Editorial Round-Up

April Fools? Maybe not:

Nuclear energy is, for the most part, clean. Though not inexpensive to build, power plants do provide energy at a reasonable cost to consumers for many years.
In remarks made recently during a meeting with national, regional and local news media Ray Golden, TVA’s senior manager of nuclear communication, said, “You cannot abandon use of this fuel.”
Golden is correct. Nuclear energy has to be in the mix as does coal, natural gas, wind and solar energy.

This is from the Scottsboro (Ala.) Daily Sentinel. A little more, explaining the TVA connection:

After meeting with TVA and NRC officials numerous times over the years and recently being involved in a tour at TVA’s oldest nuclear facility I’m [Ken Bonner is the writer] convinced that nuclear power must play a larger role in the future. It must be regulated and icensees diligent in operating and maintaining the plants.

“Our nuclear reactors at TVA have been safely operated for years,” TVA chief nuclear officer Preston Swafford, said.
TVA operates three reactors at Browns Ferry, two at Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant, one at Watts Bar and has a second unit scheduled to come on line at the facility in 2012-2013.

And the conclusion:

Nuclear — it is part of the mix to secure our future. With proper regulations and oversight in place and self-policing policies by the licensees, nuclear power plants can provide energy for the future at minimal risk. I don’t mind it in my backyard.

Just so.

---

From the Lake Wylie (S.C.) Pilot:

Lake Wylie residents live near the Catawba Nuclear Station, one of three nuclear stations built and operated by Duke Energy. The rising steam billowing from its smoke stacks are always visible south of the Buster Boyd Bridge and siren tests can be heard from the station every month. A few years ago, Duke invited the members of the public to visit the plant and have their questions answered.
There are definite pros for nuclear energy, including little pollution and the ability to generate a high amount of energy from one plant. Cons include disposing of radioactive waste, terrorist and accident risks, operation costs.

A lot of nuclear plant operators are being proactive in reassuring their communities that the plants operate safely. We'll round up a few of these later on, but it was interesting to run into this in an editorial. The Pilot is a bit reassured and realizes that energy generation carries risk:

It seems no matter which way we look for energy resources, there always will be pros and cons. Perhaps energy policy in the U.S. should focus on improving energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. But renewable energy sources still are a long way from being able to provide the quantity of energy our economy requires. In the meantime, nuclear power plants like our Catawba facility are a reality. It is imperative, though, that steps be taken to ensure their safety and reliability.

The conclusion:

The heart of Lake Wylie along S.C. 49 is within a 12-mile distance of this nearest plant. If there should be an accident or malfunction, it would not take much time to be exposed to radioactivity with its devastating health effects.

Er, well, no not really. But The Pilot does a pretty good job overall grappling with the issues for its readers.

Lake Wylie. Wonder what vacation homes go for there?

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