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

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

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more