NEI Nuclear Notes

Some interesting testimony from Thomas Friedman in his appearance earlier today before the Senate committee on Environment and Public Works . The hearing was titled, " Investing in Green Technology as a Strategy for Economic Recovery ." Think about the scale. I give just one example. Nate Lewis of Cal Tech uses this number. We currently, the world currently uses about 13 terawatts, 13 trillion watts of energy. Between now and 2050 we’re going to double that to 26 terawatts, 26 trillion watts. If we want to go from 13 to 26 [terawatts] as a world, accommodate the growth of China and India, and not double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere – which is the red line from pre-industrial period, which is the red line beyond which climate scientists believe all the climate monsters will come out of the closet—if we want to do that, we basically, we have to take 13 terawatts and get rid of them, through energy efficiency. And of the new 13 terawatts, we need to produce 80% of that ...

In case some of you missed it, the Climate Progress blog has picked up a study by Craig Severance, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power [PDF]. The report has quite a number of holes in it, in my opinion, and the biggest hole has to do with a flawed assumption in how the study calculates the cost of electricity from a new nuclear plant. We've been discussing and debating the study over at Climate Progress and the author has been great in responding to most everyone's critiques. So what's the flaw? The study claims that a new nuclear plant's capital costs, when all is said and done, will be about $10,500/kW. Many studies that I'm aware of estimate that a new nuclear plant will cost between $5,000-$8,000/kW for the all-in construction costs. Mr. Severance's capital cost assumptions are quite a bit higher than the highest estimate but whatever. That's not the flaw of the study's cost numbers. The flaw is how the cost of electricity from a new...

For those of us who are interested in the developments pertaining to the domestic mining of uranium, you may find it noteworthy that perhaps the largest deposit of uranium ore in the United States is located in southwestern Virginia. There won't be any uranium mining in Virginia any time soon though, since there has long been a moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia. But, recently there have been proposals of conducting a study to determine whether uranium can be mined safely and what the potential impacts may be. Last night, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission held a public meeting in Chatham, Virginia, simply to hear public comments pertaining to the study of the feasibility of uranium mining. From some of the comments (e.g., likening mining to "brutal rape"), you would think that the study is tantamount to actually starting mining operations. More information about the public meeting can be found here (incl. video) . Some interesting (and often outrageous) com...

Here’s something fun for your teens, or if you are a teen, you: Students in middle and high schools are encouraged to prepare a three to seven minute video (VHS or DVD) on positive aspects of the various forms of energy, including nuclear energy. The purpose of the video contest is to enhance students' researching and fact-finding skills, and to educate them on the various forms of energy that we use today. Students are encouraged to be creative in their entries, yet informative. The video can be staged as a short play, commercial, news broadcast, talk show, music video, documentary, etc. This is being sponsored by Westinghouse, via their N-Vision program. N-Vision is a nuclear advocacy program that focuses a lot on teacher-student materials and projects. You can find a pdf with instructions here . There’s prize money involved but not to buy X-Box points, iTunes music or whatever else the whipper-snappers of today are into – it all goes for school stuff. (We’re a bit le...

If nuclear energy is going to push forward to a true international renaissance, it’s not enough to apply for licenses and and clear some land for new plants. An entire infrastructure has to be exist to support them – now, of course, there is such an infrastructure, since plants have been puttering along for a long while and need replacement parts, a supply of uranium and so on. But a marked increase in plant construction and operation promises a shockwave of new activity in associated industries and suppliers. Take a look at this article from Smart Money, which offers advice(which we do not recommend you follow without a lot of additional research – you really could find that your next home is your car) on where your investment dollars might flow in the nuclear sphere. This caught our eye: Nuclear plants also need fuel, of course, and tight supplies of enriched uranium should benefit USEC, one of only four commercial uranium processors in the world. So true, and what about...

Well, of course we want Scotland to see the error of their ways and keep their nuclear plants up and running. There seems to be a little pushback on closing them : [Iain] McMillan [director of CBI Scotland , the Scots version of the Chamber of Commerce] said that the proposed local income tax, to replace council tax in Scotland, could turn businesses away from the country, and the [ Scottish National Party ]’s decision to rule out new nuclear power stations north of the border could put Scotland’s future as an energy exporter at risk. We’ll see. If we read the story right, a consensus seems to be emerging that Scotland is spiting its nose to throw out the baby with the bird in the bush. In other words, bad decision. Maybe the United Kingdom subscribes to The Sound of Music dictum that when God closes a door, He opens a window. Here’s the window : Energy firm RWE nPower has revealed plans to build up to three new nuclear power stations in Anglesey, Wales, the Guardian h...

Many thanks to all NNN readers who made 2008 such an electric year: records were set for visitors, page views, and visits. We look forward to an even more exciting 2009. Below, the top 12 most-read blog posts of the year. 1. Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy 2. John McCain on Nuclear Energy and Yucca Mountain 3. Amory Lovins and His Nuclear Illusion - Final Thoughts 4. Nuclear, Wind, Coal, Gas and Oil Footprints 5. The Nuclear Option: CNBC 6. Warren Buffett Makes a Nuclear Play 7. Russia's Nuclear Energy Investment 8. The Wall Street Journal Energy Report 9. Legends and Facts: Steven Chu on Nuclear Energy 10. Inside U.S. Energy Subsidies 11. Lieberman-Warner: "Leave No Fuel Behind" 12. T. Boone Pickens and the Politics of Wind: What Texas Wants Photo of Wunderland Kalkar , courtesy of Rick Wezenaar .