Skip to main content

What Nuclear Plenitude Means Economically

By

Nuclear energy plants are financial boons in all kinds of ways – both directly, in terms of the people they hire and their contribution to the tax base; and indirectly, through their support of the supply chain and all the businesses that benefit from having a nuclear energy plant in their midst. That’s obvious enough and true of almost any large physical plant.
There’s another economic consideration, too, that one nuclear reactor can produce a lot of new electricity. Sometimes, a new reactor will take the place of an older electricity generator – a coal plant here, a gas works there – but sometimes, more is just more.
With the construction of base-load nuclear plants at the Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina will have ample electric capacity to attract more companies like Bridgestone and BMW while also protecting the environment. This combination will put South Carolina in the driver’s seat for an expanding economy in the years ahead.
Op-ed writer Mel Bruckner points out in The State newspaper that nuclear energy supplies over 96 percent of South Carolina’s emission-free electricity (about 50 percent of the state’s total electricity).
Bruckner leaves this point behind as soon as he makes it, but it’s an important one, well-recognized and leveraged by state government to attract business. Here’s a member of the South Carolina’s House delegation making the same point in 2012, soon before construction got underway on two new reactors at SCANA’s Summer facility:
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) recognized the project’s economic implications. “Investing in nuclear energy will allow South Carolina’s power grid to expand and attract new business ventures in the state,” he said. “More nuclear power in the state means that businesses can grow and focus on putting South Carolinians back to work.”
This point can get a little tucked away. It probably doesn’t matter much to BMW or Bridgestone where the volts are coming from as long as their factories start up every day. A few entities – those running large data farms, for example – want to run their operations on renewable energy sources because it better fits their (perhaps somewhat uninformed) corporate profiles. Yet they happily locate some of their outlets in places with a lot of nuclear energy-produced electricity such as Georgia and the Carolinas. On the one hand, hrrumph, on the other hand, fine: it keeps the economic wheel spinning – new jobs, a  better tax base, and direct and indirect support of businesses.

I’m not sure we could call nuclear energy the best at engendering economic development, whatever best may mean. But it is good at it and in a time of economic revival, extremely valuable. It’s great that Bruckner picked up this theme in a state with two new reactors pending. It does not seem a key bullet point in a typical discussion of nuclear benefits; but in the ways that matter most to people, it’s the key that turns the economic lock.
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

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
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...
7 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