U.K. Nuclear Update

The piece by Max Hastings supporting nuclear energy in yesterday's Guardian (U.K.) that we linked to is getting a lot of play on the newspaper's letters page:

Putting new reactors at existing sites would speed the planning process, enable the use of existing power lines and reduce site acquisition, management and security costs. Using off-the-shelf designs and a rolling programme, starting where reactors have already closed, would reduce construction times and costs. Hastings' vision of life in 50 years' time neglected to explain that by then power will probably be from clean fusion reactors. He also did not mention that much of this country's stockpile of nuclear waste comes from past military programmes. A replacement generation of nuclear fission power stations would add only 10% to our existing stocks.

Steve Bolter
Gestingthorpe, Essex

What the reader describes above is more or less what the American nuclear industry is doing today, and it's a model that the U.K. could emulate quite easily.

Here's another reader that's not quite as sanguine:

Hastings would have some credibility if he offered to have a nuclear power station near his house. From where I live I can see two nuclear power stations, the chimney of an oilfired power station and two wind farms. There is no doubt which are the most beautiful as well as the most environmentally friendly.

Norman Lamond
Rothesay, Isle of Bute

I guess this conclusion depends on just what you consider to be environmentally friendly -- and nuclear energy's clean air benefits are pretty clear.

As for coal plants and wind farms being more visually pleasing than a nuclear power station, there are more than a few folks in England, and elsewhere, that believe that wind farms are a blight on the landscape.

While doing research for this post., I came across a quote from former U.K. Energy Minister Brian Wilson where he comments on folks who are fighting the deployment of wind farms in the English countryside:

People must take a balanced view and we must act collectively. If we are to have a serious renewables industry, we must be able to drive forward projects without them being blocked for years, sometimes on unreasonable grounds.

While he might be talking about wind farms, he may as well have been talking about nuclear power plants. And I think that its important to point out, once again, that we don't oppose wind farms or the development of any renewable energy source. But we do need to realize that NIMBYism can have an impact even on renewable energy sources that environmental activists tout as a magic bullet to the nation's and the world's energy needs.

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