Sierra Club's Nukes by the Number

Here’s a link to one of our favorite anti-nuclear groups, which just came out with some bullet points on Nukes by the Numbers.

Right off the bat they get the first number wrong.

104: Number of commercially operating nuclear power reactors in the United States.

It’s actually 103 commercially operating nuclear reactors. The 104th reactor (Browns Ferry 1) has been shutdown and is expected to come back on line in May 2007. It still holds an operating license; however, it hasn’t been operating since the 1980s. They even link to the source, and the source says:

There are currently 104 licensed to operate nuclear power plants in the United States (69 PWRs and 35 BWRs).

So far we’re 0 for 1. Let’s check out the third bullet:

$2,451,200,000: First-quarter 2006 gross operating profits of Entergy, Exelon, Duke Energy, and Southern Company.

This I find humorous. If you click on their Smart Energy Summer link on the top of their page it will take you here. Check out what the second paragraph says:

Despite once being promised that electricity from nuclear energy would be "too cheap to meter," it is the most expensive way anyone's ever discovered to boil water.

The top four nuclear investor-owned utilities made $2.5 billion in the first quarter of 2006 and yet the Web page says it’s the most expensive way to boil water. Obviously it’s not that expensive if companies are reporting million-dollar earnings each quarter.

300,000: Years that nuclear waste must be stored for it to be considered safe.

Probably not.

0: Number of approved or operating long-term nuclear waste storage facilities in the United States.

Actually, there’s one approved facility and that’s Yucca Mountain, which was approved back in 2002. That was big news. I wonder how Sierra Club missed it.

3 out of 3: Number of federal judges that agreed in 2003 that Yucca Mountain is not safe.

That’s if you believe Nevada’s one win out of the 12 rulings means Yucca Mountain is unsafe. Here’s what really happened:

July 9, 2004 - In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today affirmed Congress’ 2002 endorsement of the planned Yucca Mountain, Nev., underground repository for used nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants and high-level radioactive waste from U.S. defense programs. Ruling in a group of consolidated cases, the appellate court rejected all but one of the legal challenges raised by the state of Nevada, including a constitutional challenge.

Public Citizen called this one win a victory.

20,000,000: Number of people within 50 miles of the Indian Point nuclear power plant near New York City, which one of the planes hijacked on September 11, 2001, flew directly over.

It’s also probably the number of people who rely on the irreplaceable plant to keep them cool and living healthy, especially in this summer heat wave.

Here are a few of my Nukes by the Numbers:

73: Nuclear’s percentage of U.S. carbon-free electricity (pdf).

One football field six yards deep: The cubic space of all the high-level nuclear waste from U.S. commercial nuclear power plants.

53,000: The total number of people working at U.S. nuclear power plants.

$350 million: The total output to the local community from an average nuclear plant.

700 million metric tons: The amount of carbon dioxide emissions avoided each year by U.S. nuclear plants.

2 billion metric tons: The amount of carbon dioxide emissions avoided each year by all the nuclear plants in the world.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Technology, Economics

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...

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog