Skip to main content

Jeb Bush on Nuclear Power

By
The former Florida governor and CASE Coalition member shares his thoughts:
"Change" seems to be the operative word this election season. It's on the lips of political contenders and on the minds of the voters. But politics isn't the only arena where change is in the air. Change is happening in the world of energy as well, specifically when it comes to nuclear energy.

...

There are now 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States that are safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity - notably, without producing any of the harmful greenhouse gases some believe to be a major factor in climate change. Americans are beginning to recognize that nuclear energy caters to both our lifestyle and our greening mentality. And it offers the most proven means for our country to achieve much needed energy security.

...

American are demanding changes in energy production and the utilities are listening - there are 31 new nuclear power plants on the drawing board to be built over the next 15 to 20 years. Three of those are proposed for Florida.

It's good news for Florida. In 2006, Florida's five nuclear power reactors prevented the emission of 54,800 tons of sulfur dioxide; 39,000 tones of nitrogen oxide; and 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Avoiding nitrogen oxide at this level is the equivalent of taking 2 million passenger cars off the road.

That's a change for the better and it comes at the right time.

By 2030 the South Atlantic Grid is expected to require 26 percent more energy than it produced in 2006. And nationally, the numbers are even higher. As a country, we will need 40 percent more electricity to power our way of life by 2030.

...

It is time to shine a little light on this critical sea change, which has produced energy's comeback kid - nuclear power. It has my vote.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
The only thing bad about nuclear power is that it doesn't produce plant food (carbon dioxide).
March 3, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Anonymous said…
Interestingly enough, its FPL own filings to the Florida Public Service Commission that show why nuclear power is the least economicly viable option for 21st Century energy policy.

The projected total overnight cost (no financing charges) for construction for an ABWR is between $5500 and $8100 per kilowatt of capacity between $9- $12 billion per unit. And they haven't even put a shovel in the ground.

It is exhobidant construction costs like this that reframe the so-called "renaissance" to be more akin to a relapse to the
1970's. Of more concern, to allow such a heist jeporadizes our chances at abating rapid climate change.
March 4, 2008 at 9:32 AM
David Bradish said…
Gunter,

Page 11 on FP&L's "Petition to Determine Need for Turkey Point" states:

"FPL’s analysis shows that for all of the scenarios evaluated (eight of nine), the addition of new nuclear capacity is economically superior versus the corresponding addition of new CC units required to provide the same power output, yielding large direct economic benefits to customers as well as effectively addressing the criteria of section 403.519(4)(b). In fact, in the only scenario in which nuclear is not clearly superior, the natural gas prices are significantly lower than they are today and there are zero future economic compliance costs for CO2 emissions. Of all the scenarios evaluated, FPL believes these two to be the most unlikely. Moreover, even in these two unlikely scenarios, the results of the analysis show nuclear to be competitive or only slightly disadvantaged economically, while retaining the non-quantified advantages of fuel diversity, fuel supply reliability, and energy independence. Based on all the information available today, it is clearly desirable to take the steps and make the expenditures necessary to retain the option of new nuclear capacity coming on line in 2018."

FPL estimates on page 30 of the report that nuclear's construction cost estimate is $3,108 to $4,540/kW.

Are you sure you are referring to the correct FPL report?
March 4, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more

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

By
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...
4 comments
Read more