Skip to main content

Nuclear Power On the Hill, Day 2

By
On Tuesday it was the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources holding a nuclear energy-related hearing, yesterday the Committee on Environment and Public Works served as Senate host.

The webcast of the hearing, “Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Licensing and Relicensing Processes for Nuclear Plants,” can be seen here.

Appearing before the committee:
  • Dr. Dale Klein - Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Dr. Gregory B. Jaczko - Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Dr. Peter B. Lyons - Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Ms. Kristine L. Svinicki - Commissioner, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Mr. Hubert T. Bell - Inspector General, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Mr. David A. Christian - President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Dominion
  • Mr. Anthony R. Pietrangelo- Vice President for Regulatory Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute
  • Mr. Richard Webster - Legal Director, Eastern Environmental Law Center
  • Dr. Joseph Romm - Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
  • Mr. H. John Gilbertson Jr. - Managing Director, Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Tony Pietrangelo wasn't the only NEI employee discussing nuclear energy in DC yesterday: Carol Berrigan, NEI's Director of Industry Infrastructure, appeared at a U.S. Energy Association forum at the National Press Club. C-SPAN's video of the event can be seen here.

Labels:

Comments

David Bradish said…
The EPW hearing had some interesting discussion on new nuclear plant costs at the third hour and fifth minute of the video. Most of the panelists and committee members were completely aware that new nuclear plants are still very economical despite the significant rise in projected capital costs.

The Goldman and Sachs panelist was very supportive of nuclear which goes against many of the claims antis use to say "Wall Street won't finance new nuclear plants."

Also, Dominion's David Christian explained that Dominion is always evaluating costs of electricity from new power plants and that they find new nuclear to be economical.

It was really promising to hear that the commenters understood the big picture of our energy situation and that they didn't look at nuclear's costs in a bubble, contrary to what Joseph Romm did on the panel. Needless to say, I didn't hear anyone ask Romm a question.

The hilarious part of the Q&A was when Senator Voinovich called the notion that wind and solar could provide baseload electricity "poppycock."
July 17, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Anonymous said…
The Goldman and Sachs panelist was very supportive of nuclear which goes against many of the claims antis use to say "Wall Street won't finance new nuclear plants."

Just proves that everyone hears only what they want to hear. Check out Gilbertson's prepared testimony, which carries a number of caveats and market concerns.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=0a44d3c6-802a-23ad-46ee-8d6b0b283265
July 17, 2008 at 7:54 PM
David Bradish said…
Check out Gilbertson's prepared testimony, which carries a number of caveats and market concerns.

Name me one energy technology that doesn't have a market concern or caveat.
July 17, 2008 at 8:27 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