Skip to main content

G8 Leaders Back Nuclear Power

By Eric McErlain
The big news out of St. Petersburg at this weekend's G8 Summit had to be the support of nuclear energy included in the summit's statement on energy security. Here's one account from the AP:
Although the leaders of the world's leading industrialized nations endorsed the use of nuclear power, they hinted at a disagreement with Germany, which has opposed renewed interest in the energy source...

"We recognize that G-8 members pursue different ways to achieve energy security and climate protection goals. ... Those of us who have or are considering plans for the use and/or development of safe and secure nuclear energy believe that its development will contribute to global energy security," the statement said.
I don't want to soft soap the apparent opposition of the German government, but their reluctance to endorse nuclear at the G8 is owed to domestic political considerations -- ones that might disappear if Prime Minister Angela Merkel's party ever wins an outright majority in the Bundestag.

In any case, you can find the G8 statement on energy security by clicking here. The joint statement by Presidents Bush and Putin on nuclear energy cooperation is here. And here's an interesting answer that Putin gave a reporter yesterday:
QUESTION (Persian Television): Mr. President, I am from Persian Television and I would like to follow up, if I may, on the Iranian issue. You seem to be firm in your stance on Iran. You talked with the Iranian president when he was in China. How far are you willing to go, and do you have any assurances from the Iranians that they will accept this package? And if I ask you to speculate: what is the next step for Russia with regard to the Iranian nuclear activities? Thank you, Mr. President.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well, I have said a lot about this already in public, and I find it difficult to imagine what I could add. We would like all countries in the world, including Iran, to have the right to gain access to all high technologies, including nuclear high technologies. I mean, you can't just prohibit countries from using nuclear energy and keep that technology only for some countries. And that is a problem not only with respect to Iran but also other countries that would like to develop their nuclear energy sector. So for that reason it is extremely important that we manage to put in place conditions that will allow for the development of peaceful nuclear energy, eliminating of course the possibility of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And that is precisely why we came forward with the initiative of setting up a network of international centers to enrich uranium and make it possible to reprocess spent fuel. I mean, if there were such a network of centers then each country would have democratic access to nuclear technology on an equal basis and the international community would no longer have to fear the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Sounds like Putin is on board with GNEP to me.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

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