Skip to main content

The No Solutions Gang

By Eric McErlain
Over the years, the nuclear energy industry has weathered some pretty scurrilous attacks at the hands of radical environmentalists -- attacks that play on people's fear, and rely on hype and hysteria instead of facts. Take this passage I came across from Ecoshock:
The American taxpayer has paid billions in secret subsidies for U.S. reactor fuel, by buying up weapons grade materials in the former Soviet Union, and shipping it back home for commercial power stations, on the cheap. There is no accounting for all the money spent on this anti-terrorism program that just happens to benefit the largest welfare industry in America.
This is a pretty typical online attack in that it offers absolutely no concrete information to make up your mind on your own. Heck, they don't even have the guts to tell you what the program is called.

Which is where we come in. The program Ecoshock is attacking is called "Megatons to Megawatts" and it has decommissioned the equivalent of 10,000 U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads, rendering them as useless as atomic weapons and fit for use as fuel in American nuclear reactors. Uranium from "Megatons to Megawatts" is used in about 10% of the U.S. reactor fleet.

By 2013, the program will have downblended 500 metric tons of weapons grade uranium -- the equivalent of 20,000 warheads. The program is administered by a private corporation, USEC.

And, despite what Ecoshock might say, the program is completely financed by private industry, not the American taxpayer. The following is from the USEC FAQ on the program:
Why was a commercial implementing contract chosen?

Both governments agreed that they wanted the program to be sustained through commercial purchases and sales of the LEU fuel. This meant that a government appropriations process was not necessary.

Has the U.S. government paid or subsidized USEC for implementing any part of this national security agreement?

No. USEC derives its compensation solely from profits of selling the Russian material to its customers.
Which begs a question that the folks at Ecoshock don't have an answer to: If "Megatons to Megawatts" isn't a wothwhile program, just what would they have done with over 500 tons of weapons grade uranium? Should we perhaps have left some of it in Russia, where it may very well have fallen into the wrong hands (as it turns out, there's still plenty of surplus weapons grade material to keep us busy for a long time)?

I won't be holding my breath for an answer.

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

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
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...
7 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