Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
The high cost of going nuclear
David Whitford, FORTUNE Magazine
Power companies are lining up to build new plants after a decade of stagnation. What’s standing in the way?
—
Editor-at-large David Whitford went on a 7,000 mile road trip to examine America’s nuclear past and the resurgent industry’s plans for the future. This is the third of five installments from his reporter’s notebook.
If the companies that supply nuclear power plants are ready for a revival, the utilities that will operate the plants are champing at the bit.
Dale Klein, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said he’s expecting license applications for 27 new nuclear reactors in the next two years. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group, says it could be as many as 31.
This is a huge development, considering it’s been more than three decades since the last successful attempt to license and build a new nuclear power plant in the United States got underway, and more than ten years since that plant went online.
I asked MIT professor Andy Kadak how to account for the recent flurry of new activity. “One is that nuclear plant performance has dramatically improved,” he said. “In the early 1980s the capacity factor” – how much electricity the average nuclear plant generates, expressed as a percentage of capacity – “was in the low 60s. Today it’s the low 90s. We used to have refueling outages that lasted 90 days. Now they do it in 27. Good ones are 21.
“Utilities are making a lot of money from nukes today. That’s given the utility CEOs confidence to say, ‘Look, these plants are running well, we’re making money and if we buy into nuclear, there’s no reason not to expect similar performance in the future if we run them as we know how to run them now.’
(2 August 2007)
Why Not Nuclear Power?
Robert Rapier, The Oil Drum
…I have been accused occasionally of having various anti-nuclear views. This is amusing, given that I have never written anything negative about nuclear power.
The main reason is that I am not well-versed in the pros and cons. My understanding is that the main pro is that nuclear can provide an abundant source of energy for quite some time. This is also a reason that I favor a transition to an electric infrastructure: We are going to run low on liquid fuels long before we run low on the ability to produce electricity.
As I understand it, the primary negative is still that we don’t have a good solution for dealing with nuclear waste. Obviously, we can’t just pile up waste indefinitely, and I am not sure how reactors around the world handle this problem. And of course historically there have been the occasional Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which ensures that nobody is going to want a nuclear reactor in their backyard.
My feeling is that we will desperately need nuclear energy in the not too distant future. But what about the waste problem? How do other countries deal with the waste problem? I presume France, with all of their nuclear reactors, must have a solution that the population is comfortable with.
…So which viewpoint is closest to the truth? Do the negatives outweigh the negatives of 1). Blackouts; and 2). Global Warming caused by coal-fired plants? Some people may not be aware of it, but all of the top point sources of CO2 emissions are from coal-fired power plants. (I had a list, but can’t find it. If someone knows where this information resides, please post the link).
I would like some people knowledgeable in this area to provide some input here. My own view is that we are going to need nuclear power in the mix. But it may take frequent blackouts before the public starts to accept the necessity.
(2 August 2007)
India’s Hindu nationalists slam U.S. nuclear deal
Y.P. Rajesh, Reuters
NEW DELHI – India’s opposition Hindu nationalists rejected a landmark nuclear cooperation agreement between New Delhi and Washington on Saturday, saying it was an assault on the country’s nuclear sovereignty.
They demanded Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government set up a parliamentary panel to examine the pact and secure parliament’s approval before signing it, even though it is not required by law.
Ever since the deal was agreed in principle two years ago, its opponents in India have charged the government of compromising on its nuclear weapons program, mortgaging its right to conduct nuclear tests, and accepting stringent American conditions on civilian nuclear cooperation. ..
Although the agreement did not explicitly mention India being penalized if it conducted a nuclear test, American laws governing it mandate punitive action and this meant India could not test once it signed the agreement, the BJP said. ..
(4 Aug 2007)
Bid to clean up, then buy uranium plants raises eyebrows in Congress
Judy Fahys, Salt Lake Tribune
The chairman of Congress’ powerful Energy and Commerce Committee is asking questions about efforts by Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions to get an exclusive cleanup contract for two government-owned uranium enrichment plants.
If EnergySolutions gets the $9.5 billion contract at the Ohio and Kentucky plants, the Utah nuclear service company also plans to buy the Maryland-based company that now leases and operates those sites, according to Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.
For EnergySolutions, the deal could be a boon, guaranteeing $700 million a year in business from the U.S. Energy Department and giving the company leverage for still more expansion. The company, which has been growing exponentially since 2005, would also further the stated goal of its chief executive officer, Steve Creamer, to dominate the U.S. nuclear services industry.
But the deal might not be in the best interests of taxpayers, says Dingell and fellow Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, who leads the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
“Awarding a $9.5 billion contract on a non-competitive basis is deeply troubling since there are numerous qualified firms who could compete for this work,” the two said in a Wednesday letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.
“How can DOE assess if taxpayers are receiving the best price for [decontamination and decommission- ing]?” the letter continues. “Moreover, what is the urgency of awarding a contract for D&D at Paducah, Kentucky, when the plant is still operating and there are no specific plans for its closure?”
(3 Aug 2007)
See also Antitrust claims: EnergySolutions’ competitors being interviewed by Justice.
