Skip to main content

Larger Lessons Inside Indian Point Debate

By Eric McErlain
Over at Energy Outlook, Geoffrey Styles has digested the public reaction to the NAS study on replacing the electricity generated by Indian Point Energy Center, and he thinks it doesn't augur well for the future of New York and New England:
The Indian Point situation exemplifies several trends that I've focused on since the inception of this blog two-and-a-half years ago. First, there's the inherent incompatibility of economic growth facilitated by increasing energy consumption with regulatory policies that make it extremely difficult to build new energy facilities near population centers. This is compounded by the sort of NIMBY-ism that takes no account of the economic benefits of the facility in question. Add to this the current strain of unprioritized environmental concern, and you have a recipe for disaster. While nuclear power is a mixed bag, environmentally, it is undeniably the largest source of greenhouse-gas-free electricity that we have. Climate change poses a much bigger problem than nuclear power, as many people are starting to realize, including some notable environmentalists.

(snip)

The federal report on Indian Point suggests it would be very difficult to replace the 2,000 MW capacity of these plants, and I don't doubt that either, because alternative generation (and its fuel sources) won't get permits, and the mooted efficiency projects-- which certainly have the potential to displace the load being served by Indian Point--have a way of never materializing or being swamped by new demand.

Sadly, I continue to believe that we are headed for a national train wreck on energy, and there's every indication that this part of the country will experience it before many others. That's not why I'm moving my family south, but it's a nice side benefit.
For more on the situation in New England, visit the Boston Globe.

Styles is moving his family to Northern Virginia, just outside Washington. Welcome to the neighborhood.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
I highly recommend Styles' blog, "Energy Outlook." He's an intelligent and considered thinker about energy issues.

That said, we don't always agree but not because he's some kook from left field, just an oil guy.
June 16, 2006 at 5:40 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