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

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more