Skip to main content

Animating the Issues

AREVA has been notably good with their outreach ads. Here's an animated piece extolling the virtues of nuclear energy through the medium of two yakky fuel pellets. Perhaps a little static in the manner of much Flash animation, but a very nicely produced piece that hits its points without fuss. AREVA is a member of NEI, so this post could easily be construed as a bit of logrolling, but good is good.

Comments

Anonymous said…
30% more energy? Thrilling...

How does 30,000% more energy sound using thorium and the fluoride reactor?

Implementing a closed fuel cycle with thorium and fluoride fuels is much easier than solid fuels.
DV8 2XL said…
So why the hell am I watching this here, a place only frequented by the convinced and the hopelessly against?

This an similar should be out there in television-land where it can do some good.

The bloody industry has got to start a serious outreach program, and soon
Ondrej Chvala said…
30% more energy is ridiculous, with closed fuel cycle you get more like 20x the energy. I guess you get 30% more if you do next cycle with MOX, but that is different from fully closed fuel cycle.
Anonymous said…
Dv82xl is absolutely right. Areva, Westinghouse and GE-Hitachi have to start marketing their product with TV advertisement, and NEI should advertise also. It's time to turn the tide and show the public what the anti-nukes have done to this country with their fear mongering.
Kevin McCoy said…
"Yakky fuel pellets"? Let's make that "yakky fuel casks". Listen to the opening words, and notice the impact limiters on the top and bottom. Besides, there is that quick scene with the casks (actually waste packages) stacked up inside the mountain--no one would suggest geologic disposal of bare fuel pellets.

Popular posts from this blog

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...