Fighting Nuclear FUD From Davos

Over at the World Economic Forum, Lester Brown is taking his best cheap shot at nuclear energy.

Unfortunately for him, my colleague David Bradish showed up in the comments string.

Be sure to stop by and add your two cents. As always, please be respectful.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Electricity, Davos, World Economic Forum

Comments

Anonymous said…

I'm glad to see someone jumped in to correct that blaring error (government subsidy of nuclear). Not only are consumers paying the cost of the surcharge, but many consumers also pay higher rates because the local utility has had to go build local spent fuel storage because the government has been so slow completing the federal repository (i.e. Yucca Mtn). And even at that the nuclear power is still generally the cheapest power on their grid!

January 24, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Anonymous said…

Did anyone read Tony Blair's speach and comments in favour of Nuclear???

"But I look ahead in my country and I see a situation where we're going to move, incidentally, from self-sufficiency in gas to importing 90% of it, and I say for reasons both of energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions, how are we going to do that without nuclear energy being part of the mix?

"And I think we've got to get over this false view that it offers nothing by way of the future. I think there is a whole new generation of technology growing up around it," he said.

Standing ovation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6305587.stm

January 27, 2007 at 3:59 PM

Wednesday Update

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...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog