Skip to main content

Newsweek Highlights Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
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

Anonymous said…
I actually found the first article very unsupportive of nuclear power.
January 31, 2006 at 2:38 AM
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.
January 31, 2006 at 11:55 AM
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?
January 31, 2006 at 1:50 PM
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.
February 1, 2006 at 8:32 AM
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