Kudlow and Yergin on New Nuclear Build

Recently, CNBC analyst Larry Kudlow had a brief conversation about new nuclear build with Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Associates. The transcript (which I've cleaned up for the sake of clarity) follows:

KUDLOW: Oil is inching up toward $70 a barrel. Is this the moment for nuclear power or is this not in my back yard? Joining me now is Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and CNBC global energy expert. Dan, welcome back to the show. There's a great story in the Washington Post today . . . Your man is quoted . . . About the explosion of nuclear plants, including a lot of nuclear plant building in the United States, China, India and
Western Europe. Just give us a quick overview comment. Do you expect [it] to happen. Is this the era of nukes?

YERGIN: In a sense it is happening . . . And people say nuclear is not happening or dead . . . In the last five years, something like 24 new nuclear plants have gone into operation and another 20 are under construction. Of course, none of them so far in the United States.

KUDLOW: Well, all right, that's the thing. So let's talk about "not in my back yard". Let's talk about the federal energy regulatory commission that may have some authority to overrule the local "not in my back yards". Is that an interesting part of the energy bill or not?

YERGIN: Well, I think it is. It's one of the provisions that people haven't paid much attention to, but there are several elements of the bill that are meant to encourage [investment] in new nuclear power. There are loan guarantees and various, even money in there to repay companies, if they're subject to, quote, a breakdown in the regulatory process, which is the "not in my back yard".

That evening, CNBC and MSN Money asked viewers if the U.S. should build more nuclear plants in light of increasing energy prices. 84% said yes. Kudlow has been following our industry for a number of months now, something we noted back in March. He also has a blog of his own.

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...

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