Skip to main content

Jeb Bush on Nuclear Power

The former Florida governor and CASE Coalition member shares his thoughts:
"Change" seems to be the operative word this election season. It's on the lips of political contenders and on the minds of the voters. But politics isn't the only arena where change is in the air. Change is happening in the world of energy as well, specifically when it comes to nuclear energy.

...

There are now 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States that are safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity - notably, without producing any of the harmful greenhouse gases some believe to be a major factor in climate change. Americans are beginning to recognize that nuclear energy caters to both our lifestyle and our greening mentality. And it offers the most proven means for our country to achieve much needed energy security.

...

American are demanding changes in energy production and the utilities are listening - there are 31 new nuclear power plants on the drawing board to be built over the next 15 to 20 years. Three of those are proposed for Florida.

It's good news for Florida. In 2006, Florida's five nuclear power reactors prevented the emission of 54,800 tons of sulfur dioxide; 39,000 tones of nitrogen oxide; and 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Avoiding nitrogen oxide at this level is the equivalent of taking 2 million passenger cars off the road.

That's a change for the better and it comes at the right time.

By 2030 the South Atlantic Grid is expected to require 26 percent more energy than it produced in 2006. And nationally, the numbers are even higher. As a country, we will need 40 percent more electricity to power our way of life by 2030.

...

It is time to shine a little light on this critical sea change, which has produced energy's comeback kid - nuclear power. It has my vote.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The only thing bad about nuclear power is that it doesn't produce plant food (carbon dioxide).
Gunter said…
Interestingly enough, its FPL own filings to the Florida Public Service Commission that show why nuclear power is the least economicly viable option for 21st Century energy policy.

The projected total overnight cost (no financing charges) for construction for an ABWR is between $5500 and $8100 per kilowatt of capacity between $9- $12 billion per unit. And they haven't even put a shovel in the ground.

It is exhobidant construction costs like this that reframe the so-called "renaissance" to be more akin to a relapse to the
1970's. Of more concern, to allow such a heist jeporadizes our chances at abating rapid climate change.
David Bradish said…
Gunter,

Page 11 on FP&L's "Petition to Determine Need for Turkey Point" states:

"FPL’s analysis shows that for all of the scenarios evaluated (eight of nine), the addition of new nuclear capacity is economically superior versus the corresponding addition of new CC units required to provide the same power output, yielding large direct economic benefits to customers as well as effectively addressing the criteria of section 403.519(4)(b). In fact, in the only scenario in which nuclear is not clearly superior, the natural gas prices are significantly lower than they are today and there are zero future economic compliance costs for CO2 emissions. Of all the scenarios evaluated, FPL believes these two to be the most unlikely. Moreover, even in these two unlikely scenarios, the results of the analysis show nuclear to be competitive or only slightly disadvantaged economically, while retaining the non-quantified advantages of fuel diversity, fuel supply reliability, and energy independence. Based on all the information available today, it is clearly desirable to take the steps and make the expenditures necessary to retain the option of new nuclear capacity coming on line in 2018."

FPL estimates on page 30 of the report that nuclear's construction cost estimate is $3,108 to $4,540/kW.

Are you sure you are referring to the correct FPL report?

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …