1. There is a online petition at Whitehouse.gov which encourages the obama administration to: Educate the Public Regarding Nuclear Power Supporters of nuclear energy should register at Whitehouse.gov and sign the petition and encourage others to sign it via social media and websites. 4535 additional signatures are needed by October 23.
Steven B. Krivit notes: “The undercurrent of fear affects all matters related to this [nuclear energy] industry. It must be addressed. Doing so requires examining the risks and consequences of nuclear energy and comparing it to other energy technologies, for none is perfect.” And Dr. Krivit goes on to demonstrate: “Clearly, the fears about nuclear energy are based on perceptions, imagined or engineered, and not on the consequences of actual events.”
In 2007, Texas was the place to be for working on the nuclear renaissance in the U.S. Ambitious plans created a boom-type atmosphere in the state, as three utilities announced they would build a total of six new reactors, two of them at a greenfield location.
Yet today four of the reactors are no longer likely to be completed in the next decade—if ever—and two more are looking at a prolonged construction schedule that could put revenue service well past 2020. Is nuclear energy riding off into the sunset in the Lone Star state?
4. Atomic Power Review – Will Davis gives his readers some background on TEPCO’s most recent analysis showing that there was in fact no hydrogen blast at No. 2 plant. If that’s true, what got reported at that time?
The Energy Plan for “Vermont without Vermont Yankee,” requested by Governor Shumlin, is being rushed through the approval process. Meredith Angwin shows the glaring inconsistencies about greenhouse gases, and she is amused that the plan has caused a tiff between Shumlin and his VPIRG supporters. The bottom line: This isn’t a plan. It’s a set of goals—with no way to achieve them.
6. Neutron Economy – In response to a reader comment, Steve Skutnik explores whether spent fuel repository capacity is limited by physical or political limits and the implications of this on nuclear waste management.
7. Nuclear Power Talk – Gail Marcus points out the difficulties of comparing emissions from coal and gas in regards to effect on climate change as a reminder of the fact that there are no perfect solutions to complex situations. Every energy supply option has some benefits and some drawbacks.
NBF – we will notice that it is easier to compare coal and natural gas on other kinds of air pollution. Coal has more air pollution and more of an impact on health.
The new reactor model will be based around the RITM-200 pressurized water reactor, a design developed by OKBM Afrikantov that integrates some main components into the reactor vessel and produces 55 MWe for the motor-driven propellor. The same design is foreseen as being incorporated in floating power plants. It would operate on fuel enriched to less than 20% uranium-235 and require refuelling every seven years over a 40-year lifespan
A recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists discussed the urgent issue of climate change and how mankind can act decisively and coherently to deal with it. It dismisses nuclear as proliferation prone. Steve Aplin dissects this rationale, and finds it weak and tendentious.