Skip to main content

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

Maria Korsnick of Nuclear Energy Institute

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled more gas into the electricity marketplace.

At a nuclear plant, all that fuel that that the reactor needs is already on site for the 18 months or 24 months that that plant will run. That fuel firmness of the existing reactors is something that the marketplace needs to value. And there is progress to be made at the existing plants and for the advanced reactors of the future.

There is already Republican and Democratic support for R&D for advanced nuclear, new reactor concepts that will produce higher-quality heat and that take materials that some people think of as waste and consume them as fuel.

There are changes ahead. The new administration seems likely to step back from the Clean Power Plan and the Paris climate agreement.

Maria Korsnick spoke with Monica Trauzi of E&E TV on energy policy and the Trump Administration. Click the image to watch the interview. 

But the Clean Power Plan really didn't help the current fleet nearly that much, so losing it is not a huge impact. Many of the states, on the other hand, will still pursue a low-carbon strategy, even if it is not mandated by Washington, and they will value nuclear power.

And regardless of your opinion about carbon, nuclear power plants emit nothing, so they also cut the levels of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, and particulates. So there's other valuable propositions that nuclear brings to the marketplace.

Under Republicans and Democrats, Washington looks for solutions that have something for everybody. Nuclear is still zero carbon, which appeals to a substantial segment of America no matter who is in the White House, and it reduces smog and haze, which appeals to others. It provides jobs and is an underpinning of national prosperity, which should appeal to almost everyone.

The above is a guest post from NEI's Chief Operating Officer, Maria Korsnick. On January 1, 2017, Korsnick will become NEI's President and CEO.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …