Orlando Sentinel Says Nuclear Should Not Be 'Scapegoat'

Here's what an Orlando Sentinel editorial has to say about the role of the Turkey Point nuclear plant in the Tuesday blackout...

Our position: Nuclear energy shouldn't be used as scapegoat in this week's massive blackout

Critics of nuclear energy were barking up the wrong power pole when they blamed reactors at Turkey Point for the blackout Tuesday afternoon that cut off electricity for millions of Floridians.

The reactors shut down, as designed, when a West Dade substation caught fire and a circuit breaker there failed to contain the problem. The loss of power from the reactors caused outages to spread across the grid that draws and distributes electricity from all of Florida's utilities.

Like the massive power outage that struck multiple states in 2003, Florida's blackout is another reminder of the vulnerability of America's aging electrical infrastructure. U.S. customers endure many more blackouts than their counterparts in countries that have modernized their grids.

Opponents of nuclear power contend the latest blackout shows Florida is too dependent on huge reactors such as the ones at Turkey Point, and that plans to add nuclear capacity in the state will deepen the dependency. But for now, the only alternatives that would keep pace with Florida's growing energy demand would be more plants fired by coal or natural gas, huge producers of greenhouse gases.

Energy sources that don't produce those gases or radioactive waste, such as wind and solar, need to be developed to be more viable in the future.

Conservation also is crucial to get the most out of Florida's generating capacity.

Meanwhile, nuclear energy is needed. And whatever the state's power mix, it will take improvements to the grid to give Floridians more protection from blackouts.

Comments

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...

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog