Quantcast

ECU Commission identifies nuclear and natural gas as sustainable

Send signed letters to [email protected]

Connecticut’s leaders who have long focused on using public funds to secure “green energy” may want to give attention to a recent European Commission report (BBC) identifying both nuclear fuel and natural gas as “sustainable sources” of energy investment. That would expand public policy investment choices beyond both solar and offshore wind, neither of which can provide primary energy sources for Connecticut.

Our state’s energy costs, among the highest nationally, have been cited as an important impediment to encouraging major new business investment. Connecticut’s economy/employment level has remained stagnant now for over an entire decade (U.S. Department of Commerce). Only two other States can make that disappointment statement – Wyoming and Alaska – each having a relatively small population. Clearly the European Commission report ought rekindle Connecticut State discussions on how to expand our energy choices and reduce their costs. Securing low energy costs would greatly enhance our ability to attract major new business investment and good jobs.

Peter I Berman

6 comments

Audrey Cozzarin February 7, 2022 at 4:58 pm

As far as I know, natural gas is a fossil fuel and therefore pollutes.

Have never been a fan of nuclear power–extremely dangerous if mismanaged.

Bryan Kerschner February 7, 2022 at 5:11 pm

Nuclear energy is by FAR the best solution to climate change and energy pricing while we continue to expand and improve solar/wind/hydro energy. We need drastic investment into nuclear energy across the country. I’m glad the EU finally recognized this.

David February 8, 2022 at 7:00 am

Not sure I understand – the top two sources of electricity in Connecticut are Natural Gas and Nuclear (totaling approximately 98%). How does this news change anything for us? Especially where electric costs are concerned?

DryAsABone February 8, 2022 at 7:38 am

NatGas…heating the planet.
Nuclear…see Chernobyl and Fukushima.

I would never be so bold by trying to predict what is “right” but I really think it is easy to see what has gone wrong.

Frank Wainwright February 8, 2022 at 10:36 am

Had we invested in the latest, safest nuclear technologies years ago the climate discussion would be much different today.

DryAsABone February 8, 2022 at 8:13 pm

Frank…tell me what is safe about nuclear power.
Where does the waste go? Nevada? Nope.
There is nothing about it that is safe. Nothing.

I get it:
“Total greenhouse gas emissions from power plants in California increased by 35% from 2011 to 2012, according to figures from the California Air Resources Board, which per the World Nuclear News is partly due to the early closure of San Onofre.”

But you know what? I will pass on the risks and live with alternatives, always working towards a “green” future. There is nothing “safe” about nuclear energy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>