Skip to main content

Good Words on Nuclear Energy

John Batchelor hosts a radio talk show known for the variety of topics it covers and guests it draws. The show is broadcast in the evenings here on the East Coast, and podcasts of past shows are available on the show's website. For us, one of the more interesting guests recently was John Moore, CEO of Acorn Energy, who appeared in the fourth hour of the October 15 show (Minutes 0:00-9:27). Mr. Moore has a new book called "The Hidden Cleantech Revolution: Five Priorities for Securing America's Energy Future without Breaking the Bank."

In his Batchelor Show appearance, Mr. Moore spoke about inconsistencies in federal policies towards nuclear energy, contrasting the promise of loan guarantees on the one hand with killing the Yucca Mountain project on the other. Mr. Batchelor remarked on the unreasonably high 11% fee the government would have charged for its loan guarantee on the Calvert Cliffs-3 project. Mr. Moore offered figures showing that nuclear is among the least subsidized energy sources, contrary to popular perception. He emphasized the importance of a diverse energy supply and warned that the current "romance" with renewables could blind us to the risks in becoming too dependent on one source of energy. He said that pursuing renewables to excess, for example, could result in trading our dependence on foreign oil for an equally problematic dependence on foreign supplies of strategic minerals such as rare earths, used in high-strength magnets needed for wind turbines and in solar cells.

Mr. Moore's book is available for downloading at his web site.
Upper photo: John Batchelor at work.
Lower photo: John. A. Moore, CEO, Acorn Energy (ACFN-NASDAQ).

Comments

Anonymous said…
Why isn't the same risk of foreign dependence true for new nuclear units? Aren't the new proposed units in the US using French or Japanese designs?
JD said…
"Why isn't the same risk of foreign dependence true for new nuclear units? Aren't the new proposed units in the US using French or Japanese designs?"

I think a better argument would be where do the large components during construction and the fuel during operation come from.

The designs themselves seem a little less important, and how "foreign" they are is somewhat debatable.

AP1000 - by Westinghouse, headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA. Although majority owned by Japanese interests (Toshiba), this is still Americans designing American reactors.

US-EPR - Areva. This one is decidely French, although there us such a thing as Areva in the US, headquartered in Lynchburg, VA. Besides, the EPR is an evolutionary design from France's standard PWR, which began as a Westinghouse design anyway.

ABWR - General Electric design, licensed to Toshiba. GE is as American as apple pie.

(That about wraps up the leading 3 projects on people's minds - Vogtle, Calvert Cliffs, South Texas Project.)

If you want the US to be totally isolated from foreigners, then nowadays that's going to mean coal and gas power plants. Nothing else.
Anonymous said…
Responding to Anonymous, JD makes several excellent points. I would extend his remark about the reality of today's global economy. The original post was not meant to imply that we should seek to isolate ourselves from trading with China or others who hold large quantities of strategic materials. Mr. Moore's concern, which we at NEI share, is of excessive dependence on any single resource or technology. A diverse portfolio of technologies is superior to relying on one or two technologies.
Diversity also includes technologies with different asset lives. Building and operating a long-lived asset like a nuclear power plant may allow more flexibility on when, where and how to obtain strategic materials than is possible for a shorter-lived asset that has to be replaced or refueled more often. Shorter-lived assets, on the other hand, can help make the portfolio more responsive to short-term changes in energy demand, albeit at higher per-unit costs.
Brian Mays said…
"Why isn't the same risk of foreign dependence true for new nuclear units? Aren't the new proposed units in the US using French or Japanese designs?"

The risk of foreign dependence is on the fuel or the materials, not on the technology.

Thus, plenty of people worry about the US's dependence on foreign oil, but nobody in their right mind worries about the US's dependence on foreign automobiles -- because, say, Volvo, Toyota, and Honda are selling Swedish and Japanese designs.

All of the new proposed units are either Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR's) or Boiling Water Reactors (BWR's), two designs that were conceived, were developed, were built, and are well understood by American engineers.

This is American technology that we know well. The only thing that the other parts of the world have figured out, which we don't yet understand, is how to sell them and build them relatively cheaply. We haven't lost our technical edge; rather, we're coming up short in the sales, marketing, and regulatory departments.

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...