Skip to main content

Your Nuclear Neighbor

By Eric McErlain
Carpe Datum is linking to a piece Kevin Drum posted over at Political Animal on peak oil -- one that includes a long harangue about nuclear energy in the comments thread.

I could spend all day refuting its contents, but instead, I'll just focus on one issue:
Anyhow, while Mr. Nuclear is squandering money on his atom-splitting operation -- assuming he can convince any community in the nation to even accept the damned thing . . .
Actually, there are more than a few communities that would like to see a new nuclear power plant built nearby, like Fort Gibson, Mississippi:
With its grand antebellum homes, mellowed brick buildings and streets shaded by spreading live oaks, Port Gibson seems a place that time forgot. But this sleepy, historic town 25 miles south of Vicksburg is staking its future on the nuclear age.

As the nuclear power industry lays the groundwork to build plants in the United States for the first time in nearly 30 years, Port Gibson, population 1,800, is on a nuclear power consortium's short list of six "finalist candidate sites." The list was released last week.

The consortium, known as NuStart Energy, is made up of nine major utilities as well as nuclear reactor manufacturers. By working initially through a consortium to build the next nuclear plant, the individual companies may defray costs and reduce the time for building other new plants. NuStart includes the Atlanta-based Southern Co.

The leadership of Port Gibson and surrounding Claiborne County welcomed NuStart's listing.
And a few weeks ago, we shared news with our readers that Oswego, New York was also lobbying NuStart for a shot at a new reactor. And it looks like their effort had a positive effect, as Oswego is also a NuStart finalist.

On a related note, back in March, my colleague Lisa Shell pointed to an article in Money Magazine that contained the following passage:
Two studies found that the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island had no discernible impact on local home prices. That's right: The neighborhood nuke comes this close to a meltdown and property values don't even shudder.
Plenty to think about.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
Having read Kevin Drum's posting, I was somewhat astounded that he could observe that religious like fervor of pro-nuclear engineers, but not see the religious like fervor of his own opposition to nuclear energy. His posting was more of a diatribe or rant than a logical, reasoned argument. He is obviously an educated and intelligent man, I wish he would use his abilities to make a reasoned and informed contribution to the debate. Such polemical statements, by anyone in any debate, do not serve the debate, but merely entrench the prejudices of the opposing parties.

I used to be anti-nuclear, but then after reading an article in National Geographic in the late 1980's began to change my mind, and now, having read widely on the issues, I believe that nuclear power is the most environmentally benign form of base-load electricity generation.
June 1, 2005 at 1:04 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

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

By
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...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more