Skip to main content

Checking in on the Washington Capitals

By


With a record of 2-2-2, the Caps' play so far this season has been inconsistent and somewhat disappointing. Media coverage of NEI's corporate sponsorship with the team, meanwhile, has been steady.

Stories about the partnership have appeared on: the AP wire, the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital, The Washington Post's Sports Bog, The Toronto Star, Sports Business Daily, E&E News, Idaho Samizdat and NBC4, the NBC affiliate in Washington, D.C.

And we were pleased to learn yesterday that mention of the Caps/NEI deal has made ESPN Magazine's, much-discussed "Body Issue" [page 44]. Does this mean nuclear energy can now be considered sexy?

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Incidentally, the Toronto Maple Leafs, another ice hockey team, are also backed by a nuclear sponsor -- Bruce Power, who is the operator for the Kincardine and Darlington nuclear reactors in Ontario. Then again, given the Leafs' dismal record, Bruce Power may not want this to be all that well known. If you are a Leafs fan, people have to give you credit for loyalty and perseverance. I gave up on the Leafs a long time ago, but maybe that's why I am cheering for Bruce's planned new build, greenfield reactor(s) in Peace River, Alberta. This should give Bruce an opportunity to back a winner in either the Oilers or the Flames. TT.
October 16, 2009 at 12:34 AM
KB said…
@ Anonymous: Given Xcel Energy's partnerships with both the Wild and Avs, rooting for Minnesota or Colorado are options as well.

And a Save-the-Date reminder: CBC/Hockey Night in Canada will broadcast Caps at Toronto, 11/21 and 12/12.
October 16, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Anonymous said…
Just a clarification to the first comment mentioning Bruce Power... the Darlington station is actually owned and operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG). Bruce Power does operate the Bruce station, but under lease from the owner (OPG). The history of how this came to be is interesting, but off-topic for this discussion. Cheers!
October 16, 2009 at 11:02 AM
DocForesight said…
I think it's time someone slashes Greenpeace, then drop the gloves for hand-to-hand "discussions".

My rooting for the MN "No Stars" goes back to the days of Gump Worsley, Bill Goldsworthy, Lou Nanne and that crew. There was a time when even the skates were color-coordinated with the uniforms.
October 16, 2009 at 3:01 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