"Doubling America's Nuclear Capacity by 2030"

Yesterday, I promised more extensive excerpts from former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's speech on national energy policy. Here's one of the relevant passages on nuclear energy:

A study last year by Princeton University called for doubling the world’s nuclear power capacity as a means of offsetting the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. That is an excellent and worthy objective, and I believe we should set a goal of doubling America’s nuclear power capacity by 2030.

However, as we well know, no new nuclear plants have been built in the United States since the 1970s. This is both astonishing and alarming, given the unique benefits that nuclear energy offers – benefits no other major energy source available today can provide.

Foremost is the fact that nuclear power emits none of the pollutants associated with the burning of fossil fuels. Indeed, nuclear plants in the eastern part of the United States have made it possible for many states to meet the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act. Since the mid-1970s, nuclear energy has enabled the United States to avoid emitting more than 80 million tons of sulfur dioxide and about 40 million tons of nitrogen oxides.

Also important is nuclear power’s ability to supply electricity with no greenhouse gas emissions. The nuclear plants operating around the world today displace about 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year that would have been emitted using conventional coal-fired generation. That’s an extremely significant number when you consider that coal-fired power generation around the world currently emits 5.8 billion tons of CO2 per year. Can any major lasting reduction in GHG emissions be achieved without nuclear playing a big role? I seriously doubt it.

NEI has a call out to USEA for an online source for the speech, and we've asked for permission to post it here at NEI Nuclear Notes as well.

Comments

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog