At The North Anna Public Meeting

Last night I drove to Louisa County, Virginia to attend an NRC Public Meeting concerning Dominion Virginia Power's application for an Early Site Permit to add two new reactors at the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant in Mineral. Click here for some photos from last night.

In particular, the meeting dealt with the Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the ESP, giving the community an opportunity to listen to the NRC's reasoning behind their findings, ask questions, and add their own statements to the record. Click here for coverage from the Fredericksburg Freelance-Star and here for coverage from the Richmond Times Dispatch.

Although the published accounts mention that 200 folks were in attendance, it probably should have also noted that there were hardly any empty seats in the school's auditorium once the meeting got underway, and that it was still more than half-full more than 2.5 hours after it began. I'll have more highlights later today.

UPDATE: Thanks to our pal Kelly Taylor for pointing to a report from the local NBC affiliate in Charlottesville. Click here for video.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Energy, Technology, Environment, Electricity, Virginia, North Anna Nuclear Power Plant, NRC

Comments

Matthew66 said…

What gets me about the opponents of the North Anna power plant is that they do not take their claims through to their logical conclusion. If the North Anna plant were to decommissioned and the site restored to its original state, the lake would have to be dismantled as it was formed specifically to provide cooling water for the plant. I would have thought the Sierra Club in particular would be in favor of demolishing the lake and returning the river to its natural flow. Personally I think the benefits of providing massive amounts of electricity without polluting the air to be of such great benefit that it outweighs the cost of damming the river and changing the aquatic environment.

August 16, 2006 at 2:02 PM

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