Skip to main content

Secretary Chu Discusses Nuclear Energy on Charlie Rose

By
Energy Secretary Chu on nuclear energyA tip of the hat to an anonymous NNN reader for passing along Energy Secretary Chu's appearance on the Charlie Rose Show last night. (See what you miss when you go to bed early?) The nuclear-related nugget appears at the 18:10-19:34 mark of the interview. (I do recommend watching the video, as the rush transcript below doesn't fully capture Rose's inimitable interrupting interview technique.)
Rose: Nuclear. Where are you on nuclear?
Chu: I think that nuclear energy should be a part of our energy portfolio in the United States this century. It’s carbon-free. It, we...
Rose: This century? It is now 2009.
Chu: Well, that's right. It's the beginning of this century. So, the reason I say that it is because it's going to take time to develop the transmission, and to develop the renewable energies, resources that it gets to be 50, 80% of our electrical power generation. And so...
Rose: In France, it's what, 80%?
Chu: France is a little bit less than 80% nuclear at the moment. Right...
Rose: But all fears you might have had about danger and safety and all of that have been...?
Chu: Well, no. I mean there are certain issues that I think...
Rose: Chernobyl and all that.
Chu: Well, the Chernobyl, the dangers are much less. The newer generation of reactors that are now being checked out by the NRC for licensing are believed to be much safer than the older ones and certainly...
Rose: And how long would it take you, if you made it a commitment to a nuclear facility plant today, how long before you could have it on the stream?
Chu: That's a good question. It depends on the licensing procedure. And so, the NRC is going through the licensing of these new designed plants by GE and Westinghouse, as an example.
Labels:

Comments

Frank Jablonski said…
It is unfortunate for this nation that Secretary Chu will not articulate definitive support for what he knows to be a balanced and sound energy policy - - the policy articulated by him and other leaders of our national labs in August of last year, when they signed onto a paper accurately and definitively identifying nuclear as a key component of a sustainable energy strategy for this century. Hopefully he is at least doing this within administration meetings.
March 10, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Jason Ribeiro said…
What I see in Sec. Chu is a very nice man. He has the temperament that just doesn't say 'no' to people when they otherwise deserve to be told 'no'. He belief in science coupled with his accommodating nature, allows him to consider the problem that the pure renewables camp brings to him - 'how can we achieve a 60-80% renewable energy portfolio?' Rather than tell them 'no, you're out of your mind', he sees it as a challenging problem that science should be able to solve. He's said before that he supports nuclear, but again he's willing to accommodate the opposition's contention of its problems.

I'm a bit concerned for Dr. Chu. I hope that he doesn't become the "Colin Powell" of the Obama Administration where his voice is present, but nobody listens to him.
March 11, 2009 at 2:56 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