Skip to main content

Wind Ambitions “Chipped Away” and the EPA’s Unexpected Take on Nuclear Energy

There’s no particular reason for us to rag on wind energy, our gusty cousin, but in case you thought throwing up a few windmills was easy:

Birds, sharks and unexploded bombs from World War II are being blamed for holding up offshore wind farms, raising doubts about the costs of the technology.

and:

The U.K. market is crucial to the industry because it’s the biggest source of new projects and accounts for more than half the global installed capacity. Prime Minister David Cameron’s government has set incentives for offshore wind through 2019, hoping to stimulate clean-energy jobs.

Those ambitions are being chipped away as developers better understand the costs of the projects. Utilities have canceled as much as 5,760 megawatts of planned capacity since Nov. 26, when RWE AG dropped its 1,200 megawatt Atlantic Array.

And:

EON, a German utility, along with Dong Energy A/S and Masdar Abu Dhabi Future Energy Co. yesterday abandoned plans to expand the 630-megawatt London Array by as much as 240 megawatts. EON said it couldn’t guarantee progress even if it met requirements for a three-year study of impact on red-throated divers, a fish-eating bird that can swim more than a minute under water.

Every energy source, particularly in early days, deals with woes, pitfalls and unintended consequences – heck, that’s true of most human endeavor. Worth a read.

---

From the Environmental Protection Agency, which is considering revising a 1977 rule that “limits radiation releases and doses to the public from normal operation of nuclear power plants and other uranium fuel cycle facilities":

Growing concern about greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels has led to renewed interest in nuclear power. Nuclear energy emits very low levels of greenhouse gases, and unlike solar and wind power, provides a proven source of electricity capable of supplying a base-load that is not subject to varying weather conditions. The nuclear industry anticipates a demand for construction of several new nuclear power plants in the next 10 years. Increased demand would likely result in the construction and start-up of any additional facilities to support the fuel cycle for LWRs. Other parts of the fuel cycle are experiencing growth as well. For example, new uranium enrichment facilities are coming on line, such as the facility in Eunice, New Mexico by Louisiana Enrichment Services (Urenco USA). The facility was licensed by the NRC in 2006, began operations in 2010, and is an indication of the industry's improved outlook. The licensing and operation of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities are not expected in the near future.

So now we know. Could have knocked me over with a fuel rod.

Comments

Engineer-Poet said…
Just think where we could have been if our now-secretary-of-state hadn't killed a certain R&D budget 20 years ago this year.
Anonymous said…
Yes, and how other countries have passed us since then. Just look at all the hugely successful fast reactor projects elsewhere in the world: Superphenix, Monju ... The list goes on and on.
Engineer-Poet said…
"Just look at all the hugely successful fast reactor projects elsewhere in the world: Superphenix..."

Used oxide fuel, and was subject to terrorist attacks which were tolerated and almost encouraged by the government.

"Monju ..."

Shut down by Japanese paranoia about all things nuclear (see the multi-year post-Tohoku shutdown of ALL Japanese plants).  The sodium leak never endangered the public and was fixed quickly, but a hostile news leak led to public outcry.  Japanese hysteria causes more public harm than anything nuclear has since VJ Day.

"The list goes on and on. "

Yes, it does.  In the list of fast reactors, EBR-II ran from 1963 until shut down by Congressional fiat in 1994, Russia's BN-600 (Beloyarsk 3) has been running for 34 years, and two BN-800 units are going to start this year in China and Russia.

Meanwhile, GE can't get permission to build an S-PRISM in the USA.  Tell me, why are we letting China and Russia take over the technology we invented?
jimwg said…
Good head's up article! DO rag on wind! That's taxpayers blood gone with the wind generating squat! I do get tired about hearing about energy "mix" -- since when do wind and coal and solar people always include nuclear in their view of a "mix"? I say to heck with "mix"! Try to go nuke all the way if you're serious about CO2 and pollution and bad land use. France shows the way is possible! Since when did the nuke aircraft carriers need a "mix" to run their floating cities well?

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Anonymous said…
"The sodium leak never endangered the public and was fixed quickly, but a hostile news leak led to public outcry."

If you call a video of tons of sodium coolant pouring from the primary system and burning on the floor, yes, it was hostile. in a sense.

"GE can't get permission to build an S-PRISM in the USA"

Link to where GE has requested permission to build PRISM in the US? I'm aware of no such application to NRC.
Engineer-Poet said…
"If you call a video of tons of sodium coolant pouring from the primary system and burning on the floor, yes, it was hostile. in a sense."

It wasn't from the primary coolant.  It was from a defective thermocouple well in the secondary coolant loop.

What did that video show?  Some men in bunny suits and air packs, investigating some stuff in the air that left powder on the floor.  There was no reactor problem, no radiological hazard, and no injuries.  Why would it lead to resignations, let alone suicides?  Hysteria.  Pure, blind, unreasoning fear of essentially nothing.

"Link to where GE has requested permission to build PRISM in the US?"

GE isn't wasting its money.  The NRC has made it known that they are not considering anything but light-water reactors at present.  Plus, the billion-dollar cost of training the NRC staff (applicant pays!) to write the regulations, and the ten-year schedule, make it prohibitive.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…