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: , , , ,

Comments

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

< http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=360 >

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
< http://www.atomicinsights.com/apr96/Politics.html >

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."

QUESTION:

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

ANSWER

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 …

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…