What to Say and Who to Say It: A Lesson for Nuclear Advocates in Ohio

If you want to see where nuclear advocacy can get you, check out this editorial in the Akron (Ohio) Beacon-Journal:

Nuclear power accounts for 14 percent of the electricity used in the state. Lose, say, Davis-Besse, and the task of curbing carbon emissions becomes much harder. The situation differs little for the country, with carbon-free nuclear supplying 20 percent of electricity.

Ideally, the country would be adding further to its nuclear capacity, something that would become more financially feasible under a carbon tax. Yet even if nuclear is relatively expensive its use promises to be less costly than accelerating climate change. A carbon tax would enhance the competitiveness of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources, too. What distinguishes nuclear power is its capacity, running all day and night. It proved key when the polar vortex arrived last winter and other power sources faltered.

Less costly, polar vortex, carbon-free – why, did I write this editorial?

Well, no, but the editorial board is quite upfront as to how it came to these conclusions:

The country needs a strong fleet of nuclear power plants —for reliability and to address the carbon emissions fueling climate change. Thus, it was encouraging to see Carol Browner and Judd Gregg visiting Ohio last week, making the case for keeping open the 10 or so nuclear power plants in the country viewed as most vulnerable to closing.

The former EPA director under President Clinton and former U.S. senator from New Hampshire were part of a forum at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant near Toledo. They represent Nuclear Matters, an organization that argues, in effect: Let the nuclear industry shrink, and Americans will come to regret it. This isn’t just some nuclear “front group,” as critics contend. Browner, especially, shouldn’t have to prove that she is “green” enough.

“Let the nuclear industry shrink, and Americans will come to regret it.” - the U.S. without nuclear, as Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)talked about last week (see posts below for more on that excitement).

Nuclear Matters is obviously very much in favor of nuclear energy, but there are lots of groups that tout one thing or another and a fair few of them should be, at best, shown the door if they try to cross the threshold. Why does this group carry credibility?

Because of the people involved in it. Browner is frank that she came around on nuclear energy as an energy source after being (more-or-less) opposed to its use. Others represent a cross-section of political views – notably the co-chairs, former Senators Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). The membership represents interests not specifically nuclear-oriented: Edwin Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Sean McGarvey, president of the North America's Building Trades Unions cover the unions (read: workforce); and Spencer Abraham, former Energy Secretary (under President George W. Bush), and Bill Daley, former Commerce Secretary (under Bill Clinton, to keep the bipartisan theme going), have the federal executive branch experience. If you had a judge in there, you’d have the three branches of government represented.

The bottom line is: if you have a compelling message and if you have highly credible messengers, then you run the risk of getting listened to. It’s a lesson a lot of advocacy groups could learn.

Read the whole editorial – it’s a pip and very germane to Ohio’s specific situation.

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