Fossil-Fuel Bias in Indian Point Water Permit Debate?

John Wheeler at This Week in Nuclear keeps hitting hard against New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation:

In my further research on this topic I discovered a damming piece of evidence that proves NY State is giving preferential treatment to fossil fuels while at the same time imposing unfair regulations on neighboring nuclear energy facilities, the largest competitors to fossil fuels.

Stop by for the whole story.

Comments

Anonymous said…

Would it be possible to sue in court under the "equal protection" clause of the constitution? Treating parties differently under the law is illegal. This seems to be a clear case of that.

Jim Hopf

June 1, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Jason Ribeiro said…

The compromise screen solution that John Wheeler proposed is the best environmental solution from almost any angle. Closing the plant down will cause more fish to be harmed because more gas and other less environmentally friendly solutions would have to replace Indian Point. Building cooling towers would divert power production to thermal fossil solutions in the interim and again, create a greater thermal signature than if Indian Point were allowed to run as is. The screen solution will add a margin of improvement to the plant's already very low environmental footprint at a reasonable cost - it's a win-win for everyone to go this route.

June 4, 2010 at 1:40 AM

Marilyn Elie said…

DEC has required closed cycle cooling NOT cooling towers. Cheaper radiator style systems are commo
n in the industry. Wedge wire has not been used in fast moving rivers like the Hudson and was rejected at Oyster Creek as ineffective. It does nothing to prevent thermal pollution that is so deadly to the river Eco system.

July 18, 2010 at 11:44 PM

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