Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label technology

Here Comes Tomorrow: Fission Into Electricity

As we know, nuclear energy creates electricity by generating heat that boils water that turns turbines – if you want to be really simple about it. But suppose you could get electricity from nuclear energy directly : Now, University of Missouri researchers are developing an energy conversion system that uses relatively safe isotopes to generate high-grade energy. A system that directly converts nuclear energy into electricity would be cheaper than current nuclear conversion technology. Well, we’ll see about cheaper – researchers are always making claims to justify their work. But it is pretty interesting: MU researchers have developed a process called Radioisotope Energy Conversion System (RECS). In the first step of the process, the ion energy from radioisotopes is transported to an intermediate photon generator called a fluorescer and produces photons, which are the basic units of light. In the second step of the process, the photons are transported out of the fluoresce...

NPR and Nuclear Today

The Diane Rehm show is not on all NPR stations, but if you can get it, Scott Peterson and Jim Riccio are on the show NOW talking about what the future of nuclear should be in the United States. (Note Diane is not hosting today. The show is being hosted by Frank Sesno .) For online access, try here and then click on WFYI HD-1 (in the middle of the page).

Latest Issue of Nuclear Energy Insight Available

The latest issue of Nuclear Energy Insight is now available online. In it, you'll find an article on congressional approval of an energy bill that opens overseas markets for America's nuclear power suppliers. There also are reports on new-plant plans across the globe and the important role nuclear energy will play to cut greenhouse gases in New England. Other articles discuss the new-plant licensing process and fuel sources for next-generation reactors. The issue also profiles Jamina Vujic, chair of the nuclear engineering department at the University of California-Berkeley.

Saying Goodbye

I'm sure by now most of our regular readers will have noticed that my byline has been a little scarce around here lately. That isn't an accident, as I'll be winding down my stewardship at NEI Nuclear Notes as well as my tenure at the Nuclear Energy Institute by the end of the week. From here on in, day-to-day responsibility for the blog will shift my colleague, Jarret Adams , who made his blog debut last week. Jarret is a valued member of the editorial team here at NEI, known well for his work on a variety of projects. He's written Congressional testimony, speeches and is the editor of Nuclear Policy Outlook . Best of all, there isn't anyone on the editorial staff who knows more about Yucca Mountain and used nuclear fuel than Jarret. In turn, David Bradish , who has worked hard to leverage his detailed statistical knowledge to debunk anti-nuclear claims on a regular basis, isn't going anywhere. If anything, I think you'll be seeing David more often on ...

NEI Applauds DOE Budget Request

NEI said in a statment it was generally satisfied with the Energy Department's budget request for fiscal 2009 announced yesterday. The DOE request would increase funding by 79 percent next year for Nuclear Power 2010, a program aimed at helping companies build new nuclear power plants in the United States. Nuclear Energy Institute President and Chief Executive Officer Frank L. (Skip) Bowman said the budget request properly recognizes the need for nuclear energy to remain a key element of the nation’s diverse electricity portfolio for generations to come. “Nuclear energy enhances our energy independence, and new nuclear power plants are essential if the United States hopes to meet its energy and environmental challenges. The promise of nuclear energy technology extends beyond electricity production to include production of hydrogen and process heat for other applications,” Bowman said. “For these reasons, the administration’s investment in the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the used f...

An Interview With Patrick Moore

Michael Kanellos of CNet recently interviewed CASEnergy co-chair Patrick Moore . Here's an excerpt: Q: When people look at your biography and see you're a Greenpeace co-founder and now a nuclear advocate, they don't believe it. Could you give us a synopsis of your personal history on this issue? Moore: Well, actually I did feel a little lonely in that corner for a while, but I've been joined by the likes of Stewart Brand, Jared Diamond (author of Guns, Germs, and Steel), and (environmental author) Tim Flannery, and now we form a fairly serious phalanx of pro-nuclear environmentalists. In fact, I'm the honorary chair of the Canadian chapter of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, which has 9,000 members worldwide. As a co-founder of Greenpeace, even though I was a scientist, I made the same mistake in those days as all the rest of my colleagues did. We kind of lumped nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons as if all things nuclear were evil. It was an honest mistake...

