Skip to main content

Spinning Around the Atom

Here’s a few tidbits of nuclear news to wonder about and inspire awe:

sokolov160508_300x200 The IAEA says that nuclear energy is an unstoppable runaway freight train kind of thing. Well, not precisely:

Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yury Sokolov said on Tuesday that the economic crisis would not change the driver for the development of the nuclear power industry.

And why not?

Sokolov said that the expansion of energy demand, the need of improving energy security, the requirement of environment protection as well as the prevention of climate change, which were the "external drivers" to the development of nuclear industry, were not changed by the economic crisis.

True, but plants still need access to capital to get built and it’s the collapse of the credit market fueling the economic downturn. So we think Sokolov is perhaps confusing the abstract drivers of the industry – and we agree with him about those – and the practical drivers – and to overcome those, we’ll likely have to get to the other side of the recession. In sum, Sokolov is more right than wrong – nuclear energy really is barreling forward. But the economics are like a missing rail or two on the track bed.

---

snake-river Idaho is considering a nuclear plant, but right now they don’t want to hear about the benefits or drawbacks:

"At this hearing, the subject of nuclear power or ultimate land use proposed by the applicant will not be considered. The hearing is solely intended to address the proposed zone change [from agriculture to heavy industry]," reads the announcement for the public hearing.

This sounds orderly enough – presumably the nuclear nature of the plant will get its hearing later. But:

[D]espite the limited scope of the hearing, AEHI has been distributing DVDs in Elmore County touting the safety and benefits of nuclear power and is holding a job fair outside of the hearing. The company announced that it would encourage job seekers to testify for the project.

And:

Snake River Alliance, a nuclear watchdog group, plans to testify against the rezone but also needs to somehow skirt the whole nuclear issue.

"We aren't going off about nuclear unless we have to specifically refer to water use," said Liz Woodruff, energy policy analyst for the group.

Still, SRA will argue that the rezone will allow for over-utilization of water, that area residents oppose the plant, that hazardous materials produced by the plant would threaten natural resources and that job promises are exaggerated.

At first, we hoped that the commissioners would smack down all this irrelevant nuclear to-and-fro, but on second thought, as long as AEHI and Snake River Alliance keep all this outside the meeting and stay on task at the meeting, power to them. Indeed, nuclear power to them.

(See here for a little more. Apparently, this is an appeal. AEHI lost their first rezoning bid last year and this is a second try.)

---

 ShelbyPortrait for web Here’s Alabama Senator Richard Shelby:

“Energy is probably our greatest long-term problem. We need to drill everywhere we can. We have the technical capability. While it won't solve our energy needs, it will help us."

"We ought to go totally nuclear. We have the most modern and the safest technology the world knows. We ought to build a classic nuclear power plant here in Jackson County."

"I would like to support the administration if I thought they were right. I'm worried about this administration. It's the most liberal since Jimmy Carter. I'm not going to help them socialize the nation."

{The U.S. Constitution is] "the most important document we have. It is basically what we are. We should not subordinate to anyone. I'm not interested in a one world nation. I'll fight anybody over our Bill of Rights and our sovereignty."

And all from one story. You can’t say you don’t know where he stands on the issues. But “classic nuclear power plant?” - sounds like classic Coke. In this one instance, we’ll accept the stares and take new Coke.

Yuri Sokolov, the Snake River and Richard Shelby.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…