Skip to main content

A Roundtable, A Voice and Death

Bob Guccioni Interesting roundtable discussion over at Penn Central. Participants include John Herron, president, CEO and chief nuclear officer of Entergy Nuclear; Mark Marano, Areva senior vice president of U.S. new build operations; Danny Roderick, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy's senior vice president for new plant projects; Christofer Mowry, president and CEO, B&W Modular Nuclear Energy, LLC; and Deva Chari, Westinghouse senior vice president of Nuclear Power Plants.

Lots of different topics are discussed: here’s a sampling of the questions:

There has been a lot of talk about the possibility of a nuclear renaissance globally. What is the outlook for new nuclear projects over the next couple of years, especially given the global recession?

How are the dynamics for new nuclear in North America different than they were a couple of years ago?

The Department of Energy approved a federal loan guarantee last February for Southern’s proposed units, but nothing has happened since then. Constellation Energy and NRG Energy have both said they will cut back on the amount they are spending to develop proposed units while they wait for federal action. How large of a problem is the delay in federal loan guarantees?

New reports made a big deal over the summer regarding a report North Carolina suggesting that solar is now less expensive to build than nuclear. In the face of that kind of press, what’s the economic argument in favor of new nuclear?

(I found this report very dubious; it’s no surprise these gentlemen do, too. Here’s Roderick: “Well first of all I did read that report and it is very one-sided. It does not compare apples to apples whatsoever.” – a point on which Mowry expands: “Solar is roughly 24 cents a kWh. It is at best three times as expensive as the power that comes out of nuclear and I think you really have to look at the marginal cost because of the kind of power that it is, [in] which case [it] may be five to 10 times more expensive. So that is absolutely not the case.”)

Are you hearing concerns from Wall Street regarding the three years or so of exposure that the capital will face during new plant construction?

As you can see, some of the most contentious issues out there are given a airing. Well worth reading the whole thing.

---

Growing demands for energy around the world have nations increasingly looking to the promise of nuclear power to fuel their growth and development needs.

Nothing to disagree with there, but the notable fact about this little article is that it is published at the Voice of America, the U.S. radio service (TV, too, though not as much) for other countries. So there is a bit of interest in what the American attitude is in the material being transmitted.

With nuclear power's potential however, comes responsibilities. One is that nations developing nuclear energy for civilian uses commit to preventing nuclear technology from being diverted to other nations or groups that might use it to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Other than the term “weapons of mass destruction” losing some of its luster, it’s a fair metric of concern, especially since it is used to promote the idea of a fuel bank, an international entity that will track uranium used at plants and retrieve the used nuclear fuel.

We look forward to working with both nuclear power-capable and developing nations to establish an IAEA Fuel Bank that can help to harness peaceful nuclear power for the benefit of all.

So, as one might expect, an accurate and pointed statement of U.S. interest.

---

I’m not a big reader of obituaries – time for that later – but I do read the New York Times and Washington Post obits of prominent people. Often, these include tidbits of information I did not know or might prefer not to know.

He once hired 82 scientists to develop a small nuclear reactor as a low-cost energy source, but it came to nothing and cost $17 million.

This is from the NYT obit of Bob Guccione, the publisher of Penthouse (and Omni, a pretty good science magazine.), who died last week at the age of 79.

In looking around for more details, I found that Rod Adams at the invaluable Atomic Insights blog had already dug into this topic. Hint: it involves fusion, for all you fans of the sun. Rod will tell you the rest.

Bob Guccioni. That’s one of his own paintings. This page has a gallery showing details of some of his work. It looks like Guccioni became fascinated with early Picasso and pinned his style there.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…