Skip to main content

Reading the Morning Nuclear News

From Fox News (which can be intensely partisan, but this is by former Senators Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) and Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire). They have a plan, which I’ve extracted here (read the story for the rest of it):

Before we close more nuclear power plants, we need a national conversation

What might be done to ensure that existing nuclear energy plants are preserved? … [W]e have laid out a framework of possible solutions that might be considered by policymakers.

First, markets should appropriately value existing nuclear energy plants for their reliability… 

Second, electric transmission lines could better link nuclear energy plants to the markets that need their power…

Finally, nuclear energy plants could be recognized for the fact that they emit no carbon… 

The whole thing is worth a read.

From the Business Standard:

China launches nuclear power expansion scheme

Scheme? Let the evil laughter and overwrought rubbing of hands commence.

They write letters, this one to the Morris County N.J. Daily Record:

Don’t underestimate nuclear power

… So, it’s absurd that EPA’s clean power plant rule assigns scarcely any value to nuclear power’s key role in reducing carbon emissions. The rule as it is currently written is rigged against nuclear power. It counts only 6 percent of a nuclear plant’s generation toward a state’s carbon intensity goal, instead of the plant’s full production of zero-carbon energy.

Well, rigged is a little strong, but it’s pretty right-on. We wrote about nuclear value earlier this week; If Daily Record reader James McGovern dropped by (or read Bayh and Gregg’s editorial), great. If not, still great. Keep writing letters to your local newspaper.

One more headline, from ABC (not the American network):

Business groups want Government to 'get out of the way' of nuclear power

This isn’t from the United States, but I’ll give you a hint: every kangaroo there hates nuclear energy, though they waltz Matilda over the country’s considerable uranium exports.

The peak business group in South Australia, Business SA, is pushing for a debate to be held on the merits of building a nuclear power reactor in the state.

The organization's chief executive, Nigel McBride, has welcomed the comments from senior figures within the Federal Government.

"I do welcome what is, to me, a very important sign from the Prime Minister that this Government is not closed to what could be a significant game-changer in our fight for affordable energy," he said.

We’ve noted Australia’s intense nuclear distaste over several years, so let’s not get our hopes up. But it really is getting stuck with a terrible carbon dioxide emission profile that it can’t seem to find a way to improve. We can think of a way – so has Nigel McBride.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…