Building a Building: Nuclear Plant Component Makers See Growth

A company called Report Linker has released a, well, report called “Nuclear Energy Technologies Worldwide: Components and Manufacturing.” It can be yours for the low, low price of $3,195 (we get the idea of pricing something at $9.95, but we think Report Link could have gone sporty and priced this at $3,200). We checked for change under the couch cushions, then decided to settle for the press release instead:

The U.S. is the global leader in nuclear energy technology manufacturing, having a total market value of nearly $45.2 billion in 2002 and growing to an estimated $50.8 billion by year-end 2009. By 2013, SBI estimates that the U.S. market value will reach $61.1 billion, growing at an eleven-year Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 2.8%.

The U.S., France, and Japan comprise more than half of the global value of nuclear energy technology manufacturing. SBI estimates that France’s market value will grow from $28.9 billion in 2009 to $34.8 billion in 2013 (3.4% CAGR) and Japan will grow from $19.6 billion to $23.7 billion (3.4%) in 2013.

They also report that South Korea and China are rising quickly and offer the somewhat puzzling news that the Netherlands and Pakistan are developing into potent nuclear component suppliers. Okay, the Netherlands maybe, but Pakistan seems shaky enough to ward off big orders. We frankly think they may be underestimating U.S. growth, but that may be because they count only American companies and not Japanese (Toshiba, Hitachi), French (AREVA, EDF) and other foreign outfits operating here.

But it’s a press release: we could always forgo that elective surgery we’ve been eyeing and buy the book to delve into the details. What’s heartening is that the numbers continue trending upward – the nuclear business is fully mature (wind, solar, biomass and so on are not yet so and will probably see growth described as “explosive” – assuming the energy/climate change bill in Congress isn’t watered down to gruel.) So while the percentages offered are small, they are positive and the real numbers are in the billions. We’ll take it.

Comments

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...

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...

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

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog