Skip to main content

Reading the Morning Nuclear News

By

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.

Labels:

Comments

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

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

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more