NEI Nuclear Notes

We always like to hear what Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) has to say about nuclear energy. Now, obviously, that has something to do with his all-in attitude – in fact, his call for 100 nuclear plants in 20 years shows him to be quite a fan – but does not pitch every other energy source our the window. Well, maybe he does a little, in this op-ed co-written with Health Physics Society’s Theodore Rockwell: Make no mistake — solar, wind and other “renewables” have their own environmental impact as well. Solar and wind farms will occupy dozens — even hundreds — of square miles to produce ordinary amounts of electricity. The Nature Conservancy has labeled this “Energy Sprawl.” What he says here is true, but, if care is taken, there’s a lot of territory in the United States in which to sprawl. His real argument, though, is that nuclear energy is “green” energy: The natural case for nuclear power is compelling. Today nuclear power produces 19 percent of our electricity and 70 ...

We’re not going to say the cat’s out of the bag or anything like that, but we were surprised to read this in the Wall Street Journal, with the paper’s Robert Thompson listening to Energy Secretary Steven Chu: Well, it's fair to say that the whole history of Yucca Mountain was more political than scientific. But also very truthfully I can say that given what we know today, the repository looks less and less good. So now we're in a situation where it can't go forward. When Yucca Mountain was being established in the early '80s, the idea then was the nuclear industry was going to tail off. Now, because of climate change, we do want to restart the nuclear industry. Because of that, the statutory limit of Yucca Mountain would have been used up in the next couple of decades. So we need to take a fresh look at everything. That’s the first time we’ve heard Chu note the political dimension of Yucca Mountain quite so bluntly. He’s right, of course: Nevada used every...

Nuclear Power Pants , a band from Baltimore, MD, has a uniquely awful video up on YouTube that might best be described as GWAR meets Ed Wood . (That's one heckuva high bar for this high camp.) Enjoy. Can the nuclear energy industry sue for defamation of character?

Further to David’s post below, we thought we’d feature our old friends at FOE, that is, Friends of the Earth, using that discredited several year old default figure to gin up fear over loan guarantees. Frankly, the idea - to link them to bank bailouts - is a good way to make something rather abstract to the public seem really sinister – not to mention the use of music that seems to come from The Shining – but we think it’s for naught. Using nuclear plants as fear engines just isn't a very successful ploy anymore. As we usually find with FOE, the group does not really feel bound by truth and facts, preferring an approach driven by misinformation and fear. We really mean it: dislike nuclear energy to your heart’s content, but try to make your case with the best data possible and then put together scary ads. We still won’t agree, most likely, but we’ll respect you more. Really.

That question reverberated through a couple of hearings about the  Department of Energy’s 2011 budget request and, up to now, has not received a very adequate answer. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has took a stab at it this week. At the House Science and Natural Resources committee yesterday and at the Senate Appropriate Committee’s Energy and Water subcommittee today, Chu faced some pretty insistent questions on this issue. We admit that we’re as curious as anyone on this. We found that this exchange between Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Chu got to the heart of the argument and gave Chu enough room for a full answer (our transcript): Sen. Patty Murray: Who was consulted in making the decision that Yucca Mountain is no longer a viable option? Steven Chu: One has to go back and look at the entire history of the choice of Yucca Mountain, the Nuclear Waste Act, all those things. What one finds is that there are other things, other knowledge, other conditions that as they evolve...

The Congressional Budget Office’s Director, Douglas Elmendorf , provided some important insight into how loan guarantees are assessed in the US government’s budget . For those who have been following the 50 percent default rate argument that nuclear critics have been making , CBO makes clear that the assumption of the rate in their 2003 report was for a piece of legislation that was never enacted. In the Director’s blog post , CBO basically says that there are numerous varying assumptions that go into assessing the credit risk of each project. But “without such information, much of which would be proprietary, CBO has no basis for estimating the cost to the government of any specific loan guarantee of this type. ” As said before and confirmed by CBO, no data exists to support the claim that 50 percent of new nuclear plants that are built will default. Perhaps the Director’s blog post puts this mis-understood claim to rest; somehow I don’t think so though…

The Washington Post tried a front page story about nuclear energy – and if you develop a higher profile, as nuclear energy has done, then newspapers are going to take a closer look at you. We expect that and in truth the story isn’t bad. For nuclear energy followers, the news isn’t very new at all: In states such as Georgia, Florida and South Carolina, utilities have won permission to charge customers for some of the cost of new reactors while construction is still in progress -- a financing technique that would save utilities a couple of billion dollars for each reactor. Previously, utilities had to wait until power plants were in operation before raising rates, as they still do in most states. This is CWIP, or Construction Work in Progress, approved by legislators in some states and not in others. The salient point behind it is that a utility can recoup interest charges and thus not suffer interest on top of interest – and thus, its customers don’t suffer it either. The Po...