From the NEI Clip File

Here are some of the news clips we're reading at NEI today. The Wichita Eagle is checking in on the energy bill:

House and Senate negotiators are awaiting completion of an $11.5 billion tax package before giving final approval to an sweeping compromise energy bill that Congress hopes to send to President Bush by week's end.

...The broad legislation includes measures to spur construction of new nuclear power plants, promote ways to reduce pollution from coal and provides a boon to farmers by requiring refiners to double the use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons a year by 2012.

It also would...[provide] loan guarantees and other subsidies for clean energy technologies and new nuclear reactors. It would authorize a $1.8 billion program to promote clean coal technologies.

With the NuStart consortium getting closer to an announcement of where they might build a new nuclear power plant, the six sites under consideration are lobbying hard to become one of the two finalists:

A consortium of energy companies is choosing among six sites for the two plants, which face at least a decade of red tape and construction before they could begin generating electricity. The group, called NuStart, has said it will announce the two sites by October.

Elected officials have little or no involvement in the selection, but the governors of Louisiana and Mississippi have been enthusiastic in voicing their desire to have a new nuclear plant. Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco announced her support for putting one north of Baton Rouge, along the Mississippi River.

Blanco said a new plant would bring thousands of temporary construction jobs, and between 250 and 400 permanent white-collar jobs. She said nuclear power would help stabilize electric costs.

Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi has made similar arguments. In May, Barbour addressed a group of nuclear industry leaders and offered Mississippi as a good state for a new nuclear plant, praising nuclear energy as cleaner and more efficient than any other.

Click here for audio of Governor Barber's speech at the 2005 Nuclear Energy Assembly. On the international front, the U.K. power industry recently backed the future use of nuclear energy, urging the British government to remove obstacles to building new reactors:

The Association of Electricity Producers (AEP), whose members include EDF, E.ON, RWE and Scottish and Southern Energy, said a new fleet of reactors would benefit Britain in terms of supply security and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

"The generating industry faces a massive program of investment in power stations," said AEP chief executive David Porter in a statement.

"They will have to be competitive and meet carbon reduction and other environmental requirements. New nuclear power may well play a part in this."

In Indonesia, Dradjat Wibowo, a member of that nation's House's National Development Planning Commission, said that his country must consider nuclear energy as a power option:

"We need to reconsider the building of a nuclear power plant (PLTN) and hold discussions on the use of nuclear energy in Indonesia," Dradjat said here on Monday. He said that the idea on a PLTN should not be blocked, but revived by involving energy experts to guarantee the safe use of this type of energy.

"This does not mean that I agree, because I am not an energy expert, but I will follow what the experts say," Dradjat, who is also member of the House PAN (National Mandate Party) faction, said. He added that the "mistake" that Indonesia has made in the oil and gas sector is already too serious, so that the use of energy resources other than fossil energy, deserved a consideration.

Australian Senator Ian Campbell recently defended his support of uranium mining against local opposition there:

"We can play a constructive part of reducing greenhouse gases by making sure uranium is made available to the world in a safe way, and in a secure way," he said.

Senator Campbell says it would be silly and xenophobic for Australia to refuse to export uranium on ideological grounds.

Come back tomorrow for more news from the NEI Clip File.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog