NEI Nuclear Notes

The following post was submitted by William Skaff, NEI's Director of Policy Development. The Sierra Club and Riverkeeper report, Treading Water, claims that the 316(b) rule governing cooling water intake structures of existing facilities should impose a national standard that requires the installation of cooling towers everywhere, preventing state environmental agencies from determining the best technology available at their sites for minimizing environmental impact. As the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports, “[C]ooling tower technologies consume at least twice as much water as once-through cooling technologies” [emphasis added]. 1 That is, cooling towers consume twice as much of aquatic life habitat as once through cooling systems. Given that climate change modeling indicates freshwater constraints, why would we want a nation of cooling towers? How can doubling water consumption possibly protect fish in a water-constrained future? All cooling systems, inclu...

On Monday night, I traveled to Pleasantville, NY to attend a screening of Pandora's Promise . While I had originally intended to provide live coverage of the event via NEI's Twitter feed , I was foiled by poor reception inside the theater. I'm writing this summary to take it's place. Pleasantville is only a 27-minute ride from Indian Point Energy Center , and a number of local anti-nuclear activists as well as plant employees were in attendance. All of us were met at the theater entrance by a volunteer from Riverkeeper who was distributing a copy of Pandora’s False Promises, a primer produced by Paul Gunter’s Beyond Nuclear. The presence of the Riverkeeper volunteer led the film’s director, Robert Stone , to quip from the podium that it was the “first time he had been picketed.” I'm planning on posting a full review of the movie here on NEI Nuclear Notes ahead of Friday's nationwide premiere, so I won’t go into much detail concerning the film itself. Fro...

Well, what's new? I didn't catch this until yesterday, but shortly after Entergy announced an independent safety evaluation will be done for Indian Point, Riverkeeper was quick to dismiss the study . Here's Riverkeeper: An independent safety assessment is not an assessment contracted and paid for by the company needing an assessment. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts the safety assessment, Entergy would still have to pay for it. Anytime a plant is under increased scrutiny by the NRC, the plant is billed for those extra hours. Riverkeeper: There are times when the federal government needs to step in and put taxpayers’ dollars to work for the sake of public health and safety. It is not taxpayers' dollars at work here. As said above, Entergy would still end up paying for the study. Riverkeeper: A true Independent Safety Assessment should be overseen by federal and state regulators and include a citizen advisory panel. There are ten experts on Entergy's ISE...