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...
Former blog for NEI featuring news and commentary on the commercial nuclear energy industry. Head to NEI.org for the latest blog posts.
Comments
The political climate concerning energy here is actually rather scary. Our state is full of environmental groups, that as far as I can tell, have both jumped on the renewable bandwagon and are anti-nuclear. Some may say they are neutral, but publish anti-nuke propaganda nonetheless.
We now have a renewable mandate of 25% by 2025. I was talking with a spokesperson for Great River Energy about this and we both felt this was dangerous policy. Keep in mind Minnesota also has a moratorium on new nuclear builds. Now we're taxing carbon? All we're going to get is more expensive energy.
But one thing I also wonder about. Doesn't all that renewable energy require back-up generation? So, doesn't the 25% renewable mandate translate into a 25% natural gas mandate? Or do people not understand how these things work?