Skip to main content

News From NEA 2006

Some local reporters are taking advantage of the critical mass of nuclear energy professionals in San Francisco for NEA 2006 to put together some stories. Click here for a piece from the city's ABC affiliate, and here for a piece from the San Francisco Chronicle.

For President Bush's video address to NEA 2006, click here, or use the viewer below:

Back at the conference, NEI handed out some industry awards, with the top prize going to a team at Progress Energy. From the NEI press release:
Employees at Progress Energy's Brunswick nuclear power plant have been awarded the nuclear energy industry's B. Ralph Sylvia Best of the Best Award for an increase of record magnitude in the power station's generating capacity. The team won for making the energy facility in southeastern North Carolina one of only three U.S. nuclear power plants to achieve a 20 percent uprate in thermal power over the original operating license.

Accomplished in two phases approved by federal regulators dating back to 1996, the uprate increased the generating capacity of Brunswick's two reactors by a combined 244 megawatts-electric to 1,875 megawatts. The additional capacity is enough to serve the typical electricity needs of 200,000 households.

The Best of the Best Top Industry Practice (TIP) award was presented at the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) annual conference here. The TIP awards recognize industry employees in 13 categories -- four vendor awards and nine process awards -- for innovation to improve safety, efficiency and nuclear plant performance. The Best of the Best Award honors the late B. Ralph Sylvia, an industry leader who was instrumental in starting the TIP awards in 1993.

Other companies with employees who received awards are: American Electric Power, Arizona Public Service Co., Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Exelon Nuclear, Florida Power & Light, PPL Susquehanna LLC, PSEG Nuclear LLC, Southern Nuclear Operating Co. and Tennessee Valley Authority.
More later.

Technorati tags: , , , ,


gunter said…
One must wonder if President Bush has become more a liability than an asset.
Paul Primavera said…
One must also wonder if RFK Jr., Senator Teddy and Rep. Patrick Kennedy from Rhode Island have become even more of a liability to the anti-nuclear left.

While I disagree with certain policies of President Bush (many of which are nothing more that corporate socialism), he is the first President in decades to have the courage to openly support the only environmentally-clean source of base-load electrical power: nuclear energy.

As I have written before, both liberals with their anti-nuclearism and conservatives with their fossil fuel interests are equally to blame for the current state of the country's energy infrastructure and the war in Iraq. At least President Bush is trying to break away from fossil fuel dependency, however much I disagree with his other politics and the war in Iraq.

And yes, if the race between the new JFK - John F. Kerry - and George Bush were held again today, I would still hold my nose, bite my tongue and vote for King George. It's too bad that no Libertarian candidate has a chance in hades of winning.

BTW, I really admire and respect a man who does NOT acquiesce to every whim and fancy of public opinion. Say what you want about King George, but unlike his 2004 challenger he is a real man.
Gunter said…
"Corporate socialism," indeed...

Very interesting, Mr. Primavera,
I could not have better described nuclear power's cozy relationship with any number of governments (US, France, UK, Russia, China to name some) right from the inception here in US when the AEC solicited corporate America for the opportunity to cogenerate electricity in the production of weapon grade plutonium. That was October 1952, well before the emergence of the so-called "Peaceful Atom."

You guys have that white paper over at NEI?
Paul Primavera said…
Paul Gunter,

the tax breaks and subsidies given to renewables is a far better example of corporate socialism.

A better example yet is the non-level regulatory playing field where coal gets to externalize the costs of its pollution and kill 30000 people every year in the US.

But 30000 dead from coal pollution that nuclear energy can obviate appears to be of little consequence to NIRS / WISE.
Paul Primavera said…
For the reader interested in how the socialist agenda of anti-nuclearism has prevented US energy independence, please read the following:

Nuclear Power And Politics
by John K. Sutherland, Chief Scientist, Edutech Enterprises

< >

A brief excerpt suffices:

"At the same time, the various anti-nuclear activist groups, which have sprouted in the last thirty years, recognized that if public and political support could be turned away from nuclear power (they believed that the end result would justify their avalanche of dishonest tactics), the spent fuel reprocessing option in the nuclear power fuel cycle would be abandoned; the cycle could not be closed; and the follow-on breeder reactor program would probably be significantly delayed if not stopped entirely. Their energy, environmental, and social agendas could then be more likely put into play. Following this, the continuation of nuclear power as an energy resource would be at least severely limited, if not - they hoped - ended. At the same time, others of them waged a less focused, and less effective, but nonetheless damaging campaign against the development of domestic oil, coal, and hydro. They recognized also, that anything which drove up the price of energy (regulations on everything) and especially of electricity, and limited their expansion, would make alternative high priced 'renewables' seem increasingly cost effective, even if they could not deliver. Their efforts, when added to the dismal record of political appeasement of the far left, ensured that this cheap source of energy and electricity was so hampered by needless regulations and construction and licensing delays, ended up losing its massive cost advantage and became merely competitive or less than competitive in areas of political rigidity."

Now guess who economically benefits from such anti-nuclear activities? Coal. Oil. Natural gas. A Ccmmunist dictator in Venezula. Islamic fanatics in the Mid-East. The Russian Gazprom.

And look at the organizations who have funded so-called environmental groups: Pew, Rockefellers, etc. Big names in big oil and coal.

Harry the Dog on the Hudson months ago asked rhetorically if it was a conspiracy. I don't think so, but the money does point in one direction.

BTW, guess who gets rich off fossil fuel taxes? Politicians.

Corporate socialism? There's a lot of it on the left as well.
Paul Primavera said…
I would also add to what John K. Sutherland writes what Rod Adams has written at:

Chernobyl Politics and Market Share
Possible Motives Behind Emphasis
< >

A brief excerpt tells the story:

"...With all the talk about national energy policies, renewable energy goals, efficiency and conservation, people often forget that selling fuel is a huge and profitable business.

"When nuclear reactors are shut down or when planned reactors are converted to fossil fuel power plants, one predictable result is increased revenues for the company or country that sells replacement fuel...

"Since the price of fossil fuels is determined by supply and demand balances that are maintained by production quotas enforced with varying degrees of success by international cartels and government bodies, increased sales from replacing nuclear output can improve the profitability of all who are involved in the business.

"There is little doubt that fossil fuel marketers and their political friends understand this supply and demand relationship. There is also little doubt that there are highly trained public affairs specialists employed by the companies and their industrial associations who know the value of press attention to the perceived weaknesses of the nuclear industry."


Who benefits from the anti-nuclear activism of NIRS / WISE?


Coal. Oil. Gas. And the politicians who receive the tax revenue therefrom.

Talk about corporate socialism!

Popular posts from this blog

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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.

Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …