Skip to main content

U.S. News & World Report: 'Go Nukes!'

Image
By Janice
The latest edition of U.S. News & World Report takes a new look at nukes. The article points to Hurricane Katrina, rising natural gas prices and increasingly strict regulation of greenhouse gas emissions as major reasons for a possible resurgence in new nuclear plant construction.
The federal government has been plenty eager to kick-start the moribund industry. Just last month, President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which contains guarantees and incentives including $2 billion to cover possible delays at as many as six new nuclear plants and annual production tax credits. More important, perhaps, Congress extended the five-decade-old Price-Anderson Act through 2025, limiting operator liability in the event of an accident. The new legislative action follows Bush's Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, launched in 2002, which promoted public-private partnerships to spur new reactor construction.

Yet all these government nudges might be going for naught were it not for the rising price of natural gas, which has more than tripled since 1999. At present, natural gas accounts for about 17 percent of U.S. electrical generation, behind coal (51 percent) and nuclear (20 percent). But those numbers understate the growing importance of natural gas in the nation's power supply. An estimated 90 percent of power plants under construction are fired by natural gas, according to the Natural Gas Supply Association. Gas-fired plants are cheaper and faster to build than coal facilities, and they produce lower emissions. But with costs soaring, nuclear has been looking more economically attractive. "Natural gas prices drive electric prices in the whole nation, and they don't look like they are going down anytime soon," says Dan Keuter, Entergy's head of nuclear business development.
Technorati tags:

Comments

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

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

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
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...
4 comments
Read more