The "Conversation" About Nuclear Energy

Want to know what public attitudes are like in one of the most anti-nuclear energy regions in the world? Just take a listen to a few minutes of yesterday's edition of The Conversation, a program on KUOW-FM 94.9 in Seattle. Click here (MP3) or here (Real Audio) to listen.

I understand that the region has its own problematic history with nuclear energy, but that's no excuse for some of the nonsense that the host, Guy Nelson, who immediately repeats an utter falsehood about total lifecycle emissions and nuclear energy. After listening for a few minutes, I was impressed with the bravery of a number of listeners who called to make the case for nuclear energy.

Comments

Anonymous said…

It's too bad that anti-nuke nutcases actually convince some people by using arguments against the 1970s era power plants or even out-and-out lies like in this case. The fact is nobody wants more 1970s type nuke plants. They were too expensive to build and the technology has improved by leaps and bounds since then.

Being pro-nuke means being against using foreign oil (our gas guzzling cars), against sulphur and other poisons in the air (coal plants), against carbon emissions that will destroy this planet and everyone on it (natural gas power plants), and against power supply problems like brownouts and blackouts.

With new designs like pebble bed reactors there is no possibility of melt-down because even with a complete coolant failure the reactor reaches thermal equilibrium. And the pebble bed reactor is modular so most parts can be mass produced and shipped to the site, and a community can start with a small reactor and add additional reactors as their power needs grow.

Other new reactor designs will enable cheaper hydrogen production by producing steam of high enough temperature to separate the hydrogen from seawater.

Nuclear power has never been more needed than right now. Mankind faces great peril (or extinction) without it.

October 10, 2007 at 10:20 AM

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