EPRI, INL Announce Plan Focused on Near-Term Increase in Nuclear Energy Production

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory (INL) today announced the public release of a joint INL/Nuclear Power Industry Strategic Plan for Light Water Reactor (LWR) Research and Development.

More evidence that the nuclear energy renaissance is coming is indicated in this announcement. What I thought was a discrepancy between two statements in the press release, one stating that the first strategy is to efficiently construct and operate dozens of new nuclear power plants, starting in the next several years and that to do this (these) strategies will require significant investment in research and development. The Plan actually states:

"A consensus has emerged (between DOE and NRC) that we are probably adequately prepared for modest growth in nuclear energy, but poorly prepared for large scale expansion."

which clarifies there actual stance. This announcement appears to be nothing more than a continuation of R&D on LWRs which the government had nearly dropped and now feels necessary to continue, and makes the case that the nuclear industry

requires the active engagement and leadership of the Federal Government in a number of strategic areas where industry cannot succeed on its own.

This amounts to another subsidy of the nuclear industry, which may or may not be justified (see pages 3-6 of the Plan for their justification). Their justification relies highly on the fact that only the government has the facilities to conduct the research. But is it fair for the government to pay for the research? The governmenent needs to maintain its role of watchdog over the industry, but to this extent? In any event, I remain convinced that nuclear energy will play a major role in development of a reduced CO2 emissions power industry.

The press release in part :

The plan sets forth two strategies that must be employed for nuclear energy to play a substantial role in meeting future U.S. energy needs. The first strategy is to efficiently construct and operate dozens of new nuclear power plants, starting in the next several years. The second is to maximize the contribution from our existing nuclear power fleet by extending the operating licenses. Implementing both of these strategies will require significant investment in research and development.

"Recent analysis by EPRI shows that all low-emission electricity technologies will be required to satisfy anticipated goals for reduced CO2 emissions - energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and clean coal with CO2 capture and sequestration" "Industry recognizes that LWR technology is mature and that industry should carry a large portion of the responsibility in maintaining this technology. However, this plan demonstrates that the magnitude of the challenges facing this nation require the active engagement and leadership of the Federal Government in achieving the stretch goals identified in the report."

-- Chris Larsen, vice president and chief nuclear officer for EPRI

The proposed industry/government cost-shared R&D effort set forth in the plan is focused on 10 objectives, six of which are considered to be of the highest priority. These high-priority objectives include:

• Sustaining the high performance of nuclear plant materials
• Transitioning to state-of-the-art digital instrumentation and controls
• Making further advances in nuclear fuel reliability and lifetime
• Implementing broad-spectrum workforce development
• Implementing broad-spectrum infrastructure improvements and design for sustainability; and
• Addressing electricity infrastructure-wide problems

View the plan. ( 1.1MB PDF)

Comments

[Kit P]

"Among the 11 children listed are William Henry (born 1880, died 1898), Iva Louise (born 1890, died 1898), and Dora Alice (born 1894, died 1898)."

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=306732

I wonder if loons like noah and Charles Barton can figure out the root cause of three Cann children dying at the same time?

I am concerned about havng an adeqate supply of electricity. Power plants are strictly regulated to protect the public. No member of the public has been hurt let alone killed m a fossil or nuke plant in he US.

It is a wild leap of logic from percieved risk (concern)to actualy hurting someone. I can not imagine a senerio where a member of the public could be hurt.

It has been m full time job at times to imagine a senerio where a member of the public could be hurt. I could list all the plausible senerios that terrorist could be use. I will only list one since I do not want the Department of Homeland Security to pay me a visit or give dangerous loon any ideas.

Flyng airplanes into bulding full of people. I am n too concerned about that anymore. It only worked 3 times. Once the hazard was identified, compensateing measures were taken by the passenger.

I am also concernered about solar energy. If you leave living things in a car in the California sun with the windows rolled up, they wll die. My concern is real too. Idiots like noah do it all the time.

"simpler, safer, cheaper options"

Renewable energy can be safe enough, and cheap enough but noah can not anwer m concern about it being big enough. So what is your plan to make solar actually work long eneough for be an adequate suppy of energy.

While noah may not be a baby boomer, he will not live long enough to see solar ever achive a 2% market share (not counting biomass solar collectors). The generation that noah belongs to will not save the planet because us boomers have already done that.

[DaveMart]

Here is the actual data on toxicology from the nuclear industry - please note that it also includes the weapons industry, so would tend to exaggerate the risk of a civil program:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp143-c2.pdf
tp143-c2.pdf

The nuclear industry is one of the safest ever - far more people would die mining the ore for a major expansion of the wind industry, as it uses many times as much material.

[David Walters]

Just on coal for those concerned. The 24,000 dealths Charles refers to comes from the EPA. The figure I read in one of their papers indicates 33,000, not 24,000.

If you google "dirty coal" in google you will more information you ever wanted to know about in terms the cause of death by coal. And no, it isn't mercury. Mercury is not good and, it's showing up more and more in fish. This mercury is caused by burning coal. Has it killed anyone? Don't know. Has it caused cancer? Don't know. One can suspect it contributes to lots of nasty stuff.

I wrote that to say this: deaths from coal (and I'm excluding "life-cycle" stuff like coal mine disasters, coal truck accidents, etc) is almost exclusively from particulate, PM5 and PM2.5 for the most part. Very small...who ever stated the point about a "prinstine day" near a coal plant, then, is an idiot as you can't see the stuff that kills you.

Just about EVERY health organization traces particlate effluent from coal plants to thousands of deaths a year and *hundreds of thousands* of cases of astma and other respirtory illness.

I would challenge Kip or whoever to find a study that shows coal as causing "no deaths", except maybe from the Bituminous Coal Association.

Since he brought up China, yeah, it is worse there: 400,000 a year. About 11.5 times a worse as the US. Still no excuse.

David Walters

[丰胸]

丰胸

[parking sensors]

Did they get the government to cough any money up?

[Car Lease Los Angeles]

Do you really think we're going to experience a nuclear energy renaissance??

[Furniture Stores in Los Angeles]

The government definitely still needs to watchdog the industry, but I think they should help pay as well. This technology doesn't benefit only certain industries, it benefits every living being
on this Earth.

[Microsoft Office]

The new President will have to embrace this exact plan if the United States is to avoid economic catastrophe.