Skip to main content

Focus On The Energy Bill: The Value of New Nuclear

Our friend Rod Adams was up late last night doing some celebrating:
With a unanimous vote yesterday, the Board of County Commissioners for Calvert County, Maryland decided to submit a resolution and letter of support endorsing the NuStart Energy Development Corporation's consideration of the Calvert Cliffs site for one of their proposed new reactors. Board of County Commissioners Submits Resolution in Support of NuStart Energy's Calvert Cliffs Expansion Proposal.

I just finished my own quiet - it is, after all, only a bit after 4:00 am and the rest of my family is still sleeping - cheer and fist pumping when I read that press release.

(snip)

Unlike most of the rest of the power plants that dot the shores of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, the plant does not have a smoke stack that pours out thousands of tons of pollutants every day. From a purely selfish point of view, I also know that expanding the plant there will help to keep my electrical power rates under control, especially compared to plants that use something like imported LNG.

The county commissioners know the plant, they know the workers, and they know that the plant is a major asset to their community. Once again, the people near the plants are telling the world that they want more of them in their own backyard.

One thing that uncommitted observers of the coming debates on new nuclear power plants - and we know that there are going to be some debates - need to think about is the fact that the more closely people live and work around nuclear power, the more they favor its use. Those same people should then consider whether or not that trend applies to competitive energy sources.
And with the help of the Energy Bill, and its provisions to spur the construction of new nuclear power plants, lots more folks are going to be able to consider that decision in the years to come.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...