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

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

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
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...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more