Skip to main content

A Few Words from Steven Chu

While President Obama pulled duty in New Orleans the other day, as we reported in the post below, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu is in Paris speaking to a meeting of the International Energy Agency. You can decide who pulled the better duty.

Chu and the energy ministers are all jockeying for position during the run up to Copenhagen. But this Bloomberg article shows him pushing nuclear energy in a notably “aggressive” way.

The U.S. government will announce loan guarantees for nuclear plants “very soon,” Chu said. “Nuclear power is an important part of what the U.S. has to do to reduce emissions.”

The U.S. is “working aggressively to restart the nuclear industry,” he said. “I believe the nuclear waste problem is solvable on a scientific level and a political level.”

We’ll be waiting for those announcements – we do think more loan guarantees will get that aggressive work going even more aggressively, but that may wait to be done in the Senate climate change bill.

Good words, as always, from Chu, though. With loan guarantees and the long-awaited Blue Ribbon commission on used nuclear fuel coming, 2010 looks to be an interest year for our friend the atom.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I wish someone would attach a rider or earmark to some federal legislation to ban the word "soon" from the vocabulary of bureaucrats. I'm so sick of hearing "soon" and then nothing happening. The last "soon" we heard was about this "blue ribbon commission" that was supposed to pick of the ball from Obama's trahsing of Yucca Mountain. How "soon" is that "soon" going to be? Soon, I guess.
Anonymous said…
Chu is doing better on the loan guarantee schedule than he is on the waste "Blue Ribbon Commission". The BRC only rated a "soon", but the loan guarantee announcement is "VERY soon" (emphasis added). Now, if he can only get to "VERY VERY REEEEEAL SOON" he really have something.
bruce said…
Where did Obama say he was in favor of reprocessing?

This blue ribbon panel is absurd, Yucca is dead and reprocessing review was canceled by the Obama administration. What conclusion is this panel going to reach - launch it into the sun?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7252/full/460152b.html
Anonymous said…
Anyone with any experience with a "Blue Ribbon Commission" knows that their product is one thing: Vaporware. Their purpose is one thing: Political Cover.

You need to understand the history of who we are dealing with here. This is just Obama's way of voting "present" on the nuclear waste issue. It's cowardice, not leadership.
bruce said…
Obama has taken leadership on the nuclear waste issue, he shut down Yucca mountain. That's leadership.

Not the kind of leadership you people wanted, of course. But yeah, the blue ribbon commission not going to change anything about his stance, it's just designed to get intermittent support from people like you.
Anonymous said…
I wish someone would attach a rider or earmark to some federal legislation to ban the word "soon" from the vocabulary of bureaucrats.

- loan modification tips should do nively

Popular posts from this blog

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...