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...
The Washington Times editorial board weighs in on the Pickens Plan,
Comments
He is not going to gain anything out if nuclear gets bigger. Why would he blow the trumpets for nuclear ?
He puts on his eco evangelist coat just when he figures out his oil wells are running dry. So what does he do, tries to get into the next biggest monopoly, which is natural gas (btw, he continues to support drilling more oil as well)
We are not kids, let's stop behaving like tweety or hello kitty. Why would an oil man talk with reason ?
There seems to be a confederacy of disparate groups advocating wind and solar as short- or mid- term solutions despite evidence they are likely aware of.
On a napkin calculation, it looks like we would need about one windmill per 100-400 people (including residential and industrial electricity use, ignoring concept of base load) to go all wind. The cost of each large mill sounds small next to the cost of a Nuclear plant, but whats the reactor-to-rotor ratio?
The power companies want to shift capex onto cities and towns with an easier (no toxic waste) sell, the oil companies want to stop effective alternatives to support prices, the environmentalists want to prevent industrial expansion in general.
Plus electric power generation is a nearly monopolistic venture, with the clasic strengths (stability) and weaknesses (underinvestment). Small ineffective gestures are too tempting.
So small government guys like me get shifted into an equally ill fitted big government position: I keep hoping the federal government will get involved with incentives. Is this how environmentalists feel bout teaming up with oil speculators to destroy demand?
And while the Pickens Plan may be in apolitical plea, he is anything but apolitical. He has contributed almost exclusively to Republican campaigns and contributed $3 million dollars to the Swift Vets in 2004 that attacked Kerry's military record.
I do like his idea of investing in wind energy to reduce America's oil imports, but I would like to see diversification in America's energy plan. Invest in Solar, Wind, Hydro-electric, and Nuclear.
Why just one?
It was on TV, so it must be true.
Seriously though, I really hate his commercials: "It's our problem and we can fix it". Hey Pickens, ever take an ethics course? Know what conflict of interest means?
Here is a link to an article that I wrote about his plan that might give you some food for thought:
T. Boone Pickens Knows Energy - So Does George Chapman, His Amarillo Neighbor
Wind and nuclear are very much alike:
* Very high capital costs
* Very low fuel, operation and maintenance costs
* Inflexible power generation
* Stable long term costs
There seems to be a misconception that nuclear is not capable of load following. Economics have pushed current nuclear designs to optimize for baseload operation but all types of reactors can be designed for load follow service.
Wind can be characterized as a technology that normally operates far below it's peak capability and intermittantly and unpredictably (uncontrollably) rises to it's maximum capacity. On the other hand, nuclear plants continuously operate at maximum capacity and can be controllably and predictably reduced in power when required.
About load following for nuclear, I think it is a better idea to use excess nuclear energy for producing fuels such as Hydrogen, compressed air etc.
These fuels will be of vital use in a future transport sector. Also, they might be useful for cogeneration of renewable electricity.
There might be some losses during energy conversion, but I suspect it will be less of a hassle than the bother of shutting down nuclear reactors.
The decision to load follow or not is a strictly economic one, based on the self-interested judgement of the utility owning the plant. I'd be surprised if they are interested in operating a hydrogen production facility (its nottheir core business). But if you want to build one, and buy your power from them, I'm sure they'd like to talk.
Why would you Ray?
The rotor count/reactor count doesn't matter, the cost does. Nuclear is $7/Watt installed (Progress - Levy Fla), today, it takes 4-6 years (if you are lucky) to bring online, and thats doesnt account for fuel or storing waste. On shore wind, worst case _today_ is $2/W installed and you can get online in a year. Thats not the cost of what somebody wishes or believes it should be 'if things were different', thats what it is.