Skip to main content

Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Energy

By
After hearing a presentation from Ariel Levite, the former Principal Deputy Director General for Policy at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission, Eric Wesoff at Greentech Media is slowly changing his mind about nuclear energy:
I am a knee-jerk environmentalist and have a visceral response to the word “nuclear.” But the more I learn and read, the more experts I speak with, the more my mind is changed — nuclear is a necessary part of the energy mix, albeit with enormous risk.

These risks need to be confronted head-on by sound technology, policy, diplomacy and science.
Labels:

Comments

rks said…
Some nuclear experts might like to get across to theoildrum and comment on Gail the Actuary's careful analysis of the Uranium supply issue. I guess we already know that the current style of once-through nuclear power stations is not going to work for long. How quickly can we switch to something better?
February 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM
DW said…
I concur...it's a huge hit piece on nuclear energy fuel supplies.

David
February 19, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Anonymous said…
David, I concur too. The Club of Rome mindset strikes again. News idiots. Same idiocies.

It's a shameless hit piece based on a grotesque and willful misunderstanding of the NEA stated reserves. Using the current estimate - 4.7 millions metric tons of U metal - as a definitive assessment is a sorry joke.

Just one resource - the Moroccan phosphates - blows up all their assumptions: at least, 6 millions metric tons of U metal according to IAEA estimates and Areva's engineers actually think it's north of 10 million metric tons.

Oooppps! I feel sorry for the Oil Drummers. Their estimate is off by at least a factor 2.5 and more likely 3.5 and all of that on the basis of a single mining resource.

I'm afraid Doomsday and the Collapse of Civilization As We Know It has been, again, pushed back to a later, yet to be determined date...
February 19, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Anonymous said…
Nuclear Power, plus electric cars can bring a bright future to the world. Nuclear power will be the worlds primary energy source at some point. There is too much evidence for climate change for the world to ignore it (hopefully we are rational in the aggregate). The alternatives are simply not practical (wind, solar) especially in countries without vast expanses that they could sacrifice to wind or solar farms. We must increase education efforts on nuclear power to dispel the widespread myths regarding the technology (e.g. Gwyneth Cravens --- 'Power to Save the World'). 

We must encourage the development of safety regimes and the training of nuclear engineers. It appears that the UK will be one of the countries leading the way, along with India, China, and probably Italy (and hopefully the US). I believe that as the benefits become more obvious there will be a rapid acceleration in the development of nuclear power around the world, which will not only bring great economic benefits, but may avert an ecological catastrophe. 

In the more distant future there are dozens of very interesting ideas for advanced nuclear designs (Thorium reactors, high-T gas reactors, etc.) but for the present we can not wait for these technologies to be sorted out and developed but should go ahead with the proven designs we have today.
February 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Anonymous said…
You're completely ignoring the political context of this comment.

Little wonder a high official of the Israeli AEC is embracing nuclear power. The "research" reactor at which his nation has produced the plutonium for its vast nuclear weapons arsenal, Dimona, is beyond the end of its safe operational lifetime. They need a new reactor in the short to medium term.

And Israel is not an NPT member state. Any bets on whether the new reactor, whatever its declared purpose, will be placed under IAEA safeguards?
February 20, 2009 at 2:42 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