NEI Nuclear Notes

Tufts University Prof. Ujjayant Chakravorty From the earliest days of the blog, we've tried to introduce our readers to personalities who support the expanded use of nuclear energy. That was the whole idea of a series of posts called, " Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy ." In the same vein, I'd like to present Ujjayant Chakravorty , an economic professor at Tufts University who specializes in resource and environmental economics. A graduate of the prestigious IIT in Delhi, Prof. Chakravorty came to Tufts from the University of Alberta. For him, supporting the expansion of nuclear energy is all about helping the world transition to clean energy. Here's what he had to day in an interview with Phys.org: What are the advantages of nuclear power? If you look at where base load power comes from—the least amount of energy we need to provide power—you need a major source, something that is non-stop. Nuclear provides non-stop generation. It's not like dep...

Nuclear energy. It’s expensive, right? That’s what a lot of our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace keep saying. Alright, then let’s shut down some plants and start saving money, right? Surely, just on a cost basis alone, it makes sense. To be fair, let’s replace the electrons generated using fission with a mix of (more expensive) renewables and (relatively cheaper) fossil fuels. We can use more domestic coal, maybe import some natural gas and use local renewables to drive down electricity prices. That should save ratepayers real money every month. But wait. Something quite similar is happening in Germany and electricity prices have gone up, not down [FT, subscription req’d. Original article: “Electricity Prices Jump in Europe,” March 15.]. Just after the Fukushima accident, as Germany announced it was shutting down several nuclear power plants, the FT reported: The cost of electricity in Germany, the European benchmark, immediately rose as utilities ar...

John Wheeler, Margaret Harding, Dan Yurman, Meredith Angwin and Rod Adams had the great opportunity to interview Dr. Dale Klein who’s leaving the NRC after serving on the Commission for almost four years. The Commissioner shared a few thoughts on his legacy as well as the challenges the three new NRC commissioners face. One of the most interesting question and comment dialogues was when Rod asked Dr. Klein about FERC Chairman Wellinghoff’s statements on baseload. For those who may not remember, the FERC Chairman stirred up the debate last year when he said that “ baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism. ” Here’s what Klein said in response: “He [Wellinghoff] must have a database that’s much different than mine. I think we will have a need for baseload electrical generation for a long, long time. And the facts are the facts. There is no alternative in the near term for anything other than baseload, because for some reason people want electricity at night. They like ...

Continuing on Friday’s critique of Amory Lovins’ latest study , our following post delves into discussing if wind and solar are baseload technologies. Funny enough, Lovins’ rebuttal of this myth completely misinterpreted what Stewart Brand said about baseload in his nuclear chapter and apparently ended up agreeing with Brand in one case. The “baseload myth” Here’s the quote from Brand’s book that the Lovins study has a problem with (p. 80 and 81): “’Baseload,’” she [Gwyneth Cravens] explains in the book, “refers to the minimum amount of proven, consistent, around-the-clock, rain-or-shine power that utilities must supply to meet the demands of their millions of customers.” … Wind and solar, desirable as they are, aren’t part of baseload because they are intermittent—productive only when the wind blows or the sun shines. If some sort of massive energy storage is devised, then they can participate in baseload; without it, they remain supplemental, usually to gas-fired plants. This claim ...