Tom Perriello Adds Nuclear to the Mix

We’ve been accused of not noting nuclear-favoring Democrats lately and that’s fair enough. We take them as they come, and it’s certainly true that Republicans find nuclear a good fit with their virtually all-inclusive energy approach. Thus, they say more about it.

Many Democrats, by contrast, seem a bit stuck between old guard environmentalists – although a fair few of them are coming around -and a desire to see renewable energy sources take off, giving viable mature industries short shrift. But we think more Democrats than not support nuclear energy and if they would work it into their messaging more, we’d be more than happy to spotlight them.

So meet Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.). Coming from the same area as Mecklenburg, which we spotlighted last week, Perriello has an editorial in the Appomattox News is which he aims to clarify his energy policies. He mentions some of the companies from last week’s story:

We are already seeing companies like Mod-u-Kraf homes become a national leader in energy efficient homes. Windy Oaks and Red Birch Energy are leading the way on bio-refineries. Several companies are leading the way on advanced battery manufacturing so that all those new hybrid batteries can be made right here in the USA.

Ah, Red Birch, our old friend. Here’s where Perriello mentions nuclear:

The clean energy economy can be the next growth industry, creating millions of new jobs. Some of the biggest winners should be agricultural areas that can produce biofuels, and areas like Region 2000 that are connected to the nuclear industry, as well as former manufacturing hubs that can support the new advanced manufacturing of efficiency technology.

Well, all right, coming from a farming district, Perriello is going to be most excited about bio-fuels. We get that. Region 2000 is an economic development initiative that covers the counties ringing Lynchburg; AREVA is part of its Technology Council. So the reference to nuclear is a trifle mediated. But it’s there and Perriello adopts a general attitude that shows a willingness to change with the times. For example, whither king tobacco?

To really meet the nation’s need for energy independence, we need to tap all of the energy sources that exist in the region. Bio-refineries and bio-power plants can be strategically located throughout the region using feedstocks grown by local farmers, many of whom are looking for a crop to replace tobacco as a sustainable source of income.

Whither? Wither – in favor of bio-fuel.

We liked Perriello’s article for the way it directly answers to his constituents. That can be underestimated, but it’s important, and adding nuclear into the mix is even better. Perriello has gotten hit by the Republicans for supporting the climate change bill – see here for more – but his energy outlook should, if anything, be appealing to them.

You wouldn’t know it from this picture, but Perriello has an exceptionally winning smile – the utility of which for a politician should not be underestimated – but here looks as though he’s on the way to his dentist.

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