Skip to main content

The Keystone Report on Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
From the NEI newsroom:
Capping a year-long evaluation of nuclear energy by a diverse group of experts, The Keystone Center today issued a report that details the group’s consensus that U.S. nuclear power plants are safer today with an improved safety culture; that climate change policies will improve nuclear energy’s relative economics, and that options are available today to safely manage used fuel.

The report, a “joint fact-finding on nuclear power,” was undertaken to provide an “assessment” of nuclear energy amid growing discussion – in policy circles and among the general public – of the technology’s appropriate role in the nation’s energy future.

“Nuclear technology is re-emerging as a power generation option in the face of concerns about climate change, energy demand growth, and the relative cost of competing technologies,” the report states.
For a copy of the final report, click here.
Labels:

Comments

Muckerheide said…
The Congressional Quarterly reports on this at:

http://public.cq.com/docs/gs/greensheets110-000002532359.html

CQ sees the report as saying that nuclear power (GNEP specifically), can not significantly contribute to the global warming problem. It presents current conditions and historical problems as insoluble - that plants can't be built fast enough (that it would not be possible for the industry to maintain 1981-1990 growth for 40 years), plants will cost too much, and be uneconomic for the industry, and that we can't manage the wastes (we would need multiple repositories). They also find that proliferation risks would be significantly enhanced. (The CQ article presenting the report is titled: "Proliferation Threat Seen in Nuclear Power Expansion")

A fair reading of the actual report reaches these same conclusions.

This report, substantially repeats the Bob Alvarez (anti-nuclear) Insitute of Science Policy report. It sees "facts" that are "ancient history," and arbitrary regulatory and legislative conditions, as demonstrating fatal factors, without indicating that there are new solutions or conditions, or corrective actions, that apply!

The industry should substantially comment on this report, or at least on how it is being presented. We should identify the changed conditions that discount the identified current and past conditions that are used here to clearly indicate that future reliance on nuclear power is misplaced.

Regards, Jim
June 15, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Anonymous said…
The thing that bothers me about the proliferation drumbeat is that it fails to distinguish between the potential effects of new nuclear programs in several new (developing) countries and the effects of increasing nuclear power here in the US. It should be clear to any one that increased nuclear in the US will have absolutely no impact on proliferation, whether or not we reprocess. But they try to blur the issue and paint all nuclear power with the same brush.

It isn't the proliferation stuff, however, that bothered me most about the report. It's the cost projection table that appears right near the front of the report. This table states that nuclear's estimated overall cost will be 8-11 cents/kW-hr. Even more amazing, it states that even the operating (non-capital) costs will be 3.7 cents/kW-hr!! Don't we have solid data (e.g., from the Utility Data Institute) showing that current reactors (right now) are achieving operating costs of ~1.7 cents/kW-hr? This is not a matter of calculation or projection. It is established, observable fact, w/ no uncertainty. So what gives?

I've also been told that nuclear utility people, and even NEI contributed to this report. How can NEI sign its name to any document that states that new nuclear's overall costs will be 8-11 cents/kW-hr, and that even its operating costs are 3.7 cents?

The fact that the "official" capital cost estimates for new reactors has been going up, oh, about 50% per year for several years now is annoying enough ($1000/kW ~7 years ago, then $1500/kW, then $2000, then $2500, and now I'm even hearing about $3000-$4000). Am I being lied to now or was I being lied to then? Inflation and materials cost escalation is nowhere near enough to explain this. Weren't reactors supposed to be cheaper this time around ("50% fewer valves....", etc..).
June 20, 2007 at 1:27 AM
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