Global outlook for nuclear power is bright!
Posted in the Brattleboro Forum
#1 Jul 11, 2013
Despite Japan’s decision to back away from nuclear technology after Fukushima, the global outlook for nuclear power is bright. About 70 large nuclear power plants are being built around the world and another 450 are planned or proposed, each reactor a source of zero-carbon energy.
Although only five reactors are under construction in the United States, a potentially huge international market in nuclear components and equipment is opening up for U.S. suppliers — including a number of companies in New England.
The global market is larger than one would think, if you add on the world's 435 operating nuclear plants, which need new equipment ranging from pipes and pumps to fuel rods. The Department of Commerce estimates the total market to be $500 billion to $740 billion over the next decade.
If the United States were to win a quarter of that business, it would create or sustain as many as 185,000 American jobs and generate billions of dollars in revenue, the Nuclear Energy Institute says. And many of the hundreds of U.S. suppliers would be able to stay in business until orders pick up for more nuclear plants in this country.
And more nuclear plants will be built. Even with modest economic growth, the Energy Information Administration projects the United States will need about 340,000 megawatts of new generating capacity by 2040 — the equivalent of 340 large power plants. Much of the additional generating capacity will need to come from clean energy sources like nuclear power that do not pollute the air or load the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.
But right now there’s a problem with nuclear export licensing that must be resolved. U.S. companies are at a disadvantage in competing with firms from other nuclear countries like France, Canada, China, Russia and South Korea. Companies in those countries are usually able to obtain a nuclear export license in less than a month, whereas in the United States it can take a year or longer.
#2 Jul 11, 2013
Overlapping government regulation and bureaucratic red tape are largely to blame, making matters increasingly difficult for U.S. exporters who need the international business. In other countries, a single agency handles nuclear sales. But in the United States three departments — Energy, Commerce and State — plus the Nuclear Regulatory Commission must approve each sale. Each department has its own set of rules and priorities. Such over-regulation is nonsensical.
#3 Jul 11, 2013
Without a policy that fosters the export of U.S. nuclear technology and equipment, the United States is likely to get knocked out of the world market in nuclear hardware, and that could result in the loss of billions of dollars in sales, a loss of U.S. technological expertise and a further erosion in our country’s balance of trade. What's more, a loss of international nuclear business could mean the United States will wind up on the sidelines, no longer able to play a leadership role in matters involving nuclear safety and nonproliferation.
#4 Jul 11, 2013
The situation is so serious that several prominent national security experts — former defense secretaries James Schlesinger and William Cohen and former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and James Jones, among others — recently asked President Obama to intervene. The group urged the president to make the streamlining of the nuclear-export licensing process “a top priority.” In a letter, they said the government should find ways to enhance the competitiveness of American suppliers of nuclear technology, while doing what it can to influence global safeguards on nonproliferation and nuclear safety. And they urged the government to recognize the new realities of a globalized and interconnected network of nuclear suppliers
#5 Jul 11, 2013
The United States needs to capture a greater share of the nuclear technologies market — and our companies are poised to do that. But nothing can happen without first getting the government to foster nuclear exports and speed up licensing.
#6 Jul 11, 2013
Bob N. Leach of Brattleboro is a retired radiation protection manager and certified senior reactor operator.
#7 Jul 11, 2013
Lots of value remains in VY’s used fuel supply
Opponents of Vermont Yankee say there is no solution to the used fuel problem.
What is true is that there is not a political solution (yet) to the used fuel problem in this country. Other countries have political solutions, having chosen one of several technical solutions. Nuclear opponents don’t want a solution. Their tactic is to oppose and stall everything that moves the progress of nuclear power forward.
They have the misguided belief that if they somehow manage to get it tied in knots, it will wither away or collapse. Why else would they, who claim to be greatly concerned about safety, intervene in the Public Service Board proceedings for a third backup diesel generator at the plant?
The fact is that 90 percent of the used fuel is reusable and will be very valuable. The generation of reactors to which VY belongs was only meant to establish the commercial market, not to wring every watt out of the fuel, just as the DC-3, which went into service in 1936 and is still flying, really made the market for air travel.
