Another Blogger For Nuclear Energy

In the United States, we derive about 21% of our power generation capacity from a source of abundant energy that pollutes very little in comparison to the amount of power generated. That energy source is nuclear energy. More electricity is generated from Nuclear energy than any other source except coal in this country. This energy source is NOT subject to the price of oil, nor is it subject to embargoes, drought or lack of wind. The volume of toxic waste generated by this energy source is a small fraction of the next cleanest source (Natural Gas) and orders of magnitude less than coal.

Thanks to the Lone Star Times for the pointer.

UPDATE: Stop by and say hello to Mr. Snitch.

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

Comments

Stewart Peterson said…

http://niof.blogspot.com

August 3, 2005 at 1:03 AM

Jeff Faria said…

You guys have my sympathy. Stumping for nuclear in the age of post-Three-Mile-Island and Homer Simpson is a thankless task. (Well, maybe you're well compensated.) Wired got out ahead of the curve and got hammered.

In my experience in managing political communications, I have found that the public (like the stock market) tends to hit bottom before you can persuade them into another direction. As per my post, the bottom for nuclear has not yet been truly plumbed (it's been hit, all right, but we're not yet ready to pull away from it). It's when some event wakes us up that we move. In this case, I see a hydrogen industry for transportable power (cars, laptops, cell phones - anything that needs to move), and China supplying the fuel. That should be about the last straw.

Unless of course you REALLY get Bush to move on this. But I think he has too many other places to spend his political capital to get nuke off the ground during his presidency.

August 3, 2005 at 1:48 AM

Stewart Peterson said…

I am not compensated. The people I work with are likewise not compensated.

August 5, 2005 at 6:05 AM

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