With Friends Like This...

One-time media mogul Ted Turner gave a backhanded compliment to nuclear energy last night:

The broadcast mogul Ted Turner told a group of wealthy philanthropists yesterday that the country needs to turn to nuclear power as part of a new energy plan, but that terrorists could blow up a nuclear power plant.

The multibillionaire megaphilanthropist called power plants "gigantic land mines" but said, "At the end of the day, I think it's a risk we have to accept."

As we've said he before at NEI, we beg to differ, and believe nuclear power plants are the best defended pieces of industrial infrastructure in the U.S.

Senator Schumer seems to agree with us.

For more from our Web site, click here. For a post we did on provisions for air attack on nuclear facilities, click here.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Ted Turner

Comments

Anonymous said…

Greetings,

"gigantic land mines"... indeed, and unnecessary, too.

If Ted Turner's really serious about this he would be interested to see NUREG-2859 "Evaluation of Aircraft Hazards for Nuclear Power Stations" (Argonne National Lab, 1982) as it shows the actual lack of consideration and analyses on aircraft impacts for current reactor designs, an area of common concern that we share with Turner that NEI & NRC continue to ignore in a revised Design Basis Threat even for the new designs like AREVA’s.

Turner's remark begs the question of what are the real costs of security for the defense of nuclear power plants (a “nuclear” arms in-and-of-itself)? In fact, it is clearly a cost that NEI and NRC don’t want clarified because they're unwilling to afford in an increasingly competitive electricity market. He can see the proof in the GAO's March 2006 Report to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, “Nuclear Power Plants: Efforts Made to Upgrade Security, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Design Basis Threat Process Should be Improved.”

Gunter, NIRS

November 15, 2006 at 12:32 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