Nuclear is Our Future Pro-nuclear activist group

They’ve hired some consultants to do a comparison of the major available reactor designs.

I disagree with the Society of Energy Professionals, however, and fully expect that McKinsey will rate AECL’s Canadian nuclear technology near the bottom. The current designs remove the CANDU’s traditional commercial advantages and are competitive only if there is a requirement to consume American-style reactors’ waste–which Canada doesn’t have. They could build a fleet down here, but in places without a lot of LWR waste, they might as well just build fast breeders.

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, International, New Build

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

As of May 31.

USEC has also committed to keeping Paducah open for another five years. The American Centrifuge Plant will not be fully operational until at least 2012; they say it will start enriching uranium in 2009.

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, New Build

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

On June 12 at 10 AM in their hearing room at 244 Washington Street SW, Atlanta (via WAND).

As we saw with Shoreham, this is where a lot of decisions get made while we focus on NRC hearings. We really need a power structure analysis on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis if we are to organize effectively in support of new build.

Filed under Activism, New Build, Politics and Regulation

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Yep.

This is the first time that’s happened in the “nuclear renaissance,” and it won’t be the last time. Apparently a conservation program will be cheaper for the utility, since all the capital investments involved will be made by consumers.

They were originally going to submit a COL application later this year; this presumably pushes it back to 2009.

More from We Support Lee.

Filed under Alternatives, Economics, Industry Performance, New Build

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

They’re planning to cut through the red tape by summer 2008, with construction starting around 2013 and operation in 2018. That leaves five years for the Finnish government to make a decision.

I again state my firm belief that there is nothing about a nuclear power plant that merits all this bureaucratic baloney. If the thing burned oil it’d be up and running in two years, but a nuclear power plant with less environmental impact by far must jump through hoops that include a full vote of the Finnish Parliament.

Link.

Filed under International, New Build, Nuclear Exceptionalism, Politics and Regulation

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

“-Thyspunt, near Cape St Francis.
-Bantamsklip, 10 km southeast of Pearly Beach.
-Duynefontein, next to Koeberg in the Western Cape.
-Brazil, in the Northern Cape.
-Skulpfontein, in the Northern Cape.”

-Link.

Designs were not mentioned, but presumably the AP1000, EPR, and ESBWR are under consideration (PWRs are the only type mentioned).
This doesn’t cover the pebble-bed reactors also proposed for South Africa.

Filed under International, New Build

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Presumably, Watts Bar 2 and Bellefonte 1-2. “Potentially.”

Let’s just hope they don’t divide their attention and pull a “Whoops.”

Link.

Filed under Good Signs, Industry Performance, New Build

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Banks and utilities are apparently teaming up to support the clean energy loan guarantees from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that still haven’t been implemented.

The nuclear industry can finance these plants without a 100% loan guarantee. I understand that saying they can’t is a negotiating tactic to try to get the 80% proposal raised to 90%, but come on. Don’t get greedy, and don’t give the loons any more ammo. Giving them misinformation about the financial soundness of new build is OK, but not giving them ready-made soundbites.

Link.

Filed under Economics, Financing, Industry Performance, New Build

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

They’ve released a timeline for evaluating expected applications; we’re hosting it here, plus a list of expected applications here. My FTP connection (not Blogger’s, just mine) is down again, so the above links will be changed in a couple of days.

The important part to remember here is that this is reinforcing the anti-nuclear conspiracy theory that the NRC is the one doing the planning for new build. If we put out documents like this without explaining what they’re for (who has signed a letter of intent with the regulator), people seriously think that the NRC is building nuclear power plants. Remember, people do not know everything we do and should not be expected to learn it all; they have their own jobs and lives to worry about. Communication is our job.

Filed under Activism, New Build, Politics and Regulation

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

They’re proceeding with an 8% uprate to their four Soviet-era reactors, and are looking for up to six gigawatts of new capacity beyond that. Nuclear power is under consideration for at least some of that; the rest will probably be coal.

Will they burn lignite, walking the fine line between coal and combustible dirt? Perhaps.

Either way, coal kills. It is an ethical imperative to keep coal fumes out of our air, coal ash out of our water, and coal dust out of the lungs of miners. I hope they build six nice, big, new nukes.

Link.

Filed under Alternatives, Environment, Health, International, New Build

Posted on May 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »