Skip to main content

Waiting Too Long to Make a Mistake

G8_Leaders_20070607A few bits of news show the nuclear renaissance colliding with the problems besetting the world these days – and demonstrating its value every time. And by value, we mean the jingle in the pocket as well as the zap in your sockets.

---

Germany, as you may know, was an early supporter of nuclear energy that changed course, at least partly, because its governing coalitions usually include the Green Party, and doing away with nuclear energy is an article of faith for the Greens. But now, with energy plants having to shut down due to legislation, feet are growing colder:

RWE AG. said delaying a planned nuclear energy phase-out in Germany would help ease pressure on energy prices, adding that it welcomes renewed talks by lawmakers in the country over a possible delay.

Extending nuclear power plant operation in Germany by 25 years to between 50 years and 60 years could yield an additional economic value of 250 billion euros, the company said in a statement.

Well, an energy company, sure. But it’s not the only one talking:

Economy Minister Michael Glos has demanded that nuclear power plants be allowed to operate for more than the current 32 years to halt an increased dependence on power sources outside Germany.

We think it very likely Germany waited too long to make this mistake and will undo it before they make it. The words out of Berlin are increasingly conciliatory.

---

Speaking of Germany, they are one of the Group of Eight (or Group of Seven and Russia, depending on what you think of Russia), that informal group of international leaders and policy wonks that gets together every year and then some and draws to their meetings every ragamuffin with a sign and a slogan. The G8 may or may not be responsible for the sins of globalization if sins they be, but it’s work is carefully weighed. Leaving aside the controversies, here’s a bit of news:

Group of Eight leaders were expected to agree to expand the use of civil nuclear power to fight climate change at the upcoming Tokyo summit July 7-9, according to Japanese media Monday.

And a little more:

The draft said: 'recognizing that ensuring safeguards (nuclear nonproliferation), nuclear safety and nuclear security (3S) forms a sound basis for international transparency and confidence in the sustainable development of nuclear power, we agree on a G8 initiative to assist countries in ensuring 3S.'

No word on Germany’s buy-in to this plan. But give them time.

---

Okay, there’s the need for new energy, check. There’s the recognition that nuclear can help combat greenhouse gas emission, check check. What else? How about, oh, helping the American economy get back on track?

Shares of DTE Energy Co. rose Monday after the Michigan state Senate passed a bill that is expected to help with financing of the utility's planned nuclear capacity expansion.

Well, all right, that’s a stretch. One swallow doesn’t make a spring. But we’ve gotten lousy with swallows this year and will happily toss out the bread crumbs and popcorn and watch them flock back to the nuclear Capistrano.

Picture of your G8 leaders – last year’s version, anyway. Putin and Blair have ceded power in the interim.

Comments

Anonymous said…
It would be so nice if some of the development funds could be siphoned into offshore wind farms, tidal power, as well as nuclear. mizpah.tv currently has an article about this.
Rod Adams said…
The group of 7 might like an expanded nuclear program in Europe, but I would not be surprised to learn that the 8th (Russia) was working behind the scenes to encourage nuclear shut downs and greater dependence on natural gas.

After all, sales of gas to Europe are one of the main bright spots of the Russian economy. For Russia, security of demand is at least as big of an issue as security of supply.

Never forget - one man's cost is another man's revenue. The same aphorism sometimes applies to countries.

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...

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...