Skip to main content

The Environmental Integrity Project and Nuclear Energy

By Eric McErlain
Yesterday, the Environmental Integrity Project issued a report entitled, Dirty Kilowatts (PDF), a listing of what they termed were the top 50 most polluting power plants in the U.S. And while nobody likes pollution, some folks weren't happy with their tone.

Here's Don Surber:
The tax-exempt Environmental Integrity Project in Washington, D.C., issued its annual list of the 50 dirtiest power plants in America. This is illustrated by a photo showing steam — water vapor — escaping from a cooling tower. Sigh.
I chuckled a little bit when I read that one. After all, anti-nukes have been using pictures of parabolic cooling towers for years to symbolize the "danger" of nuclear power plants, even though many non-nuclear plants also have cooling towers.

In any case, on to the report. Here's Bill Hobbs at Eco Totality:
While the EIP press release urges the retirement of the oldest, least-efficient, most-polluting coal-fired power plants, I searched in vain on the EIP website to find a positive mention of nuclear power, the only existing power-generation technology that can produce power in sufficient quantities to replace coal. Instead, the EIP calls for “investments in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power,” which even the most optimistic forecasts show will produce only a few percentage points of our energy needs.

[...]

It is, flatly, irresponsible for EIP to call for shutting down a major source of electricity production but only proposing a solution to replace a minor part of it. “Investments in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power,” as EIP calls for, cost money. That’s what the word “investments” mean Somebody - business, taxpayers - has to pay for it. Economic growth is how they’ll afford to pay for it. That economic growth can’t happen without sufficient power.

I’ll be impressed with the Environmental Integrity Project when they have the integrity to either endorse expanded nuclear power, or admit that they don’t have a viable replacement for all the coal-generated power they want to shut down.
It's blog posts like this one that actually inspired me to start NEI Nuclear Notes. Hobbs is clearly saying that he'd accept an expanded role for nuclear energy in electricity generation specifically because it generates large amounts of baseload power without emitting greenhouse gases.

In other words, everybody gets what they want. Environmentalists get emission-free power, and those concerned with economic growth get abundant, affordable power.

Once you get past the rhetoric, there's a deal to be made here.
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

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

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