NEI Nuclear Notes

Matt Wald The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald . Saving the reactors is good for consumers and good for the environment. Independent analyses show that the modest payments needed to keep nuclear reactors in the state’s supply mix will mean sharply lower electricity prices, and are the cheapest way to hold down carbon emissions. The Brattle Group, a consulting firm that specializes in energy, found that electricity in New York would cost $1.7 billion a year extra if the reactors closed. The reason is that the reactors’ output would be replaced by more expensive power. This is inherent in the method that New York uses to set prices: a computer totals up all the available resources, ranked by price, and the level of demand. The computer, which belongs to the New York State Independent System Operator, determines which generators are needed to satisfy demand, a...

Earlier this week, Michael Mariotte of NIRS posted a critique of public opinion polling on nuclear energy over at The Daily Kos .While I found some of his conclusions to be interesting, I thought it might be a good idea to share his piece with Ann Bisconti of Bisconti Research. After passing Mariotte's piece to Ann, she shared the following response with me: A recent discussion about public opinion on nuclear energy by Michael Mariotte, a representative of the antinuclear advocacy group, NIRS, makes some valid points but reaches the wrong conclusion.  I would like to offer a different perspective from Bisconti Research.  Our studies of public opinion on nuclear energy include nearly 100 national surveys conducted over a 29-year period.  Each survey asks 20 to 30 questions about various aspects of public opinion on nuclear energy. Some of these questions are open-ended to let us hear from the public in their own words. The result is a unique resource for examining lo...

Last Sunday, Palm Beach Post wrote an article about students from Florida Atlantic University protesting FPL's nuclear plant expansions. What struck me about the article was this claim made by the anti-nuclear energy group - Nuclear Information and Resource Service: A nuclear power plant takes so much water and energy to build, it has to run for 15 years to offset its carbon footprint, according to the nonprofit group, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Mary Olson, director of the organization's southeast office, was a summit keynote speaker. Fifteen years? I don't think so. This claim appears to be apart of the whole lifecycle emissions claim we’ve dealt with from Storm van Leeuwen and Smith . The two have claimed that nuclear’s lifecycle emissions are comparable to a gas plant based on the energy requirements at each stage of a nuclear plant’s cycle. In SLS' study, they mis-calculate the energy payback time for a nuclear plant at 10-15 years . What...

Tampa Tribune ’s “Nuclear Costs Explode” piece provided some updated insights to the estimated costs of a new nuclear plant. The article began with Progress Energy’s cost reassessment of a new nuke from an initial estimate of about $5-7 billion per plant. “Based on new industry estimates, the tab for Progress Energy's project could surpass $10 billion.” The reason for the increase: because the cost of concrete, steel, copper, labor and reactor technology has soared as energy companies move forward with plans to build more than 30 new reactors nationwide. Also, Progress Energy's initial estimate excluded the cost of land, inflation, interest payments and new transmission lines. … A September 2007 report commissioned by the Edison Electric Institute, a nonprofit trade group for the nation's electric utilities, showed that steel prices have risen 60 percent since 2003. Copper prices nearly quadrupled between 2003 and 2006 and cement prices rose 30 percent during the same per...

Last week, the Council on Foreign Relations sponsored an online discussion on nuclear energy and climate change between NEI's Steve Kerekes and Michael Mariotte of NIRS. To say the least, I think Steve got the better of the exchange, but I'll let our readers decide for themselves. Click here to read it right now.

A story that ran yesterday on the AP wire regarding the resurgence of interest in nuclear energy in the U.S. certainly attracted a lot of attention, especially on a Summer afternoon. If you take a look at Digg, you'll see that almost 600 of its users "dugg" the story -- which may be the reason why it came to the attention of the folks at the Knight Science Journalism Tracker : It is disappointing that (AP's Jay) Lindsay went to Greenpeace and an anti-nuclear outfit called the Nuclear Information and Resource Service for technical remarks. On the political side, such groups are serious, important actors. But to let stand without comment or counter a quote that labels nuclear plants “predeployed nuclear weapons” is a disservice. No kidding.

One of my colleagues, Steve Kerekes, appeared this morning at CNBC's Morning Call to debate nuclear energy with Kevin Kamps of NIRS .