Are America's Environmental Groups In Favor of Anything at All?

From time to time, I've referred to a number of anti-nuclear groups as being part of the "no solutions" gang. But after decades of letting the world know what they're against, folks are starting to catch on to the fact that they're not in favor of anything that would provide energy that's both affordable and environmentally sensitive.

Here's Les McClain from the Energy Tribune (subscription required):

They hate fossil fuels. They don’t like current fuel economy standards or oil consumption rates. They are stridently opposed to drilling on the California coast, the Florida coast, and virtually all of the East Coast. They refuse to consider drilling in Alaska. They don’t like Middle Eastern oil. Oh, and they despise nuclear power.

Given this laundry list of complaints, what exactly do America’s biggest environmental groups want when it comes to energy policy? After talking to Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, National Audubon Society, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, that’s mostly what we came away with: talk. They said lots about what won’t work, but very little about what will.

While that sort of stance might help raise money through direct mail, it isn't exactly helpful when it comes to planning for the future. Here's Robert McGhee, Chairman and CEO of Progress Energy:

"Some people think we can reduce consumption and meet demand with no new generation. The way I look at it is... They can afford to be wrong. But as a regulated utility, we do not have that option."

After reviewing the various policy positions of all the green groups -- with the exception of the National Resources Defense Council -- McLain comes to an interesting conclusion:

If the greens want to be seen as anything but complainers with plenty of objections to the energy policy debate but no real fixes, they need to start accepting the realities of the country's predicament, and operate within that framework to propose solutions that don't defy the numbers or bank on impracticalities. And if they really want to stop global warming, they're going to have to accept short-term solutions, like nuclear, while working toward long-term goals.

Read the rest right now.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, EDF, Greenpeace, National Audobon Society, NRDC, Sierra Club

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