U.K. Nuclear Update

The U.K. is buzzing this week after Prime Minister Tony Blair once again said that nuclear energy must be consider as part of his nation's future energy mix in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions and support further economic growth. Here's the relevant passage from the speech he delivered on Tuesday:

Next year too, building on Britain's Kyoto commitments, we will publish proposals on energy policy. Global warming is too serious for the world any longer to ignore its danger or split into opposing factions on it. And for how much longer can countries like ours allow the security of our energy supply be dependent on some of the most unstable parts of the world?

For both reasons the G8 agreement must be made to work so we develop together the technology that allows prosperous nations to adapt and emerging ones to grow sustainably; and that means an assessment of all options, including civil nuclear power.

These comments were followed up with another statement from U.K. energy minister, Malcolm Wicks:

The government will give a “yes or no” to nuclear power by the end of next year following a decision by Tony Blair to inject “greater urgency” into the nuclear debate.

Malcolm Wicks, energy minister, said on Wednesday a government review of energy policy next year would “have to include a proposal about nuclear”. He added: “The proposal could be no it could be yes.”

At this week's Labour party conference, the prime minister appeared to give a strong signal of support for replacing the UK's ageing nuclear power stations, all but one of which is due to be decommissioned by 2023.

Previously, Mr Blair had committed to making a decision on new nuclear stations by the end of this parliament.

Blair's position on nuclear energy evolved over a considerable period of time, especially as he's made tackling climate change one of his foreign policy priorities. But there are more practical concerns as well. The following is from the Times of London:

If Britain wants to have security for its energy supply, nuclear will increasingly be seen to be the answer. The Transport and General Workers Union’s Jack Dromey, advocating the nuclear option, declared that “it would be dangerous in the extreme to become dependent on uncertain sources of supply.” He wants to preserve jobs for his members in the UK but accepts that the public needs reassurance about safety.

When he says, "uncertain sources of supply" he means Russian natural gas.

UPDATE: Here's another item I thought might be pertinent:

Tony Blair must give the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations by the end of next year if the Government is to meet its climate-change targets and safeguard security of supply, the chief executive of British Energy, Bill Coley, said yesterday.

His comments follow the Prime Minister's announcement at the Labour conference this week of a wide-ranging review of Britain's energy needs which would assess "all options, including civil nuclear power".

Mr Coley said that even if British Energy, the country's main nuclear electricity generator, extended the lives of most of its stations, the contribution from nuclear energy would dip sharply by 2020, making the UK more reliant on imported gas and jeopardising its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Electricity, Tony Blair, United Kingdom

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog