Skip to main content

Overheard at the Nuclear Energy Assembly

nea_logo The Nuclear Energy Assembly is the annual conference of the Nuclear Energy Institute. It brings together all the bigwigs of the industry, plus a lot of the littler wigs, to listen to speeches, pick up awards for innovations in the field, catch up with industry colleagues – you know, the kinds of things people do at conferences. We thought we’d share you some of the bits and bites from the speeches given the opening morning – it was a virtual parade of politicians and regulators saying realistic but upbeat things.

For example, here’s House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:

“My message to you is a simple one: nuclear energy is part of the solution. I say ‘part’ because there is no one single solution to America’s energy needs. I will keep arguing that nuclear power has a vital place in that mix, and that it deserves our government’s support.”

And here’s House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Peter Visclosky:

“If you look at these (energy) issues on a factual basis, there is a large and important role for nuclear to play. What I would hope, and what I have expressed to the Secretary of Energy is two-fold: One, that there is a sense of urgency at the Department of Energy to move forward, and this certainly pertains to some of the nuclear issues we face today. My other message is that you need to make sure you manage large-scale projects effectively.”

Now, all right, these sound a lot like politician speak, but they are Democratic politicians, and their support for nuclear energy is pretty straightforward.

And get this! In a Roll Call story about Hoyer’s speech, Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman said:

“The Speaker recognizes that nuclear power will continue to be part of our nation’s energy mix. She looks forward to working with Leader Hoyer and other Democratic leaders as well as the committee chairs to craft a consensus energy package.”

But getting back to the industry, here’s some comments from Gary Gates, president and chief executive officer of Omaha Public Power District and the new chairman of NEI’s board of directors:

“Around the world, 61 reactors are under construction or about to start producing power,” Gates said. “The economy is tougher today than when we met last year, but the need for new nuclear plants remains strong. The planning horizons for some facilities may have changed, but we expect four to eight new plants to be in operation in the United States by 2016 or 2017.

“All of this activity will lead to more jobs, in the short term in manufacturing and construction, and in career-long jobs to operate the plants. We estimate that 15,000 new jobs have been created and over $4 billion has been invested in the nuclear industry over the past few years. Nuclear is one of the few industries to be creating jobs at a time when so many jobs are disappearing.”

More to come.

Comments

Rod Adams said…
I have had several interesting conversations with attendees at NEA. Some of the most interesting have been with the fresh faced young people wearing light green badges and speaking with excitement about their passion for nuclear power.

However, Wellinghoff is not the only dour one in the crowd. Some of the people in my generation and older seem to share some of the Chairman's reluctance to agree that we need to build new nuclear power plants to provide clean, reliable electricity and to shut down dirty, non compliant coal fired power plants. They seem perfectly content to let the gas guys build any fill in capacity needs while they run the cash cows that were built with the hard work of a many long retired nuclear professionals.

There is no doubt that the growth in demand has slowed to a crawl and even turned negative in some regions of the country.

In many ways it feels a lot like it must have felt in 1974-1975 when the energy crisis induced recession made investments in new plants look very risky and encouraged a lot of cancellations. The only difference this time seems to be that the industry leaders are simply thankful that they have not yet started putting in the cash required for construction, making it easier to walk away from any building plans.

My advice - go listen to the young people and get excited again about new construction recognizing that the economy ALWAYS cycles and that energy demand eventually increases. If you have a product that takes a lot of patient, careful work it is not beneficial to walk away just when you are getting started.
Anonymous said…
The people over in the UK found out about the downside of relying too much on gas to meet their electricity demand. If there are people out there who advocate this in lieu of nuclear capacity will likewise be in for a very rude awakening.

Popular posts from this blog

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...