Skip to main content

Also Heard from the NEA Podium

By
This morning’s Nuclear Energy Assembly session explored the socio-economic trends pointing to a vital role for nuclear power in our nation’s energy mix. Here is a sampling from the wide-ranging roster of speakers:

“Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, satisfying growing energy demand, making energy affordable and enhancing energy security are tasks that are difficult enough individually, but we need to do all of them at the same time. There’s no way around it: this effort requires bold leadership. We need our policymakers to look ahead and understand that we’re living in a new world that requires new approaches.” – Jack Gerard, president and CEO, American Chemistry Council

“Our top priority is the safe operation of the current fleet of U.S. nuclear power plants, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also a global leader in safe regulation. We need to keep our place at the table to ensure a consistent regulatory environment.” – Dale Klein, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

“We have a strategic partnership between the nuclear energy industry and the Building and Construction Trades Department. Ours is an unusual relationship in Washington between organized labor and an industry. We have a common set of interests and mutual respect. We must strengthen our relationship further to enhance our chances of success in the halls of Congress.” – Mark Ayers, president, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO

“I wish you great good luck on your endeavors for nuclear power. You are at the right moment. Go for it.” – Peggy Noonan, columnist for The Wall Street Journal and author

JoAnn Sperber
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
“Our top priority is the safe operation of the current fleet of U.S. nuclear power plants, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is also a global leader in safe regulation. We need to keep our place at the table to ensure a consistent regulatory environment.” – Dale Klein, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Sounds like more of the same :-/ Any plans to change fee structure for modularized low power/core approaches?

best regards & thanks for the good work to NEI and others
-t-
May 6, 2008 at 5:53 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

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

By
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...
7 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