Nothing Comes from Understating Nuclear

Here’s an odd one. Edward Luce writes in The Financial Times that the drive for natural gas is pushing other energy types out of the way, risk be damned. So far, so good, if a bit overstated.

Then, this:

America has likewise turned away from nuclear power. In his first term Mr. Obama announced plans to revive a sector that had essentially been frozen since the Three Mile Island leakage of 1978. Nothing has come of it. Only one new US nuclear power plant is planned and that is years away.

When did he write this? The mention of Obama suggests it was more recently than 1995, but the content is bizarrely off. Five reactors are in progress and FPL is at least giving some thought to two more. That’s not nothing and it’s more than “only one new” plant.

Major fail – weird for this outlet.

Comments

jimwg said…

But it's NOT a "major fail" if there's no one publicly calling out FN's misleading statement with equal volume which has the intended effect of making the mass unwashed doubt and reject nuclear power even more. Like far too many periodicals, that coyly FUD article knows exactly what it's doing in the face of any non-challenge and is royally getting over to boot. Five new reactors in 30 years isn't anything to cluck about and the anti-nukers will cite that to anyone who tries to correct them in public. Anti-nukers score another one. The answer is to constantly hawk (educate-educate-eduate) nuclear in public, just like gas/oil is doing quite well or you're just a mysterious scary commodity to the public.

James Greenidge
Queens NY

May 20, 2014 at 5:30 AM

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog