Wrapping It Up at Potential Energy

I love posts like this one from Gia Milinovich at Potential Energy:

When I started Potential Energy in May my secret hope was that I'd be able to find some kind of anti-nuclear info that stood up to scrutiny. I was hoping that I'’d uncover something that backed up all of those bad things I've heard about nuclear power my whole life.

I failed.

I don't know about anybody else, but I live for moments like this one. Here's her conclusion:

I would imagine a lot of previously anti-nuclear people would find it difficult to look at nuclear power without their pre-conceived ideas getting in the way. It wasn't very easy for me, but I forced myself to look at all of the issues in a way I never had before.

I started out leaning towards anti-nuclear and have become a supporter.

In the end, that's all our industry is really asking of folks -- just give us a chance to talk about our real record. Let us separate the science from the hysteria, and find some common ground where we can generate the electricity we need in a way that's affordable and environmentally sensitive.

Is nuclear the only answer? No, not by a longshot. But it ought to be a part of any answer that we come up with when it comes to confronting the challenges of energy policy.

One last note: I want to thank Gia, Kat and Caspar from Potential Energy for allowing us to participate in the debate. They promised to keep an open mind about nuclear energy, and they stuck with that promise. And thanks to all the readers from NEI Nuclear Notes who stopped by and contributed as well. And while we may not have completely convinced everybody, I'm grateful for their efforts.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Energy, Technology, Environment, Electricity, United Kingdom

Comments

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