More Bloggers For Nuclear Energy

Some talk has been generated around the Blogosphere about President Bush's visit to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, and the renewal of his call for America to make expanded use of nuclear energy.

Reality Hammer: "It's about time . . . You cannot wait until the price of oil reaches $100 a barrel!"

Jon Whitelaw: "Welcome to our future, it looks bright indeed, and Bush has made a step in the right direction with this news."

Rich Tehrani: " Nuclear is an option that if deployed securely, can work well to help supply part of the world's energy needs."

More later.

UPDATE: Rhyme of the Day has some interesting thoughts:

This message is brought to you by nuclear power. Well, 70% of it, anyway.

That's the percentage of Chicago electricity that comes from nukes, and they're talking about building a new one! I'm rather relieved see that nuclear energy is somehow becoming politically acceptable again.

ANOTHER UPDATE: There's plenty of local reaction from around the nation as well. Here's one report from California's Central Coast:

Here on the Central Coast, those responsible for operating Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant say they are encouraged by the Commander-in-Chief's comments.

"People are starting to realize and focus on that this is an important asset that nuclear power brings to the table," says Jeff Lewis, of PG&E.

The President's speech has people thinking in East Tennessee and Illinois as well.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Here's Eric Hopp:

For once, I will have to agree with President Bush. We do need to start looking at designing and building new nuclear power plants. The technology has certainly advanced dramatically in the last 30 years. We need to start looking at new, innovative designs for nuclear reactors which can incorporate better environmental and safety concerns. This is certainly one method to reduce U.S. oil consumption for its energy needs.

When it comes to new plant designs, that means Generation IV. Later, Eric does express some concerns about the way plants are regulated. For those of you who want to investigate the issue further, you might want to read Skip Bowman's speech from the NRC's Regulatory Information Conference from last March.

AFTERNOON UPDATE: The newswire over at the Huffington Post ran an item on Matt Wald's story in the New York Times, and some of the comments are very revealing. Here's one comment that came in response to a challenge to see if anyone would be willing to live near a nuclear power plant:

I've lived by a plant for many years and I don't think its a big deal. Where else are we going to get the power we need? I've yet to hear a viable alternative to nuclear power.

The following came in response to concerns about reactor safety:

A nuclear plant is not a nuclear bomb.

Building nuclear plants with modern technology is a smart thing to do.

And any of the stopglobalwarming.com crowd should be happy to get behind this.

Some commenters were evidently fed up with radical environmentalists:

Its time to put up or shut up. Either the environmental movement is interested in saving up from global warming- or its all a smokescreen for their war on industrialism.

Let's end on this surprisingly well informed comment:

Solar, wind, and the like need another 25-50 years of investment, and even then they will be a relatively small percentage of the energy mix. Today they comprise less than 1%.

Nuclear is the way to go...which will help bring down the price of electricity, thus making electric cars more viable (battery technologies are continuing to make huge strides as well, and investment in nuclear energy will indirectly fuel even more R&D into battery technology).

As for the "security threat" of nuclear power plants: let's just say that they will be far better protected than all the mass-transit systems and bridges that have somehow emerged from 9/11 unscathed. Stop the fearmongering.

More later.

FINAL UPDATE: Here's Matt from Matt's Blog:

Why don't the environmentalists realize that nuclear power is the only viable option on the table that offers the energy we need without release CO2 or toxins? Windmills and hybrids are totally insufficient. In fact, they are insignificant.

I disagree with the assertion that safety concerns have not been addressed. Accidents (or mistakes) like those in the past are not feasible in modern nuclear facilities.

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