Skip to main content

NPR on New Nuclear Build

By Eric McErlain
Today from 2:20 to 3:00 pm U.S. EST, EPRI Vice President Dave Modeen and Arjun Makhijani from IEER will appear on Talk of the Nation'’s Science Friday program with Ira Flatow. They are slated to discuss new nuclear plants and related issues. You should be able to access it live via American University radio at 88.5 FM. You can get that live audio via the Web. The audio of the program will also be posted on the program's Web site at 6:00 pm U.S. EST. For that link, click here.

Thanks to my colleague Trish Conrad for the tip.

UPDATE: For those of you not up on advanced fuel-cycle technologies that were discussed during the program, click here for a policy brief from NEI. And here's an editorial from the Voice of America. And here's another NPR segment from earlier this week about new nuclear build in the U.K.

Technorati tags: , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Good debate.

The thot plickens around Exelon Nuclear and the Dresden, Braidwood, Byron... (whose next?) and radioactive leaks...
Paul, NIRS
February 25, 2006 at 12:31 AM
distantbody said…
Hmmm... The Issue of thermal and steam pollution are interesting ones. Can someone put a post up about them (and maybe nip them in the bud)?
February 25, 2006 at 4:53 AM
Anonymous said…
Maybe we should have a specific thread for the tritium leaks to avoid contaminating (haha) the other threads?
February 25, 2006 at 12:21 PM
Rod Adams said…
I listened to the debate this morning on my morning bike ride. It was downloaded and ready for my iPod synch this morning. Love those NPR podcasts.

You can also listen to the archive of the show at http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Feb/hour1_022406.html

I do wish, however, that Ira had invited a nuclear advocate to the party. As the EPRI representative clearly stated, EPRI is really a resource for all electrical production sources, not just nuclear.

IMHO the best case can be made for nuclear power when place in contrast to the alternatives.
February 25, 2006 at 5:47 PM
Anonymous said…
WRT steam pollution, it would be better classified as water vapor pollution (if there is such a thing). It is merely water vapor at around 100-120F that is released into the atmosphere. With ~100 nuclear plants in the US and ~500 worldwide (including US), I cannot imagine that the "greenhouse" effects are even considered relevant. Now when one compares water vapor "pollution" from a nuclear plant to exhaust from a coal plant, then a person must consider releases of material that actually erode the ozone layer resulting in "greenhouse" effects (mercury, sulphur and other nasties). Since ~75% of all electrical generation worldwide is from coal plants, one can conclude that nuclear water vapor emission (which is simply heat transfer - or delta T - and not chemical) is not relevant. Now to be fair, most countries are taking steps to curb coal-fired emissions...however, IMHO the many years of coal-fired emissions have already taken a toll on the atmosphere.
February 25, 2006 at 10:12 PM
Lisa Stiles said…
Like a dog on a bone, NIRS is really trying to push the tritium issue aren't they? Yes, Exelon should have done a better job prior to now, but we're talking about very small amounts of a naturally occurring isotope that is a weak beta emitter. The EPA safe drinking water limit for tritium in a home is 0.02 microcuries per liter. Drinking a half gallon a day of that water would yield a dose equal to eating about one apple a day. The few areas where samples indicated a level above the EPA limit are now under control to protect water supplies.

And NONE of the samples exceeded the NRC limit for environmental release of tritium. That limit is 1 microcurie per liter. Drinking a half gallon of that water everyday would give me less dose than I'll receive flying in airplanes this year.

Compare that to the pollutants and hazardous materials other energy and industrial sources generate, with or without penalty, and the scare tactics NIRS is employing just look silly.
February 27, 2006 at 1:28 PM
Anonymous said…
Lisa, et al,

What's a watchdog supposed to do but gnaw on a good bone, apparently a bone of contention to more than just NIRS.

As you all know, the Exelon Braidwood spill in '98 was a mere 6.75 million gallons of tritiated water that was left out on the ground by the company to evaporate.

That much water also left the site as contaminated runoff and seeped into the water table. Behind the Braidwood High School the ground water is well above EPA limits. Cobalt 60 was also in evidence off site on Smiley Road in ditch water.

The unravelling is just starting and not just around Braidwood, Dresden, Bryon, Salem, Indian Point, Prairie Island, now more recently Palo Verde but around all the sites.

The nuclear industry should start announcing its radioactive spills to the state and county authorities and be required to publish such events in the local newspapers as they occur, not wait ten years to get caught.

Its the least you all can do as a courtesy so parents can decide for themselves whether or not to keep their kids out of any more of your wayward radioactive wading ponds.

I'm curious if any of you have a problem with public disclosure and prompt notification of ground water contamination?

Perhaps a Demand for Information can make things more interesting?

Paul, NIRS
March 5, 2006 at 12:32 PM
Anonymous said…
Lisa, et al,

What's a watchdog supposed to do but gnaw on a good bone, apparently a bone of contention to more than just NIRS.

As you all know, the Exelon Braidwood spill in '98 was a mere 6.75 million gallons of tritiated water that was left out on the ground by the company to evaporate.

That much water also left the site as contaminated runoff and seeped into the water table. Behind the Braidwood High School the ground water is well above EPA limits. Cobalt 60 was also in evidence off site on Smiley Road in ditch water.

The unravelling is just starting and not just around Braidwood, Dresden, Bryon, Salem, Indian Point, Prairie Island, now more recently Palo Verde but around all the sites.

The nuclear industry should start announcing its radioactive spills to the state and county authorities and be required to publish such events in the local newspapers as they occur, not wait ten years to get caught.

Its the least you all can do as a courtesy so parents can decide for themselves whether or not to keep their kids out of any more of your wayward radioactive wading ponds.

I'm curious if any of you have a problem with public disclosure and prompt notification of ground water contamination?

Perhaps a Demand for Information can make things more interesting?

Paul, NIRS
March 5, 2006 at 12:33 PM
Anonymous said…
For more information on that NRC Demand for Information visit:

http://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/
3h03012006frn2206pet.pdf

and

http://www.nirs.org/radiation/tritium/
3h03012006nrcaccept2206pet.pdf

Paul, NIRS
March 5, 2006 at 12:38 PM
Anonymous said…
Lisa, et al,

You can now also check out the various tritium leaks occuring around your local nuke. Just go to the NRC webpage >

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/
ops-experience/tritium/sites-
grndwtr-contam.html

NRC still hasn't posted all the site yet but its a start.

paul, nirs
March 6, 2006 at 11:32 PM
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