NEI’s Nuclear Notes Blog is hosting the 6th Carnival of Nuclear Energy highlighting a week’s worth of discussions and interesting links. We appreciate the shout out to AREVA and the announcement of our new cold crucible for waste vitrification at the La Hague facility.

A number of voices online have been watching the Copenhagen conference and are bringing up the role of nuclear. We’ve rounded up a few to highlight, let us know as you see more by adding comments here, and we’ll highlight those as well.

• Michael Avari looks at the Copenhagen convention and sees a direct connection to nuclear power in a post to his blog yesterday:

  …The solution is simple and within our reach, but evidently beyond the vision of governments.  In his testimony, Cristy further stated, “And, if the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program.  Other currently available alternatives simply cannot produce enough energy to be significantly noticed at a price and geographic scale that is affordable.”

  Nuclear power produces no CO2.  Yet, the United States produces only 19% of its power from nuclear energy as compared to France producing 86%.5  By contrast, the U.S. generates 49% of its electricity from coal—the worst offender of GHG, whereas France only 4.1%.  What did the French do right?  Steve Kidd, Director of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association, answers that question succinctly with two things lacking in the U.S.: a unified national energy policy and a standard power plant design that increases safety while cutting costs….

  Reaching the same percentage of electricity production as France would cut 2.4 billion tons of CO2 from our emissions, 129% of entire amount emitted by all of transportation.  It would reduce total CO2 emissions by nearly 40%, without burdening our economy with new costs and regulations.

• Dan Yurman notes the connection between India’s commitments on climate change and their nuclear power polcies over at his blog.
• In a press release timed to draw attention to just such a connection, Constellation Energy says “Nuclear is key to Carbon Reduction.”
  

  Constellation Energy says nuclear energy plays an indispensable role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions….

  The Baltimore-based energy producer and marketer made the comments in a statement issued Monday on the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

  Constellation says nuclear energy provides about 14 percent of the world’s commercial electricity, a number that needs to increase substantially if long-term emmission reduction goals are to be met. The company also says cap-and-trade legislation and incentives can ensure a cost-effective transition to cleaner energy if done right.

• Paul Genoa, NEI’s Policy Director, blogging from Copenhagen over at the NationJournal Blog:
  

  In policies coming out of Copenhagen and subsequent international climate meetings that will shape the trajectory of clean energy job growth in the United States. By nature, clean energy technology like nuclear energy produces high quality jobs. However, absent clear, consistent and enduring clean energy support at the international and domestic level, the clean energy economy and the jobs required to sustain it will not be achieved. If we collectively meet this challenge, our children and grandchildren will inherit a cleaner world full of promise —largely due to the economic growth driven by infrastructure development.

• Finally, Charles Barton over at Nuclear Green has an excellent post about Alan Weinberg, who prophetically wrote in the 1970s about the danger posed by the CO2 emissions from building more coal-fired power plants instead of nuclear power plants:
  

  Today Weinberg’s views on CO2 and global warming seem prophetic. In a 1976 paper “Economic Implications of A US Nuclear Moratorium. 1985 to 2010,” which Weinberg co-authored with Charles E. Whittle, Alan D. Poole, Edward L. Allen, William G. Pollard, Herbert G. MacPherson, Ned L. Treat, and Doan L. Phung, reveal to us exactly how accurate Weinberg’s vision into the future was. In the paper Weinberg and his associates assessed the the economic and environmental consequences of moratorium on nuclear construction in the United States. He assumed that no new reactors would be ordered after 1980, but that reactor construction would continue till about 1985. He then looked at the consequences to allow continued operation of reactors on line by 1985. Weinberg tried to think out the implications of the cessation of new reactor construction.

  Weinberg and his associates understood that if reactor construction ceased, power companies would construct more coal fired power plants to meet consumer demand for electricity. Weinberg assumed that consumer demand would be driven by two factors population growth, and economic growth. He also assumed that technological changes would increase the efficiency of electrical use, but that these efficiencies would not offset the increase in demand.

