Skip to main content

U.K. Nuclear Update

The nuclear debate in the U.K. has produced some interesting clips I'd like to share with you.

First, our friends at Potential Energy are examining Hormesis for the first time. For those who haven't heard it before, the industry position in the U.S. on Hormesis is pretty simple: It's an interesting theory and ought to be investigated further. In the meantime, it isn't the basis for any industry radiation protection standards.

Ruth Lea, a director of the Centre for Policy Studies in the U.K. is cheering the conclusions the U.K. Energy Review came to about new nuclear build.

A professor at the University of Southampton is questioning the origin of opposition to expanded nuclear build.

The U.K. Polling Report has discovered the gender gap in support for nuclear power.

A long-time anti-nuclear group is claiming a recent surge in membership in the wake of the latest U.K. Energy Review, but the report is short on specifics.

And finally, Fiona O'Malley, energy spokesman for Ireland's Progressive Democrats, is chiding many of her fellow countrymen for their reflexive anti-nuclear position in regards to the long-term energy plans of the U.K.:
I disagree with the responses of ministers Dermot Ahern and Dick Roche to the British government'’s decision on nuclear power.

Whether they choose to admit it or not, Ireland does derive benefits from the British nuclear industry. Every day, we import electricity from Britain through the interconnector, which carries electricity from Scotland.

There is no doubt that some of this electricity is generated by nuclear power, and that Ireland is dependent on that energy. If our European neighbours stopped producing energy from nuclear power, there would be an even greater demand on the limited world oil and gas supplies.

Given Ireland'’s location at the end of the supply chain, as well as our small size, we would not be much of a priority for suppliers. There is a certain hypocrisy in criticising another country for planning to build new nuclear power stations, while turning a blind eye to the fact that we ourselves import nuclear-generated energy.
Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

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...