Skip to main content

Gov. Beshear and the Nuclear Imperative

20081120energy Interestingly, Kentucky's Governor Steve Beshear pursued an energy policy during his campaign but was notably silent about nuclear energy being a part of that policy - you can see his campaign manifesto on energy issues here. But, boy, when he comes around, he comes around big.

"We must begin the discussion now about whether nuclear energy should be a part of our energy portfolio," [Beshear] told reporters at a Capitol press conference.

The governor's energy plan comes at a time when utility companies are looking at Kentucky for potential nuclear power plant sites.

"Several companies have suggested that they would be interested in building nuclear plants in Kentucky," said Energy Secretary Len Peters.

Here is the governor's plan (warning: sizeable pdf). You'll see that there are seven strategies - presumably to keep things lucky - and the seventh strategy is "Examine the Use of Nuclear Power for Electricity Generation in Kentucky." Sounds good to us: let's see what he has in mind.

  • Legal hurdles to successful inclusion of nuclear power in Kentucky’s energy mix should be examined. Specifically, removal or revision of the legislative ban on new nuclear power plants must be addressed.
  • A public engagement plan should be implemented to gather and address stakeholder feedback and concerns and to provide education about nuclear power today.
  • Research should be conducted to assess the desirability of co-locating nuclear power plants with advanced coal conversion plants to assess the effects on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, providing ready access to electricity and/or steam, and possibly using waste heat for the coal conversion process.
  • Incentives that reduce the risk of capitalizing and financing a new power plant should be considered in developing these programs.
  • The EEC should work with the Community and Technical College System to ensure that trained personnel are available to staff the construction and operation of nuclear power plants.
  • The state universities should explore now the possibility of adding nuclear engineering, health physics, and radiological science programs to their curricula.

Make a note of it - that's a pretty good laundry list for getting ready for the nuclear tomorrow.

Obviously, the plan focuses on the state's commitment, but it could go deeper into industry's role. It seems a big hole not to include it, since a lot of what's proposed will be done in partnership. But in all, a good plan.

By all means, read the whole thing: nuclear is just one of seven proposals and the other six are well worth a rehearsal.

Gov. Beshear is the pointing one. Surprised?

Comments

Only a Kentucky Governor would want to use clean nuclear energy to help produce more dirty coal:-) Nuclear power plants need to be used to end the coal economy, not to help it!

Marcel
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
Red Craig said…
If you don't mind, I'd like to introduce a web page called The Case for Nuclear Energy.

This is a strictly non-commercial undertaking.

I've been debating the subject of nuclear energy on the internet for several years and this page displays the information I've found to be persuasive to the unpersuaded.

Any comments on ways to improve it will be welcome; please send them to robcra(you know what goes here)hotmail.com.

If you find the information useful, feel free to copy parts of it or link it.

NEI, thanks for your indulgence.
Anonymous said…
This is more of a national issue than within the juristiction of the state of Kentucky, but I also think that public tours of existing nuclear facilities should be reinstated. The ill-conceived ban on guided tours put forth by the Department of Homeland Security (Do not get me started on them) has done little to further the causes of public confidence and education surrounding nuclear power. It would be nice if there were talk of allowing public guided tours to resume once again.

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...