Skip to main content

A Texas Sized Question on Energy and the Environment

By Eric McErlain
With utilities in Texas about to undertake massive new build of coal-fired power plants, some folks in the state are giving nuclear energy a second look:
Broadly speaking, the environmental community remains opposed to the construction and operation of nuclear plants. Environmentalists say uranium mining can pollute groundwater, and they fear the possibility of a catastrophic accident. They also are dissatisfied with the disposal methods for radioactive waste.

But as the effort to stop global climate change leapfrogs to the top of most environmentalists' agenda, some say they are re-examining their opposition to the plants, which emit little in the way of greenhouse gases.

"We're looking at it again," said Jim Marston, who heads the Austin office of Environmental Defense.
As we've already reported, TXU is thinking the same thing.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
It's a misperception (or misrepresentation) of scale that allows arguments on uranium mining and nuclear waste disposal any serious consideration. These are small-scale issues. The quantities involved are tiny relative to coal mining (huge) and even to gas/oil extraction (still fairly big), even leaving aside the fossils' pollution output.
November 7, 2006 at 3:11 PM
giordano bruno said…
Lets leave the decision to hard-headed men, not greenies. Lets insist that nuclear power stations pay normal insurance, including full insurance for worst case events.
If nuclear is cost-effective with normal insurance, then we can start talking about police-states

Coal wastes dont need guards with machineguns for (10 half lives?) 270,000 years.
November 7, 2006 at 8:54 PM
Anonymous said…
US nuclear power plants purchase as much insurance as they can, then enter an agreement to cross-insure across the industry. They have far more depth of insurance than say a large dam operator. The Price-Anderson requirements are no subsidy.

Nuclear wastes don't need huge security once they're in the ground. Coal wastes however have a track record of killing people.
November 8, 2006 at 1:33 AM
Anonymous said…
Stating that spent nuclear fuel "need guards with machineguns for (10 half lives?) 270,000 years." shows a total lack of understanding and or interest in the spent fuel issue.

After the repository is full it is sealed and requires no guarding or maintenance what so ever, no more than uranium ore deep down in the ground require guards.

If you are interested in learning something about dealing with spent fuel, read this article:
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/8/13/184016/739
November 8, 2006 at 10:51 AM
Anonymous said…
giordano,

The nuclear industry can pay for a worst-case scenario (Three Mile Island) a year, not that it will ever be necessary.

No we don't need machine guns to guard coal emissions because we simply allow the waste to go into the air, killing 25,000 people a year in the U.S. alone. Or for a more concrete example, take a look at China, which loses 5000 coal miners in a good year, so to speak.

By the way, the 270,000 year number is just meaningless.
November 8, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more