Skip to main content

A Shout Out Over the Fence

Our neighbor here are Blogspot, Rod Adams of Atomic Insights - tops on our blog roll - is currently debating nuclear energy as a viable solution for climate change with Matt, a sustainability consultant who writes regularly for TalkClimateChange. The conversation is happening over at Green Options and promises to be exceptionally broad ranging.

Here's a taster of Rod's opening:

We can build nuclear plants safely and rapidly enough to make a real different in resource availability. During the ten year period between 1975 and 1985, the amount of new energy production from nuclear plants was roughly equivalent to adding about 6 million barrels of oil per day to the world's available energy supply. Note - that is not nameplate "capacity" like you find with wind turbines that are often idle, it is actual production.

And Matt's:

The Royal Academy of Engineering in 2003 ("The Cost of GeneratingElectricity") put gas-fired combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) at 2.2 units of cost, and nuclear at 2.3 units of cost. This does not take into account the savings from district heating. We have at our disposal the knowledge, tools and labour to connect CCGT to district heating today, we just need the political will to do so.

In addition, nuclear requires serious subsidy - the free market would not go near it with a barge pole.

That last sentence is a bit of an eyebrow-raiser.

We'd say, "May the best man win," but that would sound a little tinny coming from this corner. We know who will win.

PS: If you get the right ad at the top on the Green Option page, you'll learn that Clorox has a new cleaner called Green Works. Not sure it isn't bleach in a bottle with leaves on it, but it certainly suggests the commercial possibilities that have emerged around "greeniness" over the last year or so.


rad_sci_health said…
While increased production is a reasonable measure of the rate and ability of the nuclear industry to develop in the future, it doesn't directly address the applicable history of nuclear power development as to the industry's ability to build adequate capacity in the future. U.S. and world nuclear power construction of operating capacity in the '70s-'80s (with various numbers) are typically used to make this case.

However, we should have a better comparison to include the plants that were manufactured in the relevant period. (15-20 years? also starting with a whole new technology! taking less time to build a plant than it now takes NRC to count the pages in an application based on known/proven technology.)

But plant development must include plants that were ordered (with major long-lead components manufactured/stored) but with construction not completed (e.g., Pilgrim 2 not started) because of reduced power growth rates affecting the need for baseload power, and extreme interest rates/carrying costs due to poorly managed construction. (It wasn't plant concrete and steel constraints that caused the ordered/partially constructed plants to be terminated.) It also needs to include all plants that have been closed.

Last year I couldn't find relevant data on the web (e.g., the gray books), but I would guesstimate that the U.S. manufactured and partially completed roughly twice our operating capacity. The rest of the world also cancelled many such plants (more after Chernobyl than TMI, e.g. Italy, vs. the US).

NEI or WNA should get some industry support to summarize that data (and make it readily available as a "nuclear debate" resource).

Industry and government communications people should have such specific data (and enter comments, and propose changes, as new data and info is identified).

Such specific data/info summaries (without the background data) should be directly accessible to the media for issues in major media communications and policy issues.

Jim Muckerheide
Rod Adams said…

As I understand your comment, you are pointing out that the actual production increases underestimate the rate that nuclear power could grow if we put our collective minds and marketing skills to the task.

I fully agree. I point to the completed plant record as an easy to understand metric and know that we can do far better. BTW - we never had an overcapacity issue - we just never got around to realizing that we should be shuttering coal fired power plants as quickly as we built new nuclear plant capacity.

I do not really care what the established energy industry thinks - those plants are hazardous to human health and to the beauty of some wonderful areas of the planet.

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 …