Carbon Reduction and The Dutch Road Forward

Here’s what the International Energy Agency has to say about carbon reduction ambitions in the Netherlands:

The head of the International Energy Agency urged the Dutch government Monday to expand its nuclear power base, but the country's environment minister said that's not in the energy equation for now.

Nobuo Tanaka, the IEA executive director, said the Netherlands will find it tough to reach its target of slashing carbon emissions 30 percent below 1990 levels within the next dozen years without building more nuclear power stations.

We’ve made the same argument (a lot) about the most efficacious way to achieve carbon reduction. We do wonder why IEA focused on the Dutch. A look at its Web site shows it does reports (for a price) focused on individual countries and how plans shape up versus goals. IEA seems neutral on energy generators, so it isn’t recommending nuclear because that’s what it always does.

Here’s a bit more on where the Dutch are on this issue:

The cabinet has agreed that no new nuclear power plants will be built during its term, although debate about the future of nuclear power was reignited last year as Dutch utility Delta said it would apply for a permit to build a new plant [this would replace a soon-to-be-shuttered plant].

The Dutch has a coalition government with Greens a part of the mix, so that probably explains the official silence – Germany is in a holding pattern with it’s current coalition, too. It may be that this report will find use as encouragement to move forward.

The little Dutch boy. He’s even holding tulips and wearing wooden shoes. It’s not every country that has a collection of recognizable traits that can be merged into horrid tchotchkes.

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...

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

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...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog