Faster, Better and Cheaper Doesn't Happen Overnight

When I meet people for the first time and tell them that I work for NEI, I get a variety of reactions, and one of the most common is an extended explanation of why we need to give up nuclear power in favor of renewables like wind and solar.

Now, we have absolutely nothing against wind and solar power (and as a matter of fact, think energy diversity is vital), but when I try to explain about the need for increased baseload generation, how long it takes to plan and build it, and the economics behind all of it, I often am confronted with a look of disbelief and a claim that if we just roll up our sleeves it can be done, "faster, better and cheaper," than we're doing it right now.

Over at Knowledge Problem, economist Lynne Kiesling has come up with a pretty good comeback:

I find that sometimes when discussing economics with energy scientists and engineers I encounter a mindset of "well, just make it cheaper and people will adopt it and all will be hunky dory and in accordance with my theory/model/simulation". My question is, what is the process by which we make things cheaper? How quickly can that happen? What are the costs and benefits of artificially accelerating that process? We can't just snap our fingers or pass a new law and make solar energy "cheaper" in any kind of truthful, meaningful, realistic, long-term sense. Sure, I'd love to, just like I'd love to snap my fingers and have every house, store, and office outfitted with a smart 2-way communications-enabled electric power meter.

Wishin' don't make it so. Thought, creativity, initiative, drive, persuasion, investement, research, and striving do. But those take time and resources.

I'm going to print it out on the back of an index card and keep it in my wallet. For another discussion of nuclear from her archives, click here.

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