nuclear power

March Madness

by Fred Smith on March 28, 2011

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Energy, Environment, Features, International

Post image for March Madness

In the closing days of March, not only are sports fans a bit crazy, so also are the electorate. Consider the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, long secure within the Christian Democratic “right-of-center” view (recall this is Europe, so “right” is at best “moderate” American conservatism), has moved left. More alarming, the Green Party gained most in the election and the Greens, one will recall, are anti-nuclear and anti-coal. The prospects for reversing the earlier German government decision to close down nuclear plants have dropped sharply and the increased clout of the climate change alarmists makes the prospect for new coal plants dim also.

As one unhappy CDU official noted, The election was decided in Japan, referring to the tsunami created nuclear disaster. That tragedy turned a side-issue in the German election into a major concern and led to the CDU defeat.

[click to continue…]

One cheer for Obama on nuclear energy

by Michael Fumento on February 17, 2010 · 1 comment

in Employment, Energy, Global Warming, Natural Resources, Precaution & Risk

Obama has done something right concerning nuclear energy; credit where credit’s due. But he also did something very wrong, which we’ll get to.

The president has promised $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees for a pair of Georgia nuclear reactors, saying it would give new life to the U.S. nuclear power industry. These would be the first new U.S. nuke plants in more than three decades.

More through symbolism than anything else, he’s right about the new life. It’s a liberal Democratic president saying, “Hey! Nukes are okay!”

He also offered words of wisdom. “If we fail to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, then we’re going to be importing those technologies instead of exporting them,” he said. “We will fall behind. Jobs will be produced overseas instead of here in the United States of America. And that’s not a future that I accept.”

Nuclear power already provides about 20 percent of this nation’s energy, even with the same plants that once only provided about 10 percent. They’ve gotten more efficient a lot faster than wind turbine or solar power technology has. Nobody has ever died from a nuclear accident in the U.S., and yet the newer generation of power plant is much safer than, say, Three Mile Island. France gets about 70 percent of its energy from nukes and I’ve been to European cities like Berlin where they have nukes right in the middle of town.

The GOP has called for building as many as 100 new such plants and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) called it a “good first step.”

But that’s all it is.

Heritage Foundation fellow Jack Spencer told the Washington Post, “Loan guarantees do not a nuclear renaissance make.” They don’t fix “the problems that have plagued nuclear energy for 30 years: the regulatory structure and nuclear waste [disposal] and too much government dependence.”

Right. And one major contributor to the problem has been Barack Obama. Opponents of nuclear power say the president shouldn’t be supporting the building of more power plants that will produce even more radioactive material, so long as the government hasn’t figured out where to put it all. Thing is, it had been figured out and Obama killed it.

Over many years and spending billions of dollars, the government decided the best place was caverns in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. But Nevada Sen. Harry Reid wrapped himself in the mantle of demagoguery and declared “Not in my backyard, you don’t!” As he knew it would be, it was popular with the voters. Obama, in what from a scientific viewpoint appears to have been nothing more than a sop to Reid, who faces a tough re-election bid, canceled the project.

Notwithstanding that the vast majority of nuclear waste is incredibly low-level, nevertheless it continues and will continue to have to be stored on site. To the extent it is dangerous, we don’t want that. There was a solution and Obama squelched it.

So fine. After the November elections are settled, it’s time to revisit Yucca Mountain. That will show real support for nuclear power.

Windmills for spite

by Michael Fumento on October 11, 2009

in Energy, Environment, Features, Odds & Ends, Zeitgeist

“Clean Energy Splits France: It’s Carbon vs. Countryside in Environmental Battle Over Plan for Windmills Near Coastal Shrine.” So reads the Washington Post headline.

But is it?

The article concerns three windmills that some fear will obstruct the view of the awesome Mont St. Michelle Abby on the French coast, which becomes an island at high tides. Yet the article also points out that France is very accepting of nuclear power, which provides about 80% of the nation’s energy needs. Another 10% comes from hydro. And the number of windmills in question, three, provide less energy than the smallest nuclear plant made – which is to say those on naval warships.

No, this isn’t really about energy. It’s about politics. It’s making a statement. And quite literally, an ugly one.mont-saint-michel-lemont1

Forza Italia!

by Iain Murray on July 10, 2009

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International

Italy’s Senate has overturned a 1987 ban on nuclear power, passed in panic after Chernobyl.  This is good news for Italians, as they face some of the highest electricity rates in Europe.  Of course, this being Europe, the plants will probably be built with significant government subsidy, so there won’t be much we can learn from it about the viability of nuclear power built without government assistance.  Nevertheless, if European countries are going to meet the ambitious emissions targets they have adopted, nuclear power is going to have to play a large part in doing so.