Skip to main content

Senator Larry Craig on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

By Eric McErlain
Via Google Video and the office of Senator Craig:



Though the camera is first focused on Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell at the start of the video, the camera switches to Senator Craig a few seconds in.

For more, here, here and here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
It is interesting to note that while Senator Craig was cheerleading for new nuclear waste generators, DOE's acting director for the Office of Civilian Waste Management Paul Golan, testified before the House Approps energy subcommittee that industry's grab for the Yucca Mt. ring won't come around for at least another decade, if ever.

While Yucca Mountain was originally scheduled to open in 1998, "Its obvious the 2012 date is now out the window," said Rep. David Hobson.
March 16, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Anonymous said…
There is also the news of the Illinois Office of the Attorney General along with Will County State's Attorney filed a seven count indictment against EXELON and COMMONWEALTH EDISON this afternoon for tritium spills from the Braidwood nuclear power station that go back to at least 1996 and were not disclosed by the nuclear company.
March 16, 2006 at 2:01 PM
Anonymous said…
Mr. Primavera,

Funny,you should bring up money---that's exactly what the Will County State's Attorney charges.

"Exelon Corp. and its subsidiaries 'clearly placed their profit margin first with a callous disregard for the health, safety and welfare of the local residents,' Will County State's Atty. James Glasgow said in a prepared statement.

"'Exelon was well aware that tritium increases the risk of cancer, miscarriages and birth defects, and yet they made a conscious decision not to notify the public of the risk of exposure,' Glasgow said. He appeared this morning at a news conference in downtown Chicago with Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan."
(Today's Chicago Tribune/Online)

And there is more to follow... stay tuned...

BTW, let's not forget that it is in fact many of the same corporations operating nuclear units that also operate coal burners... and lobby to prevent more effective scrubbers from being installed on those units...

The most lasting impressions on whether we will expand our nation's nuclear power policy come not from paper designs and more promises of "too-cheap-to-meter" but from the current circumstances and examples that the current fleet exhibit. No waste disposal plan and disregard for local clean environment concerns are just some of your biggest impediments to more nukes.

Paul, NIRS

Paul
March 16, 2006 at 4:21 PM
Anonymous said…
Well, my closing remark on this blog segment given all the news growing around Palo Verde (today's story of how the State of Arizona's DEQ is absolutely incredulous with Palo Verde's explanation of its tritium leaks), along with the Illinois, New Jersey and New York leakers I think that GNEP has come to more appropriately stand for the "global nuclear emissions problem." Whose next?

Do a google on "tritium" and see how many hits you get and continue to take in the days to come. NEI'd do better to start figuring out how to stop the leaks inside of backend PR damage control.

There in is another economic rub...

There is this emerging no small matter of a problem of how this "harmless" tritium, as a low energy emitter has been breaking down the protective oxide layers on a host of systems, structures, and components inducing and accelerating corrosion.

Better get that task force going, fellas.

And you all thought stress corrosion cracking and embrittlement of materials were problematic?

You might just be reading about it here, first.

What's the next surprise revelation on nuclear power? Stay tuned.

Paul, NIRS
March 23, 2006 at 9:29 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

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

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more