Look who’s talking nuclear
posted at 8:00 am on July 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The report about the US taking another look at nuclear power isn’t as remarkable as the news agency reporting it. MS-NBC has developed a reputation for a lack of objectivity this year regarding Barack Obama and the upcoming election. With Obama opposed to expansion of nuclear power — at least thus far — this sudden interest in the one massively-produceable, carbon-free energy resource can only mean that it has gotten so much buzz that even the Olbermann Network can’t miss it:
Note that they frame the piece by highlighting Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as if they were the same kind of incident and the same kind of reactor design right at the beginning of their report. However, they do manage to catch the Greenpeace spokesman, Jim Riccio, saying that we need to address climate change by finding energy sources that are “fast and affordable”. Like what — solar power? We’ve been gnawing on that bone for decades, and still can’t massively produce and store the energy. Same with wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydroelectric.
Well, we could get to oil, shale, coal, and natural gas in fast and affordable means — but I digress.
It may surprise some to hear that four to eight more reactors will go on line in the next eight years. John McCain wants to build 45 of them by 2020, while Obama wants to wait for something better to come along. It must be that fast and affordable mass-production energy source that we’ve waited for over thirty years for someone to find. If MS-NBC is willing to tell that story, can another Obama flip-flop be far behind? Will he stroll through one of the newer plants and declare, “This is not the nuclear power I thought I knew?”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
You have a way with words, Ed!
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 8:07 AM
Yup, the people that have prevented nuclear plants from being built and oil from being drilled , who were the all again? I won’t name names, but in a cage match between Pelosi, Reid and Barry, I would bet that the latter two would be screaming Palamino in no time flat.
bbz123 on July 21, 2008 at 8:08 AM
Pebble bed reactors are not the Nuclear Power Plants Obama thought he knew. Or the rest of us, either.
Inherently Safe. That’s the way to go.
gridlock2 on July 21, 2008 at 8:10 AM
They’re perhaps scheduled or expected to go on line in the next eight years. But given the sorry state of federalism, it seems hard to know what the future holds under Democrats.
Kralizec on July 21, 2008 at 8:11 AM
Yep. You got it.
boomer on July 21, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Probably, but I hope he doesn’t. Obama’s unwillingness to back drilling or nuclear power is what will give the election to McCain.
forest on July 21, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Obama will be taking his que’s from the Kos kids and Media Matters
2theright on July 21, 2008 at 8:13 AM
When does he hit France on his world tour? Thats when he’ll discover the value of nuclear power. Merci beaucoup, indeed!
ctmom on July 21, 2008 at 8:24 AM
More buzz about drilling–check.
More buzz about nuclear–check.
More buzz about building refineries–missing!
jgapinoy on July 21, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Greenpeace
Hamas Green
maverick muse on July 21, 2008 at 8:29 AM
You know what would be even better? Allowing the utilities to reprocess the spent fuel for more energy production. What’s stopping it? You guessed it. Congress.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on July 21, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Grrr, who the HELL cares what Greenpeace thinks? What a stupid report.
jimmy the notable on July 21, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Obama is really for nuclear energy, he just hasn’t seen the last poll. This guy is embarrassing. I guess a Harvard degree isn’t what it is supposed to be.
volsense on July 21, 2008 at 8:33 AM
Why are their any democrats left in office, jeeze! You’d think between Reid & Company’s “This war is lost” and their obstruction on ANY kind of energy policy over the last 30 years, there wouldn’t be one of them left in office.
SoldiersMom on July 21, 2008 at 8:35 AM
I think this is exactly what he’ll do. He’ll say that his European trip enlightened him to the beauty of nuclear power, and that it is the clean choice versus evil Republican schemes to drill for oil and pollute the planet.
As an aside, Fox recently did a story about green energy in Germany where green buildings with solar panels and so forth are ubiquitous. But they still pay around $8.00 a gallon for gas (which demonstrates that waiting for the wind and sun does nothing to fuel our cars). As this MSNBC story notes, they aren’t ready to embrace expensive hybrids yet, but what I loved is this comment from a reader from Washington, D.C., which was said in all seriousness without a hint of irony:
This is what should happen in the US, actually, we should have fuel at $20/gallon, this way we get rid of many poor (financially and techically) drivers off the road, making it safer for the rest of us.
Methinks that is the secret Pelosi/Reid plan, in a nutshell.
Buy Danish on July 21, 2008 at 8:39 AM
My fear is that, to make himself electable on the issue, he’ll flip for nuclear power. If elected, under pressure from the Reid-Pelosi Congress, he’ll flop back against it. So there we are.
petefrt on July 21, 2008 at 8:41 AM
This is not the Harvard degree I used to know.
MarkTheGreat on July 21, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Fast and affordable, like what, wind and solar?
These people aren’t serious are they?
Dr. Manhattan on July 21, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Isn’t NBC owned by GE? And hasn’t GE built nuclear plants?
rbj on July 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM
This, in reality, is the goal of much of the so called environmentalist movement. Getting rid of those nasty other peopls so that those who view them selves as better than everyone else can have more of everything.
