Skip to main content

Charles Osgood on the "Nuclear Gold Rush"

With utilities rushing to secure sites to build new nuclear power plants, Charles Osgood of the CBS Radio Network has taken notice:
Right now the 65 nuclear power plants in the United States are supplying 20% of the electric POWER used in this country. But even though DEMAND for power has been increasing every year we haven't had a new nuclear reactor licensed since 1979. But stand back because a new generation of pants is on the horizon and nuclear GOLD RUSH may be already under way.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Congress is dangling more than 8 billion dollars in subsidies plus LOAN guarantees for the first new nuclear electric power plants to be built here in nearly three decades. And the rush is on among potential owners to identify and lock down the best possible nuclear sites. Environmentalists still worry about what can be done with radioactive nuclear WASTE but right now for them, the most pressing concern is global warming and the effects of fossil fuel burning. 50% of the electric power needs of the country are produced by burning coal. The emissions from gasoline burning CARS are another big factor but if electric hybrids are part of the solution that extra electric POWER is going to have to come from somewhere. Power companies' cancelled plans to build 96 new nuclear plants after the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union and as President Bush said in his State of the Union Address last week.

"We must continue changing the way America generates electric power - by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy and clean, safe nuclear power." said President George Bush.

The Commission now expects at least thirty new reactors to be built. And it seems as if the race is on. The Osgood File. Charles Osgood on the CBS Radio Network.
Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,


Wally said…
Charles Osgood is playing fast and loose with the facts. The 1973 oil embago kicked the United States economy in the goolies and GDP and demand for new electricity collapsed. Many of the "96" nuclear power plants that Charles Osgood says were cancelled after 1979, and by inference, after Three Mile Island, were actually cancelled prior to 1979. These plants were cancelled because the plants coming on line produced more than enough electricity to meet current demand. I believe that the last nuclear power plant was actually ordered around 1976, but I defer to anyone who can give a more precise answer.

Most journalists seem to think that the causal factor of the collapse of the Nuclear Power industry was TMI, but they don't do their homework. If you can remember the state of finance in the late 1979's, you might think that tight money, oversupply, and rampant inflation were the real culprits.
David Bradish said…
The last order was in 1978 but the last completed order was in 1973. TMI just made plants under construction at that time slow down and become much more expensive due to regulatory delays.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.

Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …