Debating, Constructing, Demanding

Discovery News poses a series of questions to Tom Kaufmann, NEI’s senior media relations manager and Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. We really like this kind of interaction, but perhaps we could make a suggestion.

Here’s a question:

Often times the topic of Chernobyl comes up when nuclear energy is mentioned. Could a Chernobyl-type accident happen in the United States at a nuclear power plant?

Here’s how Kauffman starts out:

No. A Chernobyl-type accident can’t happen in the United States. It’s physically impossible.

And then Lyman:

The short answer is yes. An accident resulting in a large radiological release to the environment comparable to or worse than that of Chernobyl could definitely occur at a U.S. nuclear power plant.

See the problem? Either Kauffman or Lyman are wrong here or the truest answer is too ambiguous to be definitive. From the story, there’s no way to know except to apply your own tilt (and where might that be for us? Hmmm!)

So that leads to the suggestion: Lyman and Kauffman (or any two debaters) do an email exchange, with Lyman kicking off on one question and Kauffman another. Each writer gets to respond to the other and make his own points. Perhaps there could be two exchanges, then a summing up by each. Since it’s the Web, add in as many links as back up the point. Then, publish the exchanges on the Web. It’d be livelier and packed with useful info. Some minds would be more likely to change, too.

The story is well worth reading, with Kauffman representing the nuclear side of the debate quite well, but we wish someone would go further with this.

---

We must say that there are no more countries that would surprise us if they decide to pursue nuclear energy – well, maybe Monaco or Vanuatu – but color us unsurprised when we read this:

Indonesia's House of Representatives gave a green light to the government's plan to build nuclear plants.

That decision Monday came after the parliamentary commission for energy, technology and the environment visited the country's National Nuclear Energy Agency, which is known as Batan, during the weekend.

And why might Indonesia want to do this?

"Indonesia can no longer rely on non-renewable energy sources such as gas and coal to generate electricity in future," said Teuku Riefky Harsya, chairman of the commission, in a statement.

Much of the discussion in the United States and Europe over carbon emission reduction focuses on a mechanism to move industry in that direction, but countries such as Indonesia and UAE know exactly how to go about achieving that goal, without mandates: build nuclear power plants. (We’re being vaguely provocative – we know the issue is much more complicated that that.)

---

As you may imagine, a fair number of people are very annoyed with the closing of the Yucca Mountain used fuel repository:

A coalition of leading national and regional organizations -- representing energy and individual taxpayers; state elected and regulatory officials; communities and energy-related businesses -- expressed vigorous support for the continuation of the Yucca Mountain repository program in letters to key Congressional appropriators.

The groups represent large slices of the interested population - National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; United States Chamber of Commerce; National Association of Manufacturers – and local concerns, too - Alliance for Nevada's Economic Prosperity; Economic Development Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Counties (SC); Nevadans 4 Carbon Free Energy; and Greater Idaho Falls Chamber of Commerce.

So far, this isn’t much more than a press release with demands – we’ll be interested to see where it leads.

In case you associate Indonesia exclusively with Balinese dancers and the like, here’s Jakarta at night.

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