Skip to main content

Knight: Sierra Club Ideas Would "Collapse the Economy"

Over at The Denver Post, columnist Al Knight has cracked the code with another member of the "no solutions" gang on questions of energy and the environment -- in this case, the Sierra Club:
More nuclear plants would improve the convenience and therefore the use of electric or hybrid cars, reducing air pollution in the bargain. More electric and hybrid cars would reduce dependence on foreign oil.

This trifecta of potential blessings has utterly failed to impress the Sierra Club. A posting on its website ( flatly states the club "opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclear reactors" pending the achievement of two important objectives (which are impossible to meet):

There must be a national and "global" policy to eliminate "energy over- use" and "unnecessary economic growth." It is already obvious that the United States has no power to prohibit "unnecessary economic growth" around the globe.


What the Sierra Club seeks is a commitment by the American people to abandon development of adequate energy sources in the hope that other sources might be developed before the economy collapses.

Unless all common sense has been sucked into the ozone layer, saner minds must prevail.

The Sierra Club aside, before America finds the kind of energy it wants, it must continue to obtain the energy it needs.
Glad to see more folks cracking the code. The faster this happens, the closer we'll get to crafting real solutions that protect our environment and the nation's energy security at the same time.


gunter said…

Speaking about "collapsing economies" check out Finnish website on the EPR under construction in Finland. Imagine how quickly an economy could collapse trying to build a lot of these boondoogles:

Gunter, NIRS
Anonymous said…
Yeah, right Gunter. When you build a plant that will operate for 60 or 80 years with cheap fuel and a capacity factor of nearly 100%, a delay isn't a big deal. If things are going so badly, why are the Finns looking at a sixth reactor? Finland isn't California, meaning that even the Finns, who are not exactly known as a jolly race, would laugh at your proclamations that solar and wind power make nuclear power unnecessary. The other alternative is to look across the border for natural gas; given Finland's history with Russia, they are understandably loathe to rely on their neighbor. The Finns made the only sensible decision.
Matthew66 said…
One thing to remember about the new Finnish reactor, it is being built under a fixed price, fixed delivery date contract. Costs related to the delay in delivery and any cost overruns are the responsibility of the vendor - in this case Areva. The Finnish utility cannot lose on this contract - even the delayed delivery requires Areva to compensate it for electricity purchased on the open market. Areva will be taking a big hit on the contract, but that is as it should be - after all most manufacturers (e.g. Boeing and Airbus) pay the first of a kind engineering costs. My expectation is that a second EPR for Finland (the third EPR to be built after Flamanville) will be delivered on time and will generate a nice profit for Areva.
Anonymous said…

Yeah, those Finns sure are stupid, trying to meet their obligations for reducing GHG, being less dependent on Russian-supplied natural gas, being environmentally responsible. They should know better and just rely on solar energy for their needs. After all, given their location, everyone knows its an ideal place to utilize solar.
Brian Mays said…
Another thing to remember about the new Finnish reactor is that the Finns were shrewd when they chose that particular design. They know that the French are going to build a new fleet of these reactors -- as the current French fleet reaches its end of life and demand for energy increases -- and thus, the Finns are going to capitalize on the standardization of the plant and the resulting economy of scale. Considering that EPR's are likely doing to be built ultimately in other parts of the world (such as the US and China), the economic outlook for the Finns in the energy sector looks all that brighter.

Tell you what, Mr. Gunter, why don't you and NIRS and the Sierra Club get back to us after the EPR has collapsed the Finnish economy. You should have no problem waiting that long, since you yourself have commented on "how quickly an economy could collapse" by doing what the Finns are doing.
gunter said…
Matthew66 is correct about the "fixed price," unlike the real market world. He doen't mention that the Finns froze payments to AREVA in June 2006. Not happy customers even with the fixed price.

3.2 billion Euros that's $4.16 billion US.

Another thing to ponder is how "fixed price" has safety implications on QA/QC for nuclear safety systems. Know of any cheap parts for safety systems? Counterfiet, even? That wouldn't be news either. Being behind schedule indicates that cost is out of control as well.

"Fixed date" now that's another question that has very real safety implications... as a friend of mine who lives next to Braidwood, "These are't chocolate factories, right?"

Go to the above referenced website and look at the STUK Investigation Report 1/06 (10.7.2006)from Finland's Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Get real, gentlemen, there is nothing "fixed" about an operational license date if safety issues are not being closed out satisfactorily. Unless, of course, "the fix" is in on the regulator as is too often the case with NRC.

According to this STUK report, the safety culture at the construction site is currently a big safety concern. No surprise, like that hasn't happened at other reactor construction sites before? You name it, there were loads of problems, from increased DWI arrests at shift changes during Seabrook's shoddy construction to Watts Bar's perpetual construction for 26 years, poor safety culture results in loads of re-work and work arounds with a demoralized work force and plenty of built-in safety vulnerability.

And documented safety issues are piling up at OLKILUOTO; no QC for the concrete pour of the reactor basemat; wrong grain size of the steel for the hot leg reactor steam line that is incompatible with Finnish safety inpections requiring UT analysis; deficiencies and manufacturing problems with the steel containment liner and; the list goes on.

I wonder if Finnish newspapers have the translated version of the "Peanuts" comic strip? They would be likening the Olkiluoto experience to Lucy offering Charlie Brown another kick at the football, and next thing you know, he's flat on his back, again.

Need we go into Lungmen for the ABWR construction experience?

Gunter, NIRS
Starvid, Sweden said…
Taking up Lungmen is unreasonable.

That project turned into a mess because the politicians stopped and restarted it half a dozen times. That's a sure way to make something go over schedule and budget.
Matthew66 said…
The fixed date refers to the time that electricity is scheduled to be generated. If the plant vendor has not delivered the plant specified in the contract (and licence application) the plant won't be licenced for production. If that happens the vendor Areva, has to compensate TVO for the electricity it has to buy to satisfy the supply contracts it has already entered into. Suspending payments is standard commercial practice under construction contracts when a contractor fails to meet specific milestones - as are penalty clauses. The contract is for a licencable nuclear power plant - if the vendor fails to deliver that there will be one mother of a lawsuit.

As an analogy, if I contract with a builder to build a house and the builder doesn't meet agreed milestones I don't make a progress payment until the milestone is reached. Similarly, if the builder builds a house that fails final inspection for a certificate of occupancy, then I don't pay, or take delivery, until that situation is rectified.

It is reported that the Finnish regulator has very high standards and is independent from TVO. I have no doubt that Areva will live up to its contractual obligations and deliver a licencable plant, albeit late.

Popular posts from this blog

Knowing What You’ve Got Before It’s Gone in Nuclear Energy

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of carbon prevention in the United States, but this is a rough time to be in the business of selling electricity due to cheap natural gas and a flood of subsidized renewable energy. Some nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and others likely will follow.
In recent weeks, Exelon and the Omaha Public Power District said that they might close the Clinton, Quad Cities and Fort Calhoun nuclear reactors. As Joni Mitchell’s famous song says, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
More than 100 energy and policy experts will gather in a U.S. Senate meeting room on May 19 to talk about how to improve the viability of existing nuclear plants. The event will be webcast, and a link will be available here.
Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants get no specia…

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…