Skip to main content

Terry Branstad on Making Sense

Terry Branstad The Dallas News has up an editorial that favors continued development of nuclear energy:

Americans must learn from this tragedy in our own necessary pursuit of nuclear power as part of a broader plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Nearly all of the 104 reactors in this country are on coastlines and near earthquake faults, and, similar to Japan’s, they utilize backup electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries. A confluence of several catastrophic events here could be just as calamitous as what is unfolding half a world away.

The support is always welcome, but the mainland of the United States is not vulnerable to tsunamis except in the Pacific Northwest and no nuclear plants are at the coast there. Earthquakes are a different matter, but plants are built to withstand more than the largest earthquakes ever recorded in their areas. See this FAQ from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Still, the editorial is more than judicious and worth a read.

---

The other day, we highlighted Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and his willingness to push forward with nuclear energy in the shadow of Japan. Now, meet Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad:

Gov. Terry Branstad said Monday it “makes sense” for state lawmakers to move ahead with legislation that would help address hurdles that might impede MidAmerican Energy’s exploratory effort aimed at building a nuclear-powered facility in Iowa.

And the reason?

Some critics have contended that the state should expand more aggressively into renewable energy production rather than pursuing an expansion into nuclear-generated power given the unfolding environmental crisis in Japan. Branstad agreed that Iowa already has been a leader in wind and renewable energy production, but he added “we really can’t do it all with renewable.”

“We can’t generate all of our power needs from wind energy, so we do need to look at the other sources and this seems to be something that is worth significantly studying,” Branstad said.

He’s right. Wind simply can’t do it all, though it’s certainly welcome in the mix. But nuclear energy can. A little more:

“We have a problem because of most of the power in Iowa is generated by coal and (federal Environmental Protection Agency) rules now are really very restrictive on coal-fired plants,” the governor said during an Iowa Public Radio interview. “So we’re either going to have to shut those plants down or do major expenses on retrofitting them or replace them with something that’s going to have the environmental problems that we have with coal.”

The arguments are as the arguments were. Nothing’s changed. And governors like Herbert and Branstad see that. I don’t really know whether taking these stands will cause trouble for them – I doubt it – but they are realistic policy decisions.

Gov. Terry Branstad.

Comments

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...