Again, On Nuclear Energy and the Southern Drought

Here's a letter to the editor that NEI has been sending around the country in response to last week's AP wire on nuclear power plants and the drought in the American South : Contrary to the impression given in the Associated Press article, "Drought could close Southern nuclear plants," (Jan. 24), all steam-based power plants (coal, nuclear, natural gas) potentially can have their operations affected by drought conditions. The extent to which readers received a skewed account of the facts is most evident from the article's first sentence, which begins, "Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back." In reality, the percentage of electricity produced by coal-fired power plants exceeds the percentage of electricity produced by nuclear power plants in the following Southeast states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Although the Southeast is sufferin...

The Nuclear Resurgence and Reasonable Expectations

Over the past few days we've seen a number of announcements that have given some folks pause over the near-term prospects for a resurgence in the American nuclear energy industry. In particular, we've seen both SCANA in South Carolina and a group in Idaho headed by Warren Buffet pull away from plans to build reactors. For some insight into why these decisions were made, I asked NEI's Vice President of Policy Development, Richard J. Myers , to weigh in with his thoughts: We’ve seen a couple of announcements over the last few days that various companies are adjusting their plans for new nuclear generating capacity. Mid-American Energy announced that it will not pursue development of a new nuclear plant in Idaho – partly due to concerns about cost, partly because of difficulties in coming to terms with suppliers over risk-sharing. South Carolina Electric & Gas and Santee Cooper also announced that they would defer their application for a construction/operating lice...

Should America Build More Nuclear Power Plants?

That's the question that Patrick Kiger at the Science Channel is asking his readers : So what do you think? Should we build more nuclear power plants? Or should we focus harder on energy conservation and developing solar, wind and geothermal technologies instead? The short answer, of course, is that we're going to need to build all of those things in order to both meet future demand and to maintain a diverse energy mix that promotes security of supply. There's plenty more, and I encourage our readers to stop by and let Kiger and the Science Channel community know what we think about the issue.

What the AP Story on Water Use and Nuclear Won't Tell You

Here's another followup to yesterday's AP story on drought and nuclear energy that we referred to earlier today. Steve Kerekes, a colleague of mine who runs the media relations department for NEI, dealt directly with Mitch Weiss, the AP reporter who wrote the story. He dropped me the following note that he asked me to share with everyone: Call me old-fashioned. When I studied journalism in college, and in my subsequent career as a reporter many moons ago, the goals to strive for in covering the news, beyond accuracy, were balance and context. Thus my disbelief at the refusal of the Associated Press over the past 24 hours to provide context for a story it moved on the wire yesterday with a Lake Norman, N.C., dateline. It’s running in newspapers across the country under headlines such as “Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns,” and the story opens, “Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drough...

On Nuclear Energy and Drought

Yesterday, the Drudge Report fronted an AP story by Mitch Weiss entitled, " Drought Could Force Nuke-Plant Shutdowns ". To say the least, we're just a little exasperated around here, especially since we've gone to the trouble over and over again of letting folks know that water use isn't solely an issue for nuclear plants, it's an issue for any kind of electrical generating station that uses the steam cycle. Further, despite the claims of anti-nuclear activists, we don't believe this is a major issue. The best short answer to this comes from Dr. Michael Ivanco, who wrote the following in a letter to the editor that was published by the Hamilton Spectator back in August 2006 : The impact of drought in Europe on electricity supply is not a "nuclear" problem, as the writer suggests, rather it affects all electricity generating stations that use a steam cycle: nuclear, coal, gas and oil. These account for over 80 per cent of all electricity gener...

Pro-Nuclear Quote of the Day

From John Cole of Balloon Juice : And I will say it again, even though it always rankles people. Three Mile Island was a success. It was not Chernobyl. It was not nuclear armageddon. No, that does not mean I am pining for meltdowns everywhere, but I think some perspective is necessary. While it damaged the reputation of the nuclear industry, no one was hurt. No radiation sickness. No spikes in cancer rates. It was a disaster, but it was a success. Excluding nuclear energy from the possible ways to fulfill our energy needs in the future immediately makes you an unserious person, in my book. Sorry I missed this last week.