Let us know if you find other blog posts about the importance of nuclear power as we continue the discussion at Copenhagen…

Nice to see a description from Idaho Samizdat’s Dan Yurman of the blogger event last week. Here’s a snippet:

While the mainstream news media panel was dissecting their coverage of the nuclear energy industry, a group of 45 people met Tuesday Nov 17 to discuss how social media is making an impact.  One of the themes of the evening round table discussion is how nuclear bloggers are taking myths out of the debate. 

…Areva is the only major nuclear energy firm in the U.S. that has paid any attention to social media in terms of people outside the firm who develop independent content.

The blogger meeting was organized by Rod Adams, Atomic Insights; Dave Bradish, NEI; John Wheeler, ThisWeekInNuclear, and Dan Yurman, Idaho Samizdat.  Corporate support for the conference room and refreshments was provided by Areva and CoolHandNuke.

There’s a lot more detail in the full post… go read the whole thing!

Our friends over at the Nuclear Energy Institute are getting the word out about nuclear power… they’ve become a corporate sponsor of the Washington Capitals.  They’ll have an ad on the dasherboard at the Verizon Center (where the Caps play their home games) and at the Kettler Iceplex in Arlington, VA (where the Caps practice), as well as having ads run on radio and TV broadcasts of the Caps’ games.
 
They’re coupling it with a great website that talks about the effects of climate change on outdoor games like ice hockey (which, of course, requires cold enough temperatures for lakes and ponds to freeze) and promoting nuclear energy as a necessary part of our carbon-free energy future.
 
A funny quote from NEI’s original article about the sponsorship:
 

A random, remarkable story: while standing in the beer line between periods at last week’s game against Chicago, I overheard two Blackhawks fans talking about seeing Alexander Ovechkin play in person for the first time. Fan A to fan B, “I think he is nuclear-powered.”

We hope you’ll check out their new site.  Kudos to NEI for getting the word out!

The National Journal has a really interesting experts’ forum this week called “Is Nuclear the Green Solution?” The responses from their invited experts are still coming in, and it’s looking like a fascinating discussion. Here are some highlights:

David Holt, President, Consumer Energy Alliance:

Nuclear energy is not only the most readily available form of clean-air electricity, but it is also the most sustainable and cost-effective. Of all forms of clean-air electricity, nuclear energy has the smallest impact on the environment. If we invest in this form of power now, we will see benefits for years to come. . . .

It makes sense for consumers by providing them with a low and highly stable cost, and if we continue growing this industry, it makes sense for the country — the number of jobs created would be substantial and widespread.

More after the jump…
read more…

From Marvin Fertel, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (emphasis ours):

The nuclear energy industry already is playing an important role in stimulating the creation of new jobs and economic expansion, providing both near-term and lasting employment and economic benefits. Nuclear power plants provide more jobs than any other source of electricity. Based on jobs per 1,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, nuclear plants create 500 new jobs, compared to 220 for coal plants, 90 for wind plants and 60 for natural gas-fueled plants, according to Ventyx and the Energy Department.

Nuclear energy is one of the few bright spots in the U.S. economy – expanding rather than contracting. This reflects a consensus that any credible program to address climate change must include carbon-free technologies and the fact that our nation needs new baseload generating capacity as well as renewable energy sources.

by Jarret Adams

In this difficult economic climate, there has been much talk among policymakers and others about investing the energy infrastructure and creating new green jobs. Renewables are often mentioned are key elements in creating green jobs, but often overlooked is the contribution that investment in nuclear energy is already making in creating green jobs.

By the end of 2008, approximately 15,000 new jobs had been created by private investment in new nuclear power plants, according to a recent NEI study. The study projects that if all 26 reactor projects that have submitted license applications are built more than 60,000 new construction jobs will be created.

read more…