Skip to main content

Newsweek Highlights Nuclear Energy

Over at Newsweek's international edition, the magazine is taking a broad look at the global resurgence of nuclear energy and the reasons behind the revival. Click the following links for all of the articles in the package:

Energy: The New Nuclear Power Boom

Nuclear Energy: China Leaps Forward

India's Nukes: A Deal With 'Difficulties'

Europe: A Climate Change For Nuclear

The Nuclear Waste Problem

Thanks to Synthstuff for the pointers.

UPDATE: The Energy Blog has further thoughts.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

distantbody said…
I actually found the first article very unsupportive of nuclear power.
Anonymous said…
These articles seem to be very technically deficient. One states the PBMR is safer because the fuel transfers heat more efficiently when, in fact, it tolerates high temperatures better. The article on reprocessing suggests that Plutonium is the only reason for long isolation of spent fuel and that reprocessing creates "pure plutonium". The concept of MOX and the various isotopes of plutonium are completely absent.
Newsweek needs better technical resources. These articles are more or less useless.
Anonymous said…
I just read the article on China and it's just a bad. It claims the Pebble Bed design, using Helium coolant, is safer than LWRs because "water, of course, contains oxygen, which is combustible". It also claims another advantage of the PBMR is that "hydrogen is a byproduct" of the process. Where did they find these writers?
Brian Mays said…
That Pebble Bed design is the "next-generation version that will use helium as a coolant, rather than water." Gee, I guess the old pebble bed reactors that were built in Germany were water cooled.

They really should have run these articles by someone who is technically competent to avoid stupid errors such as this. I know that they want to explain things in as simple of terms as possible, but when the simply get things wrong, it only adds to the confusion that is out there.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…