“U.S. ‘very bullish’ on new nuclear technology, Granholm says.” Yahoo

“In an interview at the U.N. Climate Change Conference, Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm told Yahoo News on Friday that the Biden administration is “very bullish” on building new nuclear reactors in the United States.

“We are very bullish on these advanced nuclear reactors,” she said. “We have, in fact, invested a lot of money in the research and development of those. We are very supportive of that.

Nuclear energy is controversial among environmental activists and experts because while it does not create the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, it has the potential to trigger dangerous nuclear meltdowns and creates radioactive nuclear waste.

Most of the Biden administration’s effort to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and almost all the rhetoric at the climate change conference, also known as COP26, is about promoting other clean forms of energy, such as wind and solar power.

But Granholm noted that wind and solar are not yet capable of generating “baseload” capacity, meaning power that can be reliably ramped up to meet demand even when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.” Yahoo

Comment: I have always been partial to this woman. Maybe it has been for her looks which have always been spectacular. Maybe it is because we are both dual US and Canadian citizens. Unfortunately, this is the first sensible thing I have heard her say in a long time. She is right of course, first nuclear and then fusion are the answers to the world’s energy needs. pl

https://news.yahoo.com/us-very-bullish-on-new-nuclear-technology-granholm-says-110016617.html

 5,588 total views,  10 views today

This entry was posted in Canada, Science, The economy. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to “U.S. ‘very bullish’ on new nuclear technology, Granholm says.” Yahoo

  1. Mikew says:

    The woman is a leftist clown. Her reaction to the OPEC increasing production question this week is evidence of her having no clue.

    If you really want to see her in her most cringe inducing state, watch her weird address to the Democratic Convention in 2012. She breaks into an odd almost rap like cadence.

  2. Deap says:

    Nuclear is the best option, all things considered. Absent the nuclear holocaust taint from WWII, where would its status be today had it been developed only for peaceful energy generation.

    Would there be such a visceral fear about nuclear wastes? Though at this point the fallout from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents probably exceeds that from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    I pray we may have finally put threats of wartime or even terrorism nuclear holocaust to bed. So why haven’t domestic use nuclear waste fears being put to bed as well, and we can now proceed in baby steps to a green future for nuclear?

  3. Sam says:

    Nuclear is the best way to get clean base load. The wokesters seem determined to crush American competitiveness. China is building thousands of nuclear reactors in addition to more coal and gas plants. They don’t care a rats ass about GHG emissions. The west can’t reduce what China is going to add.

    If we unleash a nuclear reactor construction boom based on next generation technologies which use previous spent fuel and operate at ambient pressures not only will we get rid of radioactive waste productively, we’ll have practical experience in constructing and operating the most modern reactors. We’ve got to get out from the regulatory handcuffs and political chicanery that extends the lifecycle of these projects to decades.

  4. DougDiggler says:

    This is the best news environmentalists could ask for. How about this tim,
    We avoid building the reactors on fault lines and maybe build the very latest technology in the field?

  5. Fred says:

    I used to respect Granholm a great deal, however, over time I have come to believe she’s just an opportunistic politician. Like the current governor of Michigan she also wanted to shut down line 5 into the UP. That is to both cater to environmental elements in the party, who vote heavily in primary elections, and also structure the energy market to aid her and her party’s doners.

  6. Fred says:

    Looks like I closed the comment too soon. Biden’s gonna screw us again with another pipeline shutdown order.
    https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2021/11/06/biden-considers-killing-another-us-pipeline-as-oil-crisis-continues-n471035

  7. TTG says:

    It’s good that Granholm and, I presume, Biden are supportive of these newer nuclear power technologies and realize that wind and solar are just not going to cut it any time soon. Even AOC in her GND acknowledged that nuclear power is necessary to replace the use of fossil fuels. All this should make the employment of these new nuclear power technologies possible. My fear is that Republican governors will resist nuclear purely out of a desire to resist Biden and the Democrats. They might join hands with the hard core anti-nuclear crowd, to include Tulsi Gabbard, just to deny a Democratic win.

    • James Treleaven says:

      TTG –
      My research indicates that Tulsi is pro-nuclear “as long as there is no public subsidy”.
      https://www.isidewith.com/candidates/tulsi-gabbard/policies/science/nuclear-energy

      I myself am *very* pro-nuclear-energy.

