Skip to main content

Ankle Biting Pundits on Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
Bull Dog Pundit, one of the contributors to the popular Ankle Biting Pundits, has some specific problems with Senator John McCain's position on energy policy in general, and a few concerning nuclear energy in particular:
Like McCain, I’m all for more nuclear power. However, here’s the problem I see with that. There hasn’t been a nuclear power plant built in the United States for decades. The reason? Well, for one they cost a great deal of money, but in terms of the long-terms cost savings it’s well worth the price.

The other big problem with building nuke plants is that the government has so regulated the industry, that it makes it nearly impossible to get one built. Further, lawsuits by environmental groups can delay the start of construction for years. Even a site that gets the initial permit from the NRC can take decades to be built, even assuming no opposition.

So what that means is that while the stated goal of greater reliance on nuclear energy is great in theory, the reality of the situation is that reliance on it is a risky proposition, and in the short term, impossible.
First of all, while there were certainly problems with new plant licensing in the past, the public needs to know that a new plant licensing process was established by NRC in 10 CFR Part 52, and that Congress reaffirmed that process in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

A number of companies are engaged in testing the new plant licensing process, and most recently, NRC approved an early site permit to build a new reactor at Exelon's Clinton site in Illinois. Just last week, we did an interview with NRC Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield where we asked him a number of questions about the new plant licensing process and how it could be reformed to speed approval of new plants while still protecting public safety. Click here for that interview.

Granted, there are a number of other challenges ahead for the industry. Certain elements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 still need to be implemented properly. However, to imply that nothing has changed is simply inaccurate.

There's a lesson in this post. While many of the facts on the ground about nuclear energy have changed, and those of us inside the industry might be well aware of the changes that are taking place, there's still a lot of work to be done in educating others about how our industry operates and what the realities are.
Labels:

Comments

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

Wednesday Update

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more