MarkTheGreat on July 21, 2008 at 8:44 AM
What do you mean “will be”? Ever since bowing down on his knees and paying homage to his True Master, Darth Soros, B.O. has been taking ques from KOS and Media Mattters religiously.
pilamaye on July 21, 2008 at 8:46 AM
I’m thinkin’ he’ll declare it a failure and demand we close them down first, then take a tour.
trubble on July 21, 2008 at 8:46 AM
We we don’t start building soon, we will not have the knowledge to build nuclear. Half of our nuclear engineers are within 2 years of retirement age. And after dealing with years of nimbys most of them are ready to leave. Many colleges have also dropped their nuclear programs.
jeannie on July 21, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Don’t I know it.
Buy Danish on July 21, 2008 at 8:51 AM
If Obambi goes pro-nuclear, he could lose Jane Fonda’s support – and the rest of Hollywood’s hate-America crowd.
OT. Last night I saw Obambi’s sister campaigning for him on C-SPAN. But, but, but, don’t attack his family.
fogw on July 21, 2008 at 8:53 AM
A reporter was seated next to a little girl on the airplane when the reporter turned to her and said, ‘Let’s talk. I’ve heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.’
The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the stranger, ‘What would you like to talk about?’
‘Oh, I don’t know,’ said the reporter. ‘How about nuclear power?’ and he smiles.
‘OK, ‘ she said. ‘That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. ‘A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff — grass, am I right ?’ asked the young girl. ‘Correct, spot on,’ said the reporter.
The little girl continued, ‘Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?’
The reporter, visibly surprised by the little girl’s intelligence, thinks about it and says, ‘Hmmm, I have no idea.’
To which the little girl replies, ‘Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don’t know shit?
Keemo on July 21, 2008 at 9:00 AM
If it says “nuclear” in its name, it must be bad.
Just like that damn Nuclear Medicine…
naaaaasty stuff.
Mephistefales on July 21, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Nuclear power is still, next to drilling in ANWR, the Great Satan of the biggest environmental zealots. If Obama decides to cross this line, I doubt he’ll do it before the DNC convention, in order to avoid stirring up a hornet’s nest of a fight in the platform committee (and of course, were he to do that, the Hillary people would never, ever voice a contrarian position on nuclear power for mere political expeidency at the convention, because the Clintons have never been known to do anything like that…)
jon1979 on July 21, 2008 at 9:02 AM
It is all Jane Fonda’s fault.
joeswampy on July 21, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Heh.
Jaibones on July 21, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Let me write the spin for Obama:
“Due to new advances in nuclear technology, now is the time to begin production of new, modern, safe nuclear power stations that can reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”
Seixon on July 21, 2008 at 9:29 AM
If Obama is willing to get on board with streamlining the process for getting new reactors built and a full review of the NRC, that’s one flip flop I’ll forgive him for and welcome him onboard the energy train.
Jazz Shaw on July 21, 2008 at 9:31 AM
We should have 500 nuclear power plants in the country and get 90% of our energy from them.
If 19 year olds can safely run nuclear plants on subs and ships then I think even union guys could do it.
I’m in Nevada PLEASE SEND US THE WASTE!
Mojave Mark on July 21, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Hope & Change have reached the sub-atomic level!
Limerick on July 21, 2008 at 9:54 AM
That’s a very generous way to characterize their relentless cheerleading for Backtrack Obama.
I guess you haven’t heard about Obama’s plan to “fast-track” development of these alternative energies. The promise of vast wealth has not been enough to motivate anyone to come up with a way to use these energy sources cheaply and efficiently, but magical Barry O will speak — “get on it, and hurry up about it” and it shall be done.
AZCoyote on July 21, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Yes, but the Navy hasn’t, and some of those guys will be looking for good paying jobs when they leave.
Although, I wouldn’t place too much stock in union guys over 19-year-olds.
CurtZHP on July 21, 2008 at 9:57 AM
You beat me to it.
Johan Klaus on July 21, 2008 at 10:08 AM
When those 19 and 20 somethings get out of the navy a lot of them slide right into civilian nuclear power for a lot more money. The industry hires every one of them that they can get. There just aren’t enough of them any more. One of the largest hurdles the companies face right now is getting enough people to man and run existing plants. They’re just now starting to address the problem of new plants. One company is willing to send prospective applicants who meet the criteria to college on the company’s dime. That’s four years of totally unproductive time with salary and benefits plus whatever the college costs. Needless to say they are offering big bucks to pull retirees back as ‘consultants’. As far as spent fuel storage I’ll tell you right now that the industry doesn’t need Yucca mountain. The government vacillated too long on that dog so the industry just solved the problem themselves.
Oldnuke on July 21, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Most of the new nukes will go on existing sites to minimize the public hearing time and establishing the required evac plans; 30 were in the works before the energy crisis become a hot topic. The nukes are a new design that are much more safe when challenged by natural disasters, terrorist acts or human error,
Yea, there were no primary and secondary containments, we know them, in the old Soviet design except for those built in Finland as required by the Finland government. And the reactor personnel let a test be performed that compromised the safety systems of the reactor to boot.
