Skip to main content

CERA Report: Nuclear Power “Renaissance” Moving Beyond Talk to Real Action

By Eric McErlain
From the press release:
Governments and businesses around the globe have moved beyond talking to real action to renew development of nuclear power, and have created “good prospects for a major nuclear expansion over the coming decades,” according to a new analysis by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA).

“Over the past few years, high fossil fuel prices, energy security and climate change concerns and increasing urgency about reducing greenhouse gas emissions have all converged to improve the position of nuclear power relative to other options,” CERA Senior Director Jone-Lin Wang and Associate Director Christopher J. Hansen write in the new report Is the “Nuclear Renaissance” Real?

In the U.S., where no new reactor has been ordered in 28 years, these trends, plus excellent performance of the existing nuclear fleet and financial incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, have led to a race to develop new nuclear power reactors. In Asia, where the building of new nuclear plants never stopped, several countries have recently upped their target for new nuclear capacity. In Western Europe, a new reactor is under construction for the first time in more than a decade; a second one is not far behind.

In the near-term, CERA’s assessment is that limits on nuclear component manufacturing capacity and skilled personnel could constrain nuclear capacity growth over the next several years, but these are short-term growing pains similar to those faced by other industries and other segments of the energy industry.

Longer-term issues involving spent fuel storage and the risk of proliferation need to be addressed, and will require implementation of international conventions. Development of convincing long-term solutions must make continuing progress or public support for the upcoming expansion may decline, according to the CERA report.
More coverage from Marketwatch.

Thanks to We Support Lee for the pointer.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
That's the thing. I'll believe the “Renaissance” is the real deal when someone actually steps up and builds a plant. Until then, it's just talk. And we've heard eneough of that in the last 28 years.
April 3, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Anonymous said…
I wouldn't consider 2 early sight permits in hand and the preparations for combined operating licenses just talk.

Multiple utilities are spending multi-millons of dollars for these. That wouldn't be happening unless they were serious.

M Beasley
April 4, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Anonymous said…
Doing paperwork is all fine and good and I know it needs to be done, it's just I'll feel better when someone starts making the dirt fly. I've seen too many projects start off with their sails full and end up as nothing more than a report in someone's file cabinet. This country needs to be building stuff again. The time for posturing and planning and preparing is pretty much past. Time to get sweaty and dirty and make stuff happen.
April 5, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
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...
1 comment
Read more

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