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

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

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