Skip to main content

A Short Energy Quiz Update

In a 1981 back-issue of MOTHER EARTH NEWS.com, an article titled “A Short Energy Quiz” described the contributions of various sources of energy to US power consumption. The article claimed that the winner, “by a wide margin,” was coal, and that the contribution of atomic power to the fuel mix was slim and slipping.

In fact, the notion that nuclear energy’s contribution to the US power supply was declining was conventional wisdom in the early 1980s. It appears a few things have changed since Mother Earth News published their “quiz”—so we thought we might give an updated quiz of our own.

List, in descending order, the relative contributions of the following sources of energy to our nation’s power consumption: coal, gas, hydro, nuclear, and oil. Ready? While coal generation does account for about half the United States’ electric power consumption, the fact is that nuclear generation is a not-so-distant second. According to statistics published by the Energy Information Administration (a statistical agency of the US Department of Energy), nuclear energy meets 20% of our nation’s electricity needs, and has consistently done so for over a decade, despite the fact that electricity demand has increased by almost 18% over the same time period.

Nuclear power not only meets one-fifth of the country’s electricity needs, but it does so without the emission of harmful greenhouse gases like sulfur and carbon dioxides. In fact, nuclear power is the largest clean-air source of electricity, producing 70% of non-emitting generation in the United States.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...