that nuclear energy won't have any impact on America's dependence on foreign sources of energy. But what about nuclear-generated hydrogen?

John is now talking about the new licensing process for nuclear power plants.

Segement concludes. Thanks for sticking with us.

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