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

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