Skip to main content

Virginia's Energy Plan

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine has just released his state energy policy, and while the media coverage doesn't talk much about the role of nuclear energy, our old friend Lisa Stiles says in a note that the details of the report are another story entirely:
The article in the Times Dispatch doesn't talk much about nuclear other than the issue of uranium mining, but if you go through the actual plan (PDF) there is plenty of discussion. All in all I'm impressed with this Democratic governor's embrace of nuclear as one of Virginia's core energy assets, though there are a few lines here and there that rankle me (operational costs [for] nuclear are higher than solar and wind?).
Interesting stuff. Again, click here (PDF) for a copy of the plan.

Comments

Anonymous said…
the story probably doesn't discuss nuclear much beyond uranium because the Virginia energy plan says that any new nuclear plants built in the state would be outside the 10-year time horizon of the plan, and hence are not considered in the plan.
Lisa Stiles said…
That's true, but nuclear is discussed extensively throughout the document in sections like Ch 2 on Energy Resources (where the "core strength" quote is), Ch 4 on Energy Infrastructure, Ch 6 on Energy R&D, and there is a recommendation related specifically to nuclear.

I would have thought that if they read the report the media would pounce on a statement like:

"Virginia has unique assets in the nuclear industry that provide an opportunity for it to be the leader in nuclear energy."

I'm lovin' it!
Lisa
Rod Adams said…
I think that there were several writers for the report, some of whom might not have talked to each other. For example, on page 49 under the heading of Role of New Technologies, there is the following sentence: "Near term generation options include clean coal, solar, wind, nuclear, and waste and biomass."

Also, on page 18, under the heading of Nuclear Infrastructure, there is the following statement - "New nuclear energy production is not expected to come on line over the ten-year term of this Plan. However, a new nuclear power plant may be under construction during the term of this plan and come on-line shortly thereafter."

As Lisa has pointed out, there are a number of places where Virginia's unique nuclear assets are mentioned. The report is quite clear about the value of developing those assets in a time of growing interest in nuclear power around the world. As a potential customer of that Lynchburg cluster that is mentioned, I think that is great news.

In the all important Executive Summary, however, there is the following statement - "New nuclear power generation, hydrogen, methane hydrates and ocean power are beyond the ten-year scope of this plan." I would bet a nice chunk of money that the Executive Summary was written by a shy PR type who advised a more cautious stance than the actual report.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…