Skip to main content

14th Carnival of Nuclear Energy: Random Topics and Big Equations

By

image This week we get to host the nuclear carnival for the second time since it began. To start off, Charles Barton at Nuclear Green recruited NNadir (former DKos diarist) to share a post. NNadir back in the day wrote some of the most random but fun pieces about nuclear including bits on cesium, technetium and even lutefisk. In his first piece at Nuclear Green, NNadir discussed a number of topics including “one of [his] favorite things to do”: discredit Amory Lovins (he’s definitely not alone in that passion). Hope to see more from him.

Speaking of Lovins, Brian Wang at Next Big Future rehashed and debunked some of Lovins’ old predictions from the 1970s. As well, Wang reported that his bet with another blogger on increased uranium production in Kazakhstan for 2010 and 2011 is “looking very good.”

After debunking it two weeks ago, Rod Adams at Atomic Insights continued to “tamp down the spread of NC Warn sponsored misinformation regarding the comparison of solar and nuclear costs”. Also, check out his recap of the first day at the American Nuclear Society Utility Working Conference, looked like a good time.

Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat has the news about US agreements with Vietnam to share enrichment technology. Some members of Congress aren’t quite happy about the agreement and it has China keeping a close eye. As well, be sure to check out some of Dan’s nuclear videos posted Monday, the third one about Diet Coke and Mentos is quite entertaining.

Kirk Sorensen at Energy From Thorium wrote a dense three part piece titled: Enrichment, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the SWU. It’s always good to work out your brain with some calculations every once in awhile.

Barry Brook at Brave New Climate shared a pamphlet that his sister created for him highlighting the good features of nuclear.

Stephen Aplin at Canadian Energy Issues discussed an option with dealing with CO2 once it’s been captured from fossil plants. He doesn’t think sequestration will work but instead we should use the captured CO2 to create a liquid hydrocarbon for fuel similar to gasoline and diesel.

With all of the number of reactor designs out there, is there one that’s the best? Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk has been on the search and found a good article that compared the positives and negatives of the different designs.

Meredith Angwin at Yes Vermont Yankee got into the philosophical debate on energy use: how much is too much? what’s wasteful vs. what’s efficiency? and more.

And from NEI, we have two things we’d like to highlight: if you haven’t read our post from earlier this week debunking an anti group’s egregious claims, check it out; and, let us know what you think about our new Myths and Facts doc debunking 35 commonly heard nuclear myths.

Make sure to stop by everyone’s place.

Promo pic for the Myths and Facts document.

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Thanks for the mention, Dave! I put up part 4 in the series on enrichment tonight.
August 16, 2010 at 12:15 AM
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