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

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
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...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more