Arkansas Blog: Vic Snyder on nuclear energy

Courtesy of the limitless frontiers of the Internet, some thoughts from U.S. Rep. Vic Snyder on what pending energy legislation provides on nuclear energy. You'll see that he's sending the piece around because it was rejected for publication by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, which had published some opposing views from U.S. Rep. Mike Ross and the newspaper's editorial page on the subject.

FROM U.S. REP. VIC SNYDER'S OFFICE

The Searcy Daily Citizen published the attached op-ed on Friday, November 6, 2009, in their print edition. This piece was originally submitted to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in order to give some balance to a Democrat-Gazette op-ed by Congressman Mike Ross and a Democrat-Gazette editorial. However, the Democrat-Gazette decided not to print the piece. Congressman Snyder thought you might want to see what the Daily Citizen readers in White County were able to read.

Daily Citizen Article:

Nuclear power: Part of the solution

While the recent debate on health care reform has been spirited, another critical debate regarding America's energy future deserves attention. A key goal in the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the House of Representatives recently, is to address the issue of climate change by encouraging efficiency and promoting the development and use of alternative energy. Critics of the bill have argued that the Clean Energy bill is flawed because it does not sufficiently promote the expansion of nuclear energy. A recent editorial in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette echoes that point of view.
These critics, however, stand at odds with leaders in the nuclear energy industry who want to expand nuclear power in America.

Wayne Leonard, president and CEO of Entergy Corp has stated that the bill moves toward establishing the necessary price signals for carbon dioxide to drive innovation and investment in energy efficiency and new energy technologies. John Rowe, chairman and CEO of Exelon which has the largest nuclear portfolio in the nation also has been vocal in his support of the bill. In fact, Exelon recently took the dramatic step of terminating its longtime membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce due to the chamber's opposition to this Clean Energy bill. Other large utilities with nuclear holdings, including PNM Resources and Pacific Gas and Electric, have also left the chamber because of their belief that the bill establishes a more stable business environment for nuclear power expansion while addressing climate change.

In addition to these business leaders, other nuclear experts have weighed in on the Clean Energy bill. The Nuclear Energy Institute perhaps the premier nuclear energy institute in the country asserted that "this legislation can help stimulate construction of the advanced design nuclear power plants that our nation needs. Additionally, a recent analysis of the bill by the Energy Information Administration revealed that it would result in an additional 96 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity (69 new units) by 2030. As a result, nuclear energy is projected to supply 33 percent of US electricity in 2030, more than any other source.

As I have said before, the Clean Energy bill is neither perfect nor final. Can it be improved? Of course. The Senate will soon debate its own version of energy legislation that will likely look much different than the bill passed by the House. As this legislative process progresses, I expect the bill to improve. I look forward to supporting a final bill that will promote nuclear and advanced technologies, promote renewable energy sources, and demonstrate America's leadership to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. For those of us who support expanded nuclear power in America, the Clean Energy bill is a significant step in the right direction. Just ask those who want to build nuclear power plants.

By: Vic Snyder (D), U.S. Representative for Arkansas.

Comments

Nuclear energy is a good thing. Vic is being disingenuous though. The reason that Entergy and Exelon and other nuclear providers support cap and trade is NOT because they want stability and certainty. It is because with nuclear energy there is nothing to CAP. If these companies are given allowances by the government as part of a cap and trade plan, and they have nothing to cap, then they can TRADE 100% of their allowances for cold hard cash. And under that scenario, who wouldn't want to build MORE nuclear power plants?

At least Saint Vic could be honest about why these companies support cap and trade. its not to do us all a favor and build more plants, its to make MONEY.

If Vic wants to see more nuclear power plants built he should start by pressuring the FERC to approve existing applications for nuclear plants. We don't need cap and trade for that to happen.

Posted by: TheBusDriver | November 12, 2009 04:44 PM

You mean NRC don't you TBD. I'm an old nuke and I support more nuclear generating plants, however, if the FERC and not NRC controls the licensing of nuclear plants, we are in a lot of trouble.

I think that nuclear power is safe, but requires intelligent exerienced nuclear trained engineers and physicists to evaluate new plant proposals. I don't think overseers of interstate electricity sales, wholesale electric rates, hydroelectric licensing, natural gas pricing, oil pipeline rates liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, interstate natural gas pipelines and non-federal hydropower projects quite rise to that level.

Posted by: dottholliday | November 12, 2009 04:57 PM

I think we should store all nuclear waste in Vic Snyders triplets bedroom until mankind can come up with a safe place to store it.

Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR | November 12, 2009 06:23 PM

Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR | November 12, 2009 06:28 PM

I think that we should do what the gore crowd want us to do. Get rid of all these carbon based fuels----coal and oil. Rely solely on wind power, solar and natural gas (I think that is an ok power source.). It that doesn't provide enough juice----tough! When people get their energy bill we will just send them all to your guys who support this idiocy.

Posted by: beauragard | November 12, 2009 09:02 PM

beau, where do you think natural gas comes from? Cow buttholes?

It's just as much carbon based as oil & coal, and it puts just as much CO2 in the air; it just doesn't make such a mess when it gets loose.

Posted by: 70%er | November 12, 2009 11:01 PM

"Eureka Springs" thinks nuclear waste should be stored in the bedroom of Vic Snyder's three children. I can understand opposition to nuclear power, but I can't understand why anyone would wish three children dead because they disagree with the children's father. Outrageous.

Posted by: Casimer Pulaski | November 13, 2009 02:22 AM

Am I wrong in my concern that the ADG refused to print Vic's piece? Does the ADG not think that it's readers want, or need, this information? I'd strongly disagree, if so.

Posted by: Blue Hope | November 13, 2009 02:36 AM

Oh fer chris sakes CP... get a sense of dark political humor.

Besides... he's certainly not worried about the thousands of years nuclear waste will lay around and poison millions if not billions of other children (and everyone else)... not worried enough, anyhow. Because there is no safe place to store it in mass quantities for the amount of time needed.. and he must know this by now.

Last I heard.. our own nuke plant has piles of waste just sitting by the AR River now... that runoff can't be good no matter which way it flows. Certainly not over thousands of years.

Posted by: Eureka Springs, AR | November 13, 2009 09:50 AM

Quoted by Eureka Springs "Last I heard.. our own nuke plant has piles of waste just sitting by the AR River now... that runoff can't be good no matter which way it flows."

Well, you heard wrong.

There are no piles of waste just sitting by the Arkansas River now, nor will there ever be. Furthermore the spent fuel rods are properly stored within containers that are considered by all interested parties as being incapable of leaking.

Please, consider trying to provide source facts before you start spouting off scare non-facts which only serve to substantiate your personal discord for nuclear power instead of representing verifiable factual data.

Posted by: IrradiatedFuelHandler | November 13, 2009 08:04 PM

Arkansas Blog

Vic Snyder on nuclear energy

Comments

Post a comment