Skip to main content

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

By
Maria Korsnick of Nuclear Energy Institute

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled more gas into the electricity marketplace.

At a nuclear plant, all that fuel that that the reactor needs is already on site for the 18 months or 24 months that that plant will run. That fuel firmness of the existing reactors is something that the marketplace needs to value. And there is progress to be made at the existing plants and for the advanced reactors of the future.

There is already Republican and Democratic support for R&D for advanced nuclear, new reactor concepts that will produce higher-quality heat and that take materials that some people think of as waste and consume them as fuel.

There are changes ahead. The new administration seems likely to step back from the Clean Power Plan and the Paris climate agreement.

Maria Korsnick spoke with Monica Trauzi of E&E TV on energy policy and the Trump Administration. Click the image to watch the interview. 

But the Clean Power Plan really didn't help the current fleet nearly that much, so losing it is not a huge impact. Many of the states, on the other hand, will still pursue a low-carbon strategy, even if it is not mandated by Washington, and they will value nuclear power.

And regardless of your opinion about carbon, nuclear power plants emit nothing, so they also cut the levels of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, and particulates. So there's other valuable propositions that nuclear brings to the marketplace.

Under Republicans and Democrats, Washington looks for solutions that have something for everybody. Nuclear is still zero carbon, which appeals to a substantial segment of America no matter who is in the White House, and it reduces smog and haze, which appeals to others. It provides jobs and is an underpinning of national prosperity, which should appeal to almost everyone.

The above is a guest post from NEI's Chief Operating Officer, Maria Korsnick. On January 1, 2017, Korsnick will become NEI's President and CEO.
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