"Nuclear Power is progressive."

One of my old favorites in the Blogosphere is James Lileks. In today's Bleat, he gets around to redefining some old and cherished political ideas:

Nuclear power is progressive; the status quo, in place for twenty years, still thinks “The China Syndrome” is a documentary. I know it’s a different definition of progressive, but heck: redefining “progressive” is progressive.

Thanks to our buddy Carter Wood at NAM Blog for the pointer.

Comments

Headless Blogger said…

The China Syndrome wasn't a documentary? It took this nuclear professional 25 years in the industry to realize that it WAS.

From my blog:
"The China Syndrome may have been flawed technically, but it portrayed the human element with some accuracy. Things are better in the business today, but it is foolish to think we are perfect. We should embrace the human performance lessons of The China Syndrome as we go forward with this new generation of nuclear power plants."

http://headlessblogger.blogspot.com/2007/09/jane-fonda-was-correct.html

January 11, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Steve Packard said…

Nuclear power is more than progress, it is the next quantum leep in mankind's ability to expand and harness the forces of nature for the purposes of exploration, expansion, comfort, safety, creation and so on.

First there was only human muscle.

Then man learned to use combustion and it made civilization possible.

Then man learned to use steam and to convert thermal energy to mechanical energy and it made industry possible.

Then man learned to use electricity and it made telecommunications and information and transmission of energy and the modern society possible.

Nuclear energy is the next great leap. It is not an evolution, but it is one of those jumps forward that happens only occasionally in human history.

To understand and harness nuclear energy is as significant as to understand harness chemical energy or electrical energy.

January 27, 2008 at 2:43 AM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog