Skip to main content

Nuclear Makes A Worldwide Comeback: Der Spiegel

By
Spiegel on Nuclear Energy[Intentional?] Typo aside, a great package on nuclear energy, The Atomic Age Enters a New Dawn, has just gone online over at Der Spiegel.

Other pieces include:
(Hat tip to Notes reader Joe on the heads-up.)
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'm not that sure that 'The US goes NUCULAR' is a typo :)
-t7-
July 11, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Anonymous said…
Who knew that the editors at Der Spiegel would dip their collective toe in the pool of funny?

BTW The issue will be available on newsstands [in DC, anyway] Monday.
July 11, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Bill said…
Some odd statements in the Der Spiegel article:

"No nuclear reactors have been built in the United States since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. ... A number have recently been approved ..."

Somebody's getting ahead of themselves.

"... regulators and energy companies plan to agree on two or three standard reactor models, which would mean that new nuclear power plants would essentially be constructed as prefabricated units."

'Built to an established design' isn't the usual meaning of "prefabricated".
July 11, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Matthew B said…
No nuclear reactors have been built in the United States since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island

By my quick tally, I count 50 of the 104 US reactors going online after 1979.
July 11, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Space Fission said…
The piece on Turkey's plans for a nuclear power plant missed a few key items that are in plain sight. The first is that Turkey plans to be a regional exporter of electricity once the first two of three planned reactors are online. Second, turkey's nuclear energy tender almost didn't get out the door, not because of environmental opposition, or earthquake risks, but because of the "byzantine" government process of assembling and approving the paperwork.

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/01/turkey-plans-5-gwe-8-billion-nuclear.html

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/06/turkey-to-build-second-nuclear-plant.html
July 12, 2008 at 8:06 AM
Anonymous said…
Do you NEI guys only report news that makes you glow in the dark?

FitzPatrick in upstate NY is at 50% power for feedpump seal problems - AGAIN! How many times has this been? When are they going to get the feedpump seal problem finally fixed? Oh, I forgot, the guy who went to germany on a mission to do this - Oscar Limpias - become the head of their engineering org. Promote those who can't do.

And VY is down to 23% because of cooling tower problems - AGAIN! Not enough to have a crumble coioling tower cell the other year. Now we're going to repeat the event.

And the NRC is sending a special team to VY:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2008/08-045i.html

What do you folks at NEI Nuclear Notes and Adams Atomic Engines have to say about this?

Profitable?

Maybe for the anti-nukes!
July 14, 2008 at 12:12 PM
David Bradish said…
What do you folks at NEI Nuclear Notes and Adams Atomic Engines have to say about this?

Oh my gosh, two reactors derated power for maintenance, what are we to do? I guess nuclear reactors really are unreliable. I'll go tell my communications division to abandon all of our messages that state nuclear plants are reliable. Oh wait, according to the data (pdf), Fitzpatrick and Vermont Yankee have a 95% and 99% capacity factor so far this year. What do you have to say about that?
July 14, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous said…
David Bradish, Davis Besse was INPO 1 before the hole in the head. All that needs to happen is for one - just one - aging PWR or BWR to screw up. Looks like Fitz and VY are doing good jobs of that with respect to feedpump seals and cooling towers. My goodness - if you can't fix a feedpump seal after 10+ years, then exactly how to you expect to manage a nuke plant? The clock is ticking. One mistake - just one more Davis Besse.
July 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Anonymous said…
All that needs to happen is for one - just one - aging PWR or BWR to screw up.

The anti's have been waiting for the "screw up" that would be the end of nuclear. The public has become bored with that line of reasoning since nothing has happened. You'll be on your deathbed bitter thinking it'll happen, it'll happen I know it will...
July 14, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more