Prototypes of reactor designs that use all the fuel were built and tested long ago. China is vigorously pursuing a prototype we built in the 1960s, to the tune of $350 million.
As I testified this May to the Vermont House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, when asked if the used fuel at Vermont Yankee would be there in 300 years: It won’t. It will have been used in one of the new reactor designs. If not used here, it will have been sold to China or to someone else.
The used fuel at Vermont Yankee, in its solid form, welded in the original rods, then welded in storage cans, then placed in concrete shield-chimneys, can safely remain where it is, or elsewhere, until its value rises.
Howard Shaffer, Enfield, N.H
#8 Jul 11, 2013
"...each reactor a source of zero-carbon energy"
-and each forking nuketard is full of sh't!
Ewe are NAZIS / NOT-See's
Ewe refuse to See the truth & completely ignore the facts about all the energy and 'fossil fuel'(misnomer) needed to mine and transport the uranium and the CO2 created in the process.
Ewe also would prefer we didn't know the truth
We're not as stupid as ewe bastards would prefer us to be
"...clean energy sources like nuclear power that do not pollute the air"
-except for the Hot Particles in the air from Fuktupshita Japan and the radiation that's already caused a lot of miscarriages/deaths of babies especially on our West Coast, then there's all the radiation going directly into the Pacific from the Fukushima nukes (as Admitted in the msm) right f-ing NOW
Go to hell liar scum!
CHINA!!?!!--They care even Much LESS about human life and safety than anyone on the planet, yet ewe want us to trust THEM?!
Eat Sh't And DIE!!!!
"James Schlesinger and William Cohen and former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and James Jones, among others — recently asked President Obama to intervene."
-each of those guys have been members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)!! They support the sellout of U.S. sovereignty to bring about their 'New World Order' agenda !!
How DARE Ewe bring up those slimeballs AND support deadly nukedom!-
GO TO HELL ewe unAmerican scumsuckin P.O.S !!
#9 Jul 11, 2013
Again, in the USA it is not a technical or scientific thing…just the extremely dominant republican and market hard right wing ideology that is crusting the industry and crushing the pubic acceptance of nuclear power.
#10 Jul 11, 2013
And Jesus too?
#11 Jul 11, 2013
That is an odd contribution, but still it is refreshing to see or hear Jeasus's name under any circumstance. God Bless you!
#12 Jul 11, 2013
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.- Proverbs 22:11
A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.-Proverbs 22:3 And that's REPEATED (God's emphasis/rubbing it in) in 27:12
REAL nuclear experts include A. Stanley Thompson & John Gofman and Robert Alvarez and Arnie Gundersen
"When you hear 'no immediate danger'[from nuclear radiation] then you should run away as far and as fast as you can."
-Alexey Yablokov, member of the Russian academy of sciences, and adviser to President Gorbachev at the time of Chernobyl
'Human Error' http://www.theatlantic.com/international/arch...
#13 Jul 12, 2013
Is Arnie Gundersen your hero?
#14 Jul 12, 2013
And ex-president of the USS…
We knew him as a buffoon.
Walmart certified as a senior react operator.
Add your comments below
|If the rich are getting richer, what's happenin... (Apr '14)||13 hr||Radio Flyer 3016||12|
|Man charged with inappropriately touching child||Apr 7||Anonymous||1|
|Former employee suing Mack Molding over alleged...||Jan '18||Comrade Sanders||2|
|Diversity dialogue to continue in Brattleboro (Aug '17)||Dec '17||Comrade Sanders||6|
|Grout Pond National Forest Area to Become Paid ... (Oct '17)||Nov '17||Defiant1||3|
|Gentlewolf released on bail (Jun '07)||Oct '17||amen||3|
|Tellman Knudson (Jun '12)||Jul '17||Angela Hernandez||51|
Find what you want!
Search Brattleboro Forum Now
Copyright © 2018 Topix LLC