Skip to main content

Thoughts From the Gristmill

By Eric McErlain
Some thoughts about the nuclear energy industry from David Roberts at Gristmill:
It got me thinking about the nuclear question again, and a post I wrote almost a year ago -- one of my favorites -- called "Renewable energy and the devolution of power." The idea was basically this: The kind of distributed-energy/smart-grid future greens envision would, if implemented, devolve political power outward from Washington. It would substantially increase regional self-sufficiency. This, as much as any technical debate, explains why the power elite has neglected to pursue it, and even fought against it.

It also, I think, explains Washington's love of nuclear energy. Nuclear is a familiar template for them: a large industry with one or two dominant corporations, with lobbyists that move in and out of government positions -- the usual chummy arrangement. It's something they can understand and control.

If regions create their own energy, they have much less need for, and are much less in thrall to, D.C. That has enormous implications. I'm not sure renewable-energy advocates have really thought it through.
I just sat in on a 60-minute lecture about the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, a technology that promises to provide small-scale distributed electrical generation to millions. It isn't pie in the sky, the concrete for the first unit near the Koeberg nuclear plant in South Africa is going to be poured next May. Why not talk about the PBMR? Why not mention its implications? Because right now, as it was just explained to me, the PBMR could be built just as quickly and more cheaply than a coal-fired plant with equivalent generating capacity. Better yet, the PBMR is scalable, with the ability to expand its generating capacity built into the design.

It's one thing to just point fingers at one another, something I'm not interested in doing anymore. But when it comes to providing electricity to hundreds of millions of people trapped in poverty, these old arguments just aren't going to cut it anymore.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
My reaction to renewables is almost exactly opposite. I think a move to renewables encourages involvement of large corporations and government control. Why? Renewables are generally cyclic and undependable. An independent small company can't be successful because they can't predict when they will be able to supply the customer. If the cost of other sources increases significantly a large corporation might be able to successfully compete with renewables that are geographically and technology diverse. Absent this model, the only way renewables get into the market is for governments to mandate that renewable power be purchased whenever and wherever it can be produced, regardless of demand or competitiveness. (Exactly what we have now.) This doesn't exactly match the "small is beautiful" model.
April 19, 2006 at 10:29 AM
Anonymous said…
Enron was the largest wind energy company when it ran into its troubles. The suits at Enron were also anti-nuke. See if you can find those facts in a news article within the last two years.
April 19, 2006 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said…
Let us not forget the tiny Toshiba reactor or the Canadian Slowpoke reactor. Both are excellant examples of local power sources.

Plus I would like some spent fuel literally in my backyard (or basement) as my own local source of energy.
April 19, 2006 at 1:06 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