I trust the technology but there is an inherent profit vs. safety conflict during the operation of a reactor; as a former licensed senior operator/relief shift supervisor/plant engineer, I can say that those directly controlling the reactor could find themselves second guessing their actions in an unclear situation. That is if in the back of their mind they fear that shutting down the reactor on the side of safety, and being wrong, would “ruin” their career. Multiple millions of dollars are lost when a 1200 MW reactor is shutdown because of the loss of power production and the cost of replacement power and the possibility of grid fines for not providing the contracted power; the loss of power for close to 300,000 households.
As example of where giving almost total freedom to consider safety first over profit during operations has worked quite well, one can consider air flight controllers. They are removed from the administrative controls of the airports they serve since they are government employees (FAA). While certified by the government (NRC) and re-licensed by the same every two years and in-house tested yearly, the control room operations staff are employees of the utility. Some do have union protection. As anyone knows, bucking or somehow costing the “system” can result in serious career damage. I’m just saying that this is seldom heard in any discussion about nuclear power.
amr on July 21, 2008 at 10:12 AM
The U.S. military is amazing. Just watching the young men on aicraft carriers operate under very stressful situations, without a hitch, makes me very proud.
Johan Klaus on July 21, 2008 at 10:12 AM
I think this situation varies from company to company. I know what you’re talking about here believe me. The company I worked for, however, didn’t take that approach when dealing with licensed personnel. I’ve talked to other SROs though who worked in a different environment. It could also depend on when you were in the business. Where and when were you licensed?
Oldnuke on July 21, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Wait until the feasibility study is completed for building nuclear power plants on Military Bases.
BDU-33 on July 21, 2008 at 10:36 AM
good stuff, I do disagree with the hydroelectric part though, a lot of east coast US energy at peak demand is coming from Canadian hydro facilities, they are safe, relatively clean. The drawback is the need to flood huge areas as a basin, only in sparsely populated areas in more northern climes is that feasible.
saus on July 21, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Democrats- The No Energy Party.
They want a green economic collapse.
(Imagine all the nice green weeds growing everywhere.)
profitsbeard on July 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Oldnuke on July 21, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Enlighten me oldnuke, what’s the real name for the “smoke stacks” at a nuclear power plant? And also, isn’t that actually steam coming out? It’s just harmless steam right?
The news media loves to focus on the tops of those “stacks” to give the ominous impression of pollution being put into the air, but in fact, it think, that’s only steam…. right?
Maxx on July 21, 2008 at 11:21 AM
We have been gnawing on the fusion bone for decades longer.
burt on July 21, 2008 at 11:41 AM
The new generation of nuclear reactors, like pebble bed reactors, are safer, produce less waste and are more efficient. I wonder how many of those 8 reactors are new designs.
More to the point, we need full scale funding for the Bussard polywell fusion reactor. So far research grants from the Navy and Congress have allowed the team to stay together, but on a shoestring budget. The science is sound and safe, the initial testing is more than promising and it would cost way less than one conventional nuclear plant to build a full-size test reactor, just $200 million.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/03/mr-fusion.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
rokemronnie on July 21, 2008 at 12:28 PM
They’re called cooling towers and not all nukes have them, but lots of fossil fuelers do. Maxx the discharge from those things is not even steam it’s just water vapor. The nuke plant where I worked didn’t have them. We did have some small cooling towers used for a cooling subsystem but the main condenser cooling was a once through system without cooling towers.
All of them.
Oldnuke on July 21, 2008 at 12:42 PM
My i know someone that works at a nuclear power plant in Northern Illinois maybe he could tour that plant thats right in his backyard..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Chakra Hammer on July 21, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Byron Nuclear Generating Station Illinois
In 2005 the plant generated on average about 2,300 MWe, enough power to supply about 2 million average American homes. The station, 2 miles (3.2 km) east of the Rock River, employs over 600 people
Chakra Hammer on July 21, 2008 at 4:56 PM
MSNBC = JACKASSES
byteshredder on July 21, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Illinois gets much of its energy from nuclear power. Obama could tour Braidwood, Zion, Quad Cities, or Dresden as well as Byron.
OmegaPaladin on July 21, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Oldnuke on July 21, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Licensed in the 1970’s and shifted to startup from 1979 until 1992 in nukes. Then moved to gas and coal fired units. Was a submarine navy nuke from 1965 – 71. Saw this in client organizations while I was in SU. My management was fine. I evac’ed the contaimment once when instruments showed we were going prompt critical while we were SD. “Knew” the instruments were wrong but couldn’t get MC/radio clarification that they were not messing with the fuel. They were welding which inducing a false signal. When in doubt follow procedures that reduce the situation to a safe level. Caused a bit of contamination with everyone exiting in Anti-Cs and a schedule delay of a day or two. I was still promoted to relief SS and plant engineer
They’ll need some old hands to guide the young ones with just book learning. Take care and be safe.
amr on July 22, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Comment pages: