Skip to main content

“Nuclear Generation is here and now.”


On Fox News Sunday, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ken.) said that this is what he would do to counter the Russians in Ukraine:
“I would do something differently from the president,” Paul said. “I would immediately get every obstacle out of the way for our export of oil and gas, and I would begin drilling in every possible conceivable place within our territories in order to have production we can supply Europe with if it’s interrupted from Ukraine.”
There are all kinds of reasons this is a difficult proposition. Paul says “I would begin drilling,” but all he could really do (as President) is open public land to drilling and then encourage private industry to do so. And then the market would decide where the gas would go. Politicians say all kinds of things with the intent of showing resolve rather than propose real policy, so there’s that, too.
But Paul might really be on to something. Forbes has an interesting article that has nothing whatever to do with Russia, but has the same impact:
Nuclear generation is here and now.

Major energy transitions are lengthy, says Michael Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute, in an interview. … “The right questions are how do we encourage a transition to it and how do we make it cheaper,” and not to dismiss it because of a stale mindset.
Writer Ken Silverstein shows how this is already happening in Europe and Asia.
Meantime, China, Korea, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and the UK are advancing nuclear production to address air pollution and climate concerns. China has 20 nuclear plants today and 28 more under construction — 40 percent of all projected new nuclear units, says the World Nuclear Association. A similar dynamic exists in the UK, which approved the construction of two reactors at Hinkley Point that will provide 7 percent of the UK’s electricity.
The beneficial aspects of this are manifest. Paul and other politicians often zero in on fuel types to promote energy policy, but that’s not all there is on offer. America has nuclear technology, nuclear manufacturers and nuclear personnel. The U.S. is  not a big supplier of uranium, but “good actors” like Australia are.
It takes time to build nuclear plants, but, as in the U.K, it takes no time at all to set an energy policy – well, okay, it does, but it can be done quickly – and energy policy that favors nuclear energy can benefit the U.S. right away. No need to drill everywhere if it proves to be a problem – nuclear is all ready to go. Even Sen. Paul might find it appealing.

Comments

Anonymous said…
With more nukes, the US could use the gas and coal it wastes on electricity generation to synthesise oil. The technology can be bought from South Africa. This would certainly cost less than the Iraq and Afghan wars. Entertainingly, Qatar is building a gas to oil plant to make better use of its plentiful supply of gas. The nukes the UAE are building will also allow them to export more fossil fuels to those who prefer them to nuclear power!!
Anonymous said…
Nuclear + Electric Vehicles (batteries) + Heat Pumps are going to eliminate the majority of fossil-fuel use in this century. These are not pie-in-the-sky technologies. They are very close to implementation. Battery research has really accelerated (finally). Nuclear is ready now, with more advanced designs in the wings. And Mitsubishi is selling heat pumps at Home Depot that are rated down to -14 F.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…