      • TTG says:

        Glad to hear Tulsi is not a rabid anti-nuclear activist. She wouldn’t sign on to the GND specifically because it was willing to support nuclear power as a way to move away from fossil fuels. Some of these new smaller modular reactors would be a lot more affordable than our present behemoths.

        • James says:

          I tracked down her position on the Green New Deal and it was of course just as you said. Pity. I really like Tulsi.

    • Fred says:

      TTG,

      “My fear is that Republican governors will resist nuclear purely out of a desire to resist Biden and the Democrats.”

      They don’t need to do any of that at all. The environmental lobby and existing regulations already put the licensing time out to a decade or more.

  8. walrus says:

    When leftists become cold and hungry, they too will agree to burn uranium.

    • Pat Lang says:

      walrus
      This is a different IP than the one I blocked. OK. You have been gone long enough.

    • English Outsider says:

      Trouble is, Walrus, that nuclear only does base load.

      It doesn’t give the instant kick needed for when the wind drops. That can only be done by hydro or open circuit gas. Is it even responsive enough to act as a spinning reserve? That is, can it be kept ticking over but brought up to full power quickly enough when needed?

      The little I’ve read seems to indicate that it’s even more of a base load only means of power generation than coal.

      I don’t know whether the AGM fuss is a scam or not. There were lots of scammers around in the early days but I’m told the science has been cleaned up since. But EROEI is not a scam by any account.

      That’s solid and provable reality. I’ve been proving it for years every time I fill my oil tank. I suspect the UK politicians are waving their arms around so frantically because they want to nudge us into being scared enough to accept nuclear. That’s more the case than in Australia and the US because you have lots of space and we haven’t. So there’s more local resistance to building nuclear here.

      So there should be. These installations take an army of skilled engineers and technicians, and a further army of security forces, to keep them safe. And that into the indefinite future even when they are no longer producing power. What happens when that army can no longer get to work?

      We’ve already seen such conditions of societal breakdown in the Middle East and elsewhere. Can we guarantee that won’t happen anywhere in the developed world for the next few centuries?

      • English Outsider says:

        Apologies – “AGW”!!!

      • Fred says:

        EO,

        “Trouble is, Walrus, that nuclear only does base load.”

        That’s not true at all. The reason is not engineering it is economics. Zero power output means zero revenue. That’s why solar and wind need all those subsidies and regulatory policies to prevent other much more economical means for production from being used or even built. Economics is why the Chinese are going to build coal plants: Low cost electricity for their industrial base and consumers. It will increase their industrial capabilities at all levels and increase the middle class’ standard of living. We are going to destroy ours the same way you’ve been destroying yours in the EU for years. If you are rich, or a government employee who’ll get raises for years to come, those changes effect you little, or in the former case, not at all.

        • English Outsider says:

          Fred – I may have used a term – “base load” – that isn’t used in the States.

          On outsourcing, one reason I was so keen on your President Trump back in 2016 was because he was the only major Western politician to see it for the destructive nonsense it was.

          As for Europe, France put up a spirited but sadly ineffectual resistance to outsourcing way back and the only properly functioning large economy here, Germany, is gradually falling prey to the same disease.

          Unless HMG is saying one thing and doing another the UK is still following that outsourcing path. Ricardo rules, though the trading environment Ricardo was considering is so markedly different to the trading environment now.

          Maybe exchange rates will do for us in the UK what the politicians won’t and remedy the position that way. Exchange rate mechanics are different for the dollar so, barring accidents, those in the US who also believe outsourcing is ultimately suicidal will presumably have to wait for a Trump redivivus.

          Back in 2016 I wrote to you on Colonel Lang’s site and asked if we’d reached “Peak Prog”. The succeeding years answered that question decisively. 2016 was comparatively mild in that respect compared with what’s been seen since. But I believe that unless we’re all intent on rushing further downhill we’d better hope we’ve reached “Peak Globalism”.

  9. Deap says:

    WSJ this morning reports on the very hot market for “environmental” investing. Which they report has been very good for Wall Street, but also reports there no objective proof it has actually been good for the environment.

    More virtue-signaling on steroids.

Comments are closed.