Skip to main content

Thoughts From the Gristmill

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.
Don Kosloff 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.
Don Kosloff 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.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…