More Nuclear Plants for Mississippi?

Several governors and senators from Southern states met this week at the Southern States Energy Board to discuss topics such as oil and gas development, nuclear energy legislation and Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)  and Governor Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) were among the participants who led the conversation on nuclear energy issues.

Gov. Barbour voiced his support for building another nuclear energy plant in Mississippi.

Candidly, we’d love to have another nuclear power plant. … We don’t have, ‘Not in my backyard.’ We have, ‘Please in my backyard.’

Gov. Barbour’s support for nuclear energy is not unfounded, as Mississippi’s Grand Gulf 1 nuclear energy plant makes up more than 17 percent of the state’s total electricity generation and 100 percent of the state’s total emission-free electricity. The state relies heavily on natural gas (54 percent), which can cause steep fluctuations on electricity prices for the state’s residents. In addition, Mississippi’s geographic region and weather conditions do not necessarily lend themselves to renewable energy sources (a problem among some other Southern states as well), which makes the continued development of nuclear energy an attractive option.

Sen. Graham at the meeting called for increased support from environmentalists in Congress on developing nuclear energy policies. There are several key issues he believes need to be addressed. Platts reports:

Nuclear regulations should be “streamlined,” he [Sen. Graham] said, saying that it takes twice as long to license and build a nuclear plant in the U.S. than it does in France. Utilities investing in large nuclear projects need to ensure that a lawsuit does not hold them up in the final year of construction.

And continued:

In addition, municipal- and state-owned electricity cooperatives that participate in nuclear projects should be allowed to transfer the tax credits they would have received to for-profit utilities, he said. That would allow Santee Cooper, the electric company owned by South Carolina, to transfer production tax credits it would have received from its new nuclear projects to investor-owned Duke Energy, Graham said.

More on the Southern States Energy Board can be found on their website.

Photo of Gov. Barbour at the Southern States Energy Board on Oct. 4, 2011. Credits: George Altman, Washington Bureau

MBIQ Indicates Meteor Outbreak in Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana 25SEP2011

MBIQ (Meteor Bot Internet Query) Indicates Green Meteor Outbreak in Florida, Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama  25SEP2011

We need your sighting reports to confirm; thank you:
Date and Time of event? Location name (town,city) where you were when saw the meteor? Start and Stop location in sky? Direction of movement? Duration of Event (seconds)? Brightness ( in comparison

Editorial Round-Up

We've been on the hunt for editorials both negative and positive about nuclear energy to see if there are themes that can be identified. Many resolve that nuclear energy is the surest way to help the country reach emissions goals and see the event in Japan as a call to strengthen safety rules - both in this country and worldwide. But there are other approaches, too.
---
This op-ed from The New Straits Times (in Malaysia) is negative and very much wants Malaysia to go to solar energy. The problem is, nuclear energy is less expensive. Ah, but that won't always be the case - maybe - down the road a piece:

Hence, the pertinent question in this energy debate is: How would the projected costs of solar power and nuclear power compare in the near future, say, in 10 years time? (2021 is the proposed date for Malaysia's first nuclear power plant).
If indeed the cost of electricity generated by the new nuclear power plants is rising, the cost of solar-generated electricity is likely to be cheaper by then.

Well, hope springs eternal. The credit on this op-ed is charmingly direct:

Associate Professor Dr Lan Boon Leong is an anti-nuclear physicist at Sunway campus of Monash University. He hopes the Fukushima nuclear crisis will end soon and wishes the best for the people of Japan.

We all share his sentiment. I hope "anti-nuclear physicist" isn't part of his title at the university.
---
Bill Crawford, a columnist at the Meridian (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger is for an all-in energy portfolio:

Just approved [Mississippi] Senate Bill 2723 adds authority to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality and the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board to oversee carbon sequestration. This, plus our new lignite coal, biomass and solar energy plants, our Grand Gulf single-reactor expansion, and our untapped offshore fields, give Mississippi the chance to show the world how to produce...and regulate...safe, clean energy.

It'll be interesting to see how this goes. 
---
The Glens Fall (N.Y.) Post-Star casts a kind of pox on all political houses by running a chart with energy policy statements dating back to President Nixon that all sound - really - similar. It continues:

What the U.S. needs is a lot less hot air and a lot more action. If this country is truly serious about achieving energy independence, the president and Congress can't just keep rehashing the same old platitudes. How about requiring that all new cars get at least 75 miles per gallon? You know they can do it. We know hybrid car technology is possible. How about stating that the U.S. would no longer make cars that aren't hybrids, and then taxing the hell out of companies that make traditional cars? How about announcing that in 10 years, the U.S. will replace its old nuclear power plants with the most modern, safe technology possible? No shortcuts. No easily avoidable worst-case scenarios. The best.

No messing around with the editorial board in Glens Falls, that's for sure. If you turn it just a bit, it's a call for government intervention into the energy market (and car market, too) and a ramp-up in regulation. I'm not judging it, but I think it would sound less appealing to many inside and outside industry put that way.
---
Up in Oregon, the Register-Guard's Vip Short has been against nuclear energy for a pretty long time and has the record to show for it:

Here in Oregon, I was the first person arrested at our first and only live nuke plant, along with hundreds of others as time unfolded. Subsequent court hearings, even when they resulted in trespass convictions, were victorious in the sense that we were able to field numerous expert witnesses as part of our defense.

