Meet The Press on Energy Policy

This morning at NEI, a lot of us are talking about yesterday's edition of Meet The Press that dealt with energy policy. Click here to view the program. Click here for the transcript.

Some thoughts, later.

UPDATE: Our friend Pat Cleary weighs in. And Tim Russert isn't doing too well either. Click here to see what I'm talking about. More here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More head shaking here.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Oil, Gasoline, Energy Policy

Comments

David Bradish said…

I thought it was great. Get Durbin out of there though. All the experts basically said the profits of oil companies are justified and Durbin's the one who just doesn't get it.

I couldn't believe the Senator from Illinois was so skeptical about nuclear of all the places.

May 1, 2006 at 12:56 PM

Farkas said…

MTP showed its arrogance toward America by putting on Durbin and the inarticulate Bowman. What an opportunity lost to explain how the gasoline market works. Bowman did not seem to have much on his 3x5" card except some repeated nonsense about investigating the oil companies. It is unbelievable that Russert got him to declare a "crisis" in America.

Where I live, folks are happily sitting in long traffic jams on the way to work in Hartford coming south on I-91 as well as all the ones caught on the Belt Parkway around Kennedy airport this past weekend. $3 plus per gallon does not seem to be chaning behavior. No recession. In fact, the economy is booming along with 4.8% growth at last measure. Less than 5% unemployment, near historically low home mortgage interest rates, and a six year high in the DJIA, and a whole host of folks breaking down the boarder trying to get in on the action. MTP was another edition in the MSM's attempt to peddle doom & gloom.

May 1, 2006 at 7:59 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog