Skip to main content

Is Nuclear the Green Solution?

nationaljournal Not our question – because we know the answer – but that of the The National Journal, which has set up a forum for invited parties to grapple with the question. When we checked, some of the pro-nuclear sources had weighed in -

  • Paul Sullivan, Professor of Economics, National Defense University
  • Elizabeth Moler, Executive Vice President for Government & Environmental Affairs & Public Policy, Exelon
  • Bill Johnson, CEO, Progress Energy
  • Marvin Fertel, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute

Presumably, the folks with somewhat less sanguine views toward nuclear will be showing up as the week goes on. Here’s the introduction:

Senate Republicans want to build 100 new commercial nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. Over the last two years the industry has applied for licenses to build 30 new reactors, and Babcock & Wilcox Co. recently unveiled a new mini-nuke plant aimed at supplying power to small electricity users, such as municipal districts or individual industrial customers. But critics say nuclear power is too expensive and so risky that Wall Street won't finance the new plants. Opponents are critical of proposals for a federal loan guarantee program for low-carbon energy projects that could help finance the new nuclear plants.

We won’t quote any of the responses here, pro or con, especially since the thread will grow as the week goes along, but check over there a couple times to see who’s mixing it up. Hopefully, we’ll get some counterintuitive and interesting perspectives rather than boilerplate.

Comments

perdajz said…
In the past several years, "Wall Street" (R.I.P.) destroyed itsef because it could not manage risk, while the nuclear power industry managed risk flawlessly. The idea that people who gorged themselves on mortgage backed securities or who entered into agreements with AIG as a counterparty, are now in a position to judge the riskiness of the nuclear power industry is silly. The nuclear power industry is so good at operational risk that worker injury rates in the nuclear power industry are comparable to those in banking and finance. This must be absolutely stunning to anyone who manages operational risk in the banking industry.

The financial center of the universe has moved to Washington. When the political will is there, Washington will cajole the financing of nuclear power. Unfortunately, we will need a boom and bust cycle in "renewable" energy before this comes to pass.

In the meantime, please spare me the idea that the major banks are any source of wisdom or perspective. The major banks are busy reworking their risk analysis models because they were sloppy and greedy for years. The nuclear power industry needs no such thing because the nukes got it right the first time.

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 …

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…

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…