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

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog