A panel discussion of the drivers and restrainers to building new Nuclear Energy plants in the US. The panel is well rounded with Stewart Brand, Michael Brune and Industry represtentation.This is part one of five, the others are in order after it.
“We can’t keep on being mired in the same old stale arguments between the left and the right.” This is all too true – we have to have cheap clean safe energy in plenty if we are to cope with the problems of our future.
Lawhawk on the Dollars and Sense of Emission Reductions
Lawhawk has a good article up on what it takes to really reduce to emissions targets that our President will talk about in Copenhagen; I recommend you stop by and read it.
President Obama and I agree
I usually have quibbles, reservations, or complete disagreement with much of what our President says, but here I am in 100 percent agreement. Like it our not we are a high energy society. If we want our planet clean then we must have abundant clean energy to keep it that way. Approximately 25 percent of our domestic electricity production is used to clean sewage and treat water, something few people are aware of. Increased Nuclear energy here creates better prospects for our future prosperity, but also better chance for prosperity in the rest of the world. The current world food security crisis is driven in large respect by energy constraints, and we need to remove those constraints to fight hunger and to enable poor nations to improve their lifestyles; which will lead to clean futures everywhere.
Virgin CEO Branson Fully Favors Nuclear Energy
Richard is somewhat halting in public speaking but what he says here is very pertinent and right on the money.
This is exactly in synch with what oil economy specialists say, especially in light of the new restrictions on shipping diesel fuel. The sooner we can free up more light sweet crude from power production for transport, the better.
North Korean Nuclear Test
North Korea has performed another underground nuclear test, and test launched more missiles. Video from AP
President Obama’s Statement:
Today, North Korea said that it has conducted a nuclear test in violation of international law. It appears to also have attempted a short range missile launch. These actions, while not a surprise given its statements and actions to date, are a matter of grave concern to all nations. North Korea’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons, as well as its ballistic missile program, constitute a threat to international peace and security.
By acting in blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council, North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community. North Korea’s behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia. Such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea’s isolation. It will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
The danger posed by North Korea’s threatening activities warrants action by the international community. We have been and will continue working with our allies and partners in the Six-Party Talks as well as other members of the U.N. Security Council in the days ahead.
Obama’s Nuclear Energy Limbo
A good post is up at NEI discussing the ambiguity of the Obama Adminstration’s stance on new nuclear energy plants in the face of the push for cap and tax:
If a cap and a price are imposed on carbon dioxide emissions, [nuclear] plants could be among the biggest economic winners in the vast economic shifts that would be created by greenhouse gas regulations.
That’s from the New York Times, borrowing a story from Climate Wire, which while noting the nuclear plants achieve the goal of carbon emission reduction rather well, runs though the tough sledding it faces.
For example, President Obama is overly ambiguous in his support:
“The president needs to show his cards on nuclear energy,” said energy consultant Joseph Stanislaw, a Duke University professor. “He cannot keep this industry, which must make investments with a 50-year or longer horizon, in limbo for much longer.”
We’re not absolutely sure this is the right way to put it – Congress weighs in, too, and we’ve seen an EPA report that basically shows that carbon emission reduction goals are unattainable without nuclear energy. The nibbling around the edges is happening from both ends.