Will Nuclear Energy Help Fill the Gap in Michigan?

In today's Detroit News, the paper reviews the outlook for the electricity market in Michigan -- and the future is looking pretty murky due to regulatory uncertainty. The newspaper talked to DTE Energy's Tony Earley, who also serves as Chairman of NEI:

"Unless there is a stable regulatory environment, nobody -- no marketer, no independent power producer, no regulated utility -- will build another base load plant in Michigan," said DTE Energy Chief Anthony Earley Jr. "Right now there is enough generation to supply us, but two or three years down the road you're going to start having some real reliability problems."

Meanwhile, demand for electricity is growing 1.5-3 percent a year.

Last November, NEI's former President and CEO, Joe Colvin, addressed just this subject in a speech at NARUC 2004.

Meanwhile, back in Michigan, DTE is considering something that would have sounded impossible a few years ago -- building a new nuclear power plant to meet rising electricity demand:

Conventional wisdom says a new plant is likely to be coal-fired. But industry experts aren't ruling out nuclear power, which now supplies 26 percent of Michigan's electricity market. There has not been a nuclear plant licensed in the United States since the near disaster at Three Mile Island in 1979. But President Bush, pointing to France's heavy use of nuclear plants as a clean and reliable power source, is pushing for that option .

"If you had asked me five or six years ago, I would have said it's probably unlikely there'd ever be another nuclear plant, but a lot has happened," said DTE chief Earley. "The big focus around the globe is on global warming, and when you get down to a hard analysis, if you're serious about reducing carbon emissions, the only answer is building nuclear plants."

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

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