Nuclear Power Benefits From Republican Wins, NRG Says

[kristopher]

Source: Bloomberg

By Jim Efstathiou Jr. and Jim Snyder - Nov 3, 2010 12:18 PM PT
Nuclear Power Gains Clout in Republican House Takeover

Electricity producers such as NRG Energy Inc. and Southern Co. will benefit as Republicans who won control of the U.S. House yesterday promote nuclear power as part of clean-energy legislation.

Requirements for the use of renewable power to reduce carbon emissions and encourage U.S. energy independence may win passage if nuclear plants are added to the wind turbines and solar panels favored by environmentalists, said David Crane, chief executive officer of Princeton, New Jersey-based NRG.

“A lot of the things we’re trying to do in Washington to move forward with zero- and low-carbon generation is something that at least the mainstream of the Republican Party wants to support -- nuclear power in particular,” Crane said in an interview. “It’s not just California and Oregon tree-huggers.”

Republicans retook the House of Representatives yesterday with a net gain of at least 60 seats, their biggest increase since 1938. They also scored a net gain of at least six seats in the Senate, though Democrats retained control of that chamber...

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-03/nuclear-power-gains-clout-in-republican-house-takeover-nrg-says.html

---

You can bet you'll be hearing the six lies (below) of the nuclear industry being pushed hard and heavy as the Republicans try to position nuclear to push renewables out of the market in favor of continuing business as usual for the entrenched energy interests. It doesn't matter to them whether they poison the planet with CO2 or with nuclear wastes or fallout from nuclear weapons spread under the guise of peaceful nuclear power, just as long as the system provides them with a bottleneck where they can control the energy supply.

6 nuclear industry lies.

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations."

The messaging strategy being used by the nuclear industry (in their own words:

Energy Messages
• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.
• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only
be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable
standards, and nuclear energy.

That is from the presentation: "Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance" by Dr. Raul A. Deju Chief Operating Officer of EnergySolutions, Inc. in Sept. 2009.

Some relevant information from a presentation by John Holdren.

The renewable option: Is it real?

SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land.
Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.

WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW.
Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.

BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW.
Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture).
Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.

What does he say about nuclear?

The nuclear option: size of the challenges

• If world electricity demand grows 2% /year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...
–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;
– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, but doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.


Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

Repeating that conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, *but* doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology,
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology...

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

[joshcryer]

1. I love how these assholes are calling for clean nuclear energy but are inherently deniers.

They are even going to "investigate" whether or not climate change is "real."

Fucking hypocrites.

[Beavker]

3. They know their large base will buy it, with help from Fox News

Until people get smarter, it will never cease.

[kristopher]

4. Interesting response...

considering you are one of the most pronuclear/antirenewable posters at DU.

[joshcryer]

7. You cannot produce one single anti-renewable post by me.

Not one.

[kristopher]

11. DU has a search function and I encourage everyone to review your posts.

You unceasingly promote false information that is intended to discourage support for renewables (ex. "Fact is renewables are not going to do shit to combat climate change") and make people think we MUST have nuclear.

Do you honestly think you are subtle?

[joshcryer]

13. That statement does not suggest in any way that I am against renewables.

Sorry, but it doesn't.

[Beavker]

2. Because Americans are Morons

They believe these guys, and their Fox News cohorts.

Add to the list of Benefiters: Top Wage Earners, Wall Street, Large Corporations (Foreign and Domestic), Dirty Energy Firms, Racists and Bigots.

Regardless of how brainwashed/ignorant the U.S. Voter is, these are facts. Just fucking read something other than the WSJ or watch something besides Fox News. Research some shit. Think.

But that isn't the US populate is it? Not enough anyway. Not yet.

Just a couple years ago we were talking about the extinction of the GOP. Hmph. So much for that. If ignorance and hatred exist, so will they. We're a long way from eradicating those things.

[Pavulon]

15. YOu have coal, nukes, or jeebus. No other way to spin 100 gigawatt range

consumed by the NYC area.. Be real, no amount of solar or wind pulling energy from a nuclear reactor (the sun) can generate that now, or within 10 years.

[kristopher]

16. Speaking of spin...

thank you for sharing another myth with roots in the bowels of the coal/nuclear industry propaganda machine.

Whatever geographic area or time limit you set it will be easier, faster, and less expensive to meet noncarbon energy needs with renewable sources than it would be with nuclear power. We also wouldn't have to be encumbered by the nuclear waste and proliferation issues that are part and parcel of civilian nuclear power programs.

[Pavulon]

17. I belive in math, this is not a church. please post an existing 100gigawatt

design using technology I can buy now. I assume you have read MIT study on Nuclear energy? That would be MIT, not commondreams, somebullshit.org but a respected engineering schools information.

There is no proliferation issue in the US we have 3000MT of nuclear weapons online, enough to kill everyone many times over.

1970 is over, jane fonda is history.

The navy has been operating modular reactors for decades, lots of them.

Post a BOM please, bullshit stops with a bill of material.

[kristopher]

18. Yes, I'm familiar with MIT's study, but apparently you are not.

"We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time."

Context of remark is below, but first, since the only people who claim it is not possible to meet our needs with renewable energy are the representatives of the nuclear and fossil fuel industries, the burden is on YOU to prove that nuclear power is a must. My OP shows the conclusion by the President's science adviser Holdren (one of the authors of the MIT study you point to) and that is sufficient proof of my position until and unless you can produce an analysis that *proves* renewable energy is unable to meet our energy needs - in New York or anywhere else.


MIT nuclear study – findings

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truthisfreedom]

5. It takes forever to build a nuke plant. And they're expensive as hell.

I doubt we'll see a lot of them cropping up soon.

[gratuitous]

6. That's in part due to all those niggling little regulations

I'm sure that the good folks at NRG Energy and Southern Co. are already writing the regulatory exemptions for themselves that will sweep aside any unnecessary and expensive hoops that they now have to jump through. Folks in affluent enclaves needn't be worried; the new plants will be built exclusively in the po' parts of town, where the residents can enjoy a 10-year shortening of their life expectancy while the affluent can heat their Olympic-size pools in the dead of winter for pennies a day. Just like the Founding Fathers intended.

[joshcryer]

8. Actually the NRC has already changed its rules, the new plants...

...are being built under the new rules, which make it a bit easier to build plants with no hit to safety.

[Pavulon]

14. Not for the Navy who has operated 5400 reactor years incident free..

Westinghouse AP reactors are the state of the art and should be the modular reactor of choice. I bet you will see them, just like they are being built in china, quickly.

[breadandwine]

9. Watch Obama cave in. Then watch an NRG nuclear plant blow up.

Then watch Obama call NRG "our partner."

[gratuitous]

10. Don't forget Joe Barton's apology to NRG for the inconvenience

You know how it sours the taste of the executives' lunchtime Glenlivet to hear the moans and cries from all those dying people. So déclassé, n'est-ce pas?

[brentspeak]

12. Good. Then build a plant in the Koch Brothers' back yards.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. Uranium is going to run out some day, just like oil.

There has to be intensive research in energy you can plant. Biodiesel, anyone?

[fascisthunter]

21. of course the GOP Benfits from Nuclear Power

but of course