One thing I should note about Oregon is that the political needle in some communities can tip further left than is typically seen in the media. It's definitely seen here:

Society’s energy “needs” (“wants” being the more operative word) exist on one side of the scales, and society’s concern for preventing the fouling of the only nest we have is on the other. It is up to us, the people, to educate ourselves and ensure rational protections. If we leave it to the money people, the profiteers — well, we’ve seen what Wall Street’s greed can do to our economy. Short-sighted greed and arrogance will also wreck our living planet, if left to run free.

See? But despite the rhetoric - and leaving his dislike of nuclear energy to one side - Short isn't exactly wrong. I do think he lets an innate distrust of - well, institutions in general cloud his perspective. However, his sense that people ought to educate themselves on the issues and turn up at public and other meetings (or protests) and make themselves heard is exactly right. I can put up with the most intemperate rant if that's the core point. 

Kuala Lampur, Malaysia

All Around the Country: More Editorials

An editorial from The Herald Times Reporter in Wisconsin takes a reasonably concerned stance:

Sara Cassidy of the Point Beach plant said the facility's design and maintenance are based on the worst-case seismic scenario for the plant's location.

And Mark Kanz of the Kewaunee nuclear plant said its owner, Dominion Resources, would review all of its safety systems.

They all are comforting, albeit predictable, statements.

Comforting, we hope, predictable, maybe, true, yes.

In this case, however, we put more stock in the past than in what might happen in a future impossible to predict. The Point Beach and Kewaunee facilities have, for the most part, had clean safety records since going online in the 1970s.

There have been occasional glitches, but they were thoroughly examined by the NRC and corrective measures were taken. None of the instances rose to the level of seriously compromising public safety.

We can be thankful that current and previous management of the local nuclear facilities has been, if not always stellar, at least proficient to the point of keeping the plants operating safely and efficiently.

I’ll bow to local media on how “stellar” management of the plants have been – though I suspect that’s a newspaper’s watchdog instinct at work – it’s really the conclusion that counts:

We hope that nuclear power, with ongoing and thorough oversight, will continue to be part of the nation's energy landscape for many years to come.

---

The Natchez (Miss.) Democrat takes the same tone as the Wisconsin paper and for the same reason: there’s a nuclear plant in the neighborhood. But like Wisconsin, the tone here is concerned and supportive:

Thus far the track record in the U.S. has been good.

In terms of human lives lost, coal mining and oil and gas drilling have proven far more deadly to the workers involved in their production than nuclear energy production.

However, it’s the threat of being harmed by invisible radiation associated with nuclear energy that gives many people fear.

Most of us know we’ll rarely be in a coal mine or on an oil rig in the gulf, but the notion that radiation might seep into our lives and harm us is enough to worry even the most calm among us.

When the current crisis has passed, we hope our nation — and the world — considers bolstering the already stringent nuclear regulations to help avoid another crisis in the future. By all accounts, our world needs the potent energy creating aspects of nuclear power, but we need to continue our excellent record of safety.

Let’s leave to one side that American regulation didn’t play a part one way or another in Japan – the desire to see that regulation is strengthened here at home is certainly valid. The editorial board at the Democrat might want to go over here to learn more about radiation.

---

The Washington Times is not known for nuance. This editorial takes up the issue of Yucca Mountain:

President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise to his radical supporters by zeroing out funding for Yucca Mountain in his fiscal 2011 budget last year. Then his energy secretary, Steven Chu, tasked nuclear energy backers with finding a different disposal solution.

This is true except for the whole “radical supporters” bit. To the Times, “radical” just means ideologically left of center and even that’s a stretch in this instance.

The O [for Obama, I guess]  Force is pursuing an unrealistic energy policy that is free of nuclear power and anything that emits carbon dioxide.

Well, we agree with the basic premise of the editorial that Yucca Mountain may warrant another look, but the haze of ideology is awfully thick here. Obama has been quite explicit – many times – about his support for nuclear energy, so the Times just seems way off base.

---

The Times’ editorial, though, did lead me to wonder whether the idea of a second look at Yucca Mountain might be picking up energy. So, a bit. Here’s an op-ed from Dennis Burney in the Chicago Tribune:

Scientific studies concluded that the best burial site is under Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. Congress approved and required ComEd and other nuclear power customers to pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund to finance disposal.

But Burney really has other advice to offer:

But no more studies are needed. There's a technology, called the Integral Fast Reactor, that could produce abundant, safe, environmentally friendly and less expensive nuclear power. IFR supporters said it would provide an inexhaustible and domestic fuel supply, while solving the spent-fuel problem.

I’ll let this one alone – it’s interesting to see the discussion. Doesn’t really count as a Yucca Mountain revival piece, though.

Downtown Natchez – maybe on a Sunday.