Spring              New Moon

…the question can be raised whether mankind benefits from knowing the secrets of Nature, whether it is ready to profit from it, or whether this knowledge will not be harmful for it.

~ Pierre Curie, a French physicist, in his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in Physics, shared with Marie Curie, for their work in radioactive substances, especially radium (1905)

=====

Informational Hearing on the Minnesota Nuclear Moratorium

=====

Was the hearing last night about the ban on construction of new nuclear plants in Minnesota?  It did not feel that way.   Little direct testimony focused on the question of lifting the ban or retaining it.  Even so, it seemed the debate was right on point.  What point?  The real question in the room last night, the real subject of discussion, was the energy future of our country and our state.

Each expert agreed with the need for energy independence.  Each expert agreed that carbon-free energy production was the right way to get to that goal.  Each expert saw expansion of renewable energy as either a viable solution or a viable part of a solution.   Divergence came over how long it would take for renewable energy to reach a critical mass (hmm). Nuclear energy proponents imagined a long time frame for the spread of renewable energy.  Renewable energy experts Arjun Makhijani (see book cover) and Jim Harding made a case for wind, solar, hydro and geo-thermal as ready to scale up now.

The key importance of this hearing lay in its ability to leverage a debate of this kind: a debate not about whether to move toward energy independence, but how, a debate not about whether to achieve carbon free energy production, but how, a debate not about whether renewable energy makes sense, but when.  Taken in this light the ban in Minnesota has had its long term desired effect, not only has it prevented any new nuclear plants,  it has forced the question of energy production into the larger conversation about environmentally sound energy policy.

It was, last night, the proponents of nuclear power who were on the defensive.  They had to explain why the new generation of nuclear plants are safe.  They had to contend with the waste disposal issue and there was no convincing testimony on this intractable problem.

======

If you wish further information, here a few links from last night’s meeting:

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (Arjun Makhijani is the director.  His book, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free, is available as a free download on this site.)

Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding Report (Jim Harding, former director of Power Supply and Forecasting, Seattle City Light)  Jim showed ways that renewables could be used to create base-load energy.  One of the argument pro-nuclear folks use is, for example, the wind doesn’t always blow, meaning renewable energy, while desirable, cannot be counted on to provide predictable energy supply.  Thus, nuclear provides a carbon-free (non coal, non gas, non oil) way of supplying base-load energy.  Harding recounted his experience in Seattle where a combination of hydro and wind do supply base-load energy.

NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute)  Adrian Heymer presented the case for nuclear generation as a staff person for the NEI, the industry trade association.  His basic argument had these components:  1.  Nuclear generation is a mature technology with considerable advances in place in effeciency and safety.  2.  Energy independence requires all options, including nuclear, to be in the mix.  3.  Nuclear is the non-carbon emitting generation method of choice for base-load energy because it is a proven technology and already provides 20% of the nation’s electricity.