What the President Said About Nuclear Energy

The President doesn’t talk about energy issues that much in his weekly address – it isn’t the homiest topic, I guess – but this week, he did, from the Argonne National Labs. The motivation for this is the recent spike in gas prices, coming a little earlier in the year than previously.
Obama’s approach to rising gas prices is to continue to invest in technology to make gasoline less necessary.

But the only way we’re going to break this cycle of spiking gas prices for good is to shift our cars and trucks off of oil for good. That’s why, in my State of the Union Address, I called on Congress to set up an Energy Security Trust to fund research into new technologies that will help us reach that goal.
Here’s how it would work. Much of our energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together. So I’m proposing that we take some of our oil and gas revenues from public lands and put it towards research that will benefit the public, so that we can support American ingenuity without adding a dime to our deficit. We can support scientists who are designing new engines that are more energy efficient; developing cheaper batteries that go farther on a single charge; and devising new ways to fuel our cars and trucks with new sources of clean energy – like advanced biofuels and natural gas – so drivers can one day go coast-to-coast without using a drop of oil.

It’s kind of ingenious the way he avoids naming hybrid and electric cars – maybe they poll badly – but at least battery technology is here.
Anyway, aside from the fact that electric cars and nuclear energy go together well on the emissions front, nuclear only got a bit of a mention, but as an item on a checklist. The talk was really about gas prices.
But it led the White House to release an energy fact sheet. Such things can be parsed like the Rosetta Stone or a Papal Bull for clues to deeper intent – much as I noted the avoidance of electric cars above - but we’ll stay on the surface here.
In the fact sheet, Obama says that his administration:

Supports a responsible nuclear waste strategy. Under President Obama’s direction, the Energy Department created a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to recommend how to manage the challenges associated with nuclear waste storage and disposal. After careful consideration of the Commission’s input, the Administration has issued a strategy for action in response to the recommendations and looks forward to working with Congress on implementing policies that ensure that our Nation can continue to rely on carbon-free nuclear power.

The other three points under the subhead “Producing More American Energy” are: doubling renewable energy capacity by 2020, making the permitting of renewable energy (and other) sites easier, and leveraging natural gas. That’s pretty good company and means that, at the least, nuclear energy is considered part of the carbon emission reduction strategy articulated by the president. If nuclear energy were missing from this lineup, that would be a worry.
Under “International Leadership, nuclear appears again:

Supports American nuclear exports. We are providing increased support for American nuclear technology and supply chains to promote safe, secure, low-carbon nuclear power growth in countries that are pursuing nuclear energy as part of their energy mix.

This is actually a key point, one it’s great to have the President single out. The U.S. suffers in nuclear trade because of the considerable government vetting procedure. This is not to downplay the significance of nuclear technologies, and certainly not to lessen concerns about proliferation, it has more to do with the plethora of agencies that have to approve exports. It can take a year or more before a company can export an item. Countries such as Russia and France evade this by controlling their nuclear energy industries, but even countries with industries configured similarly to the U.S., such as South Korea, have proven more nimble internationally.
NEI has a bunch of pages on this subject. Start here and dig in.

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...

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog