Skip to main content

The Dirty Energy Sector

By

susquehanna_nuclear_plant We were expecting a little better from a story called U.S. Energy Industry Is Wary of Obama, although we think almost all industries are wary of a major change in political authority. Priorities are bound to shift and they have to hope it isn’t away from them. But this story seems to want to go further in its Cassandra-like warning:

President-elect Barack Obama hasn't appointed a single person from the dirty energy sector for his energy team. I'm referring to the oil, coal and nuclear energy industries. This has these industries concerned albeit their statements to the contrary.

Dirty energy sector! We’ll have to have words with writer Dave Giza on that drive-by slur. But when it comes to explaining how nuclear may be facing difficulties, the result is some pretty translucent milk:

Obama said during the presidential campaign that nuclear energy has a role in the nation's energy future but also pointed to its high costs and concerns about properly disposing waste. Dr. [Steven] Chu's most recent job was head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, which began as one of the government's premier nuclear research facilities and still does fusion and radiation research. Chu signed a paper last summer along with the heads of other national energy labs, extolling the importance of nuclear power's role for the U.S. and the world.

None of that sounds all that dire and is actually pretty accurate. In fact, if anything, Giza’s article seems intended to keep everyone calm, including coal folks:

Others believe that Obama will be lax regarding the regulation of coal-fired power plants. After all, coal is the cheapest energy source next to conservation. The coal mining industry employs more than 500,000 people in a direct and indirect fashion.

We wonder who those “others” are – you may as well say that “others” believe the world is flat.

We hoped for better. We’ll have to settle for being consigned to the dirty energy sector.

Susquehanna’s towers. Dirty, oh so dirty.

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Mark,
In reply to a comment on his article, Dave Giza says, "...I wouldn't completely eliminate coal, oil or nuclear energy. Let us have the complete energy enchilada along with conservation." (URL: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/263906#tab=comments&sc=0&local=)

This suggests the "Gizan taxonomy of energy" may look like the SAT exam question: "clean" is to "-------" like "dirty" is to "enchilada".
December 25, 2008 at 6:36 AM
Joffan said…
Answer: "tequila"
December 25, 2008 at 4:49 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