It’s Energy Bill Week!

Okay, we know that’s not going to cause as much excitement in some quarters as it does ours, but it does look, at least in the House, like an all-hands brawl in the making. And that’s always fun: the Republicans have lined up over 400 amendments to introduce during the mark-up of the bill (which, according to the Politico story, can be squelched by Energy Committee chairman Henry Waxman.) Many of the amendments have no chance of passing the committee but do slow down the process of getting the bill out of committee.

But the bill, officially called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, has also gathered unusually broad support.

Here’s Exelon:

In a speech today [Friday] at the National Press Club, Exelon Chairman and CEO John W. Rowe joined the debate in Washington centered on the Waxman-Markey bill, calling on Congress to pass climate legislation this year that features a cap-and-trade system to encourage investment in low-carbon energy.

And here’s League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski:

Chairmen Waxman and Markey have worked tirelessly to bring forward a crucial and historic bill that will move America towards a clean, safe energy future. Their bill will create new clean energy jobs, improve our national security, and help protect our planet. We encourage the House Energy and Commerce Committee to quickly send this bill to the House floor, where we look forward to working with Members of both sides of the aisle to strengthen it, in particular by increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy provisions.

Greenpeace no, Environmental Defense Fund yes. And Al Gore?

He likened the Waxman-Markey bill to a civil rights bill: “the most important of our lives. It is a moral imperative.” He stated that it is an environmental Marshall Plan, which is what he called for (and outlined) in his book “Earth in the Balance.”

Over at the New York Times, Paul Krugman recognizes the downside of cap-and-trade, the centerpiece of this legislation, especially since compromise is giving a fair number of the carbon credits away for free. That needn’t crater the market for carbon credits, which will form after they are all auctioned or given away, but it isn’t ideal. Krugman’s interesting column concludes:

Still, the bill represents major action to limit climate change. As the Center for American Progress has pointed out, by 2020 the legislation would have the same effect on global warming as taking 500 million cars off the road. And by all accounts, this bill has a real chance of becoming law in the near future.

Indeed it does. We want to see how some of the markup goes before determining nuclear energy’s role in the bill. It has some already, but this is legislation where nuclear could play a determinative role. Let’s see if that happens.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog