NY Times: Environmental Movement Reconsidering Nuclear Energy

The big news over the weekend was that the New York Times finally noticed something that we've been telling you for a couple of weeks -- that a number of environmentalists are breaking from the pack and endorsing nuclear energy as a way to provide new power generation that doesn't produce greenhouse gas emissions:

Several of the nation's most prominent environmentalists have gone public with the message that nuclear power, long taboo among environmental advocates, should be reconsidered as a remedy for global warming. Their numbers are still small, but they represent growing cracks in what had been a virtually solid wall of opposition to nuclear power among most mainstream environmental groups.

Reactions from around the Blogosphere -- Instapundit:

If you want to have a technological civilization, and not emit C02, nuclear power is pretty much the only way to go at the moment.

Right On The Left Coast is astonished that he agrees with the New York Times. Wilson Fu isn't looking a gift horse in the mouth. PrebleNY has some other thoughts, and so does the Commons Blog.

Here's Powerpundit:

I'm on board with the pro-nuclear attitude of some of these environmental groups, and am pleased that they are finally showing up - albeit tardily - to the nuclear party. We can and should resume the use of nuclear power as an alternative to current energy sources. However, my motivation is not because of the alleged problem of global warming. We must resume the use of nuclear energy because we need a new source of power. Period.

Why do we need a new source of power? Our President and CEO, Skip Bowman, laid out the case a couple of weeks ago in San Antonio in a speech to the nuclear fuel industry:

The numbers also tell us that companies are not investing in new, cleaner, more efficient generating capacity. Nearly 200,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity in the United States is 30 to 40 years old. Approximately 100,000 megawatts is 40 to 50 years old. Together, these aging assets represent roughly one-third of our 900,000 megawatts of installed capacity.

So, in essence, environmentalists who continue to resist the expansion of nuclear energy, would force a choice on us -- to meet new electricity demand with old technologies that emit greenhouse gases and particulate matter, or shut off the lights. That's not a choice most people want forced on them.

The fact is, that electricity demand will rise so rapidly over the coming decades, that we're going to need to rely on every source of clean energy imaginable -- that means renewables, clean coal and nuclear. And when you combine that with the need to replace aging energy infrastructure, you can't afford to take any option off the table.

POSTSCRIPT: It would be remiss not to mention that one of the first prominent environmentalists to speak up in favor of expanded use of nuclear energy, Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore, died on Saturday. He was 85. Our condolences to his family and friends.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog