Skip to main content

The Nuclear Energy Debate In Holland

There's an interesting debate going on in Holland, where environmentalists are pressing the government to shut down the Borssele nuclear plant in 2013 -- but a number of pro-nuclear supporters are fighting it, saying that the plant can still be operated safely for years to come:

Borssele, which produces some 4 to 5 percent of Dutch electricity, was built in 1973 and it was anticipated at the time it would have a 40-year lifespan.

Utility EPZ, the plant's operator, won a court battle against the government two years ago to leave the plant open past an initial planned closure date of 2004, set by Dutch parliament in 1994.

Concerns about radioactive waste and the 1986 disaster at the former Soviet Union's Chernobyl plant have sparked widespread opposition to nuclear power in the environmentally-conscious Netherlands.

But there have been growing calls to keep Borssele open.

A recent Dutch opinion poll showed that 65 percent think Borssele can remain open while 23 percent say it should not.


A lot of what's happened in the commercial nuclear sector here in the U.S. should cheer the folks in Holland who want to keep Borssele open.

10 years ago, many industry observers thought that the American commercial nuclear industry was in permanent decline. Some analysts predicted that nuclear plants wouldn't able to survive in newly deregulated electricity markets. Instead, the exact opposite happened, as the commercial nuclear energy sector has maintained its place in the nation's energy mix through license renewal.

Here in the U.S., 30 reactors have had their licenses renewed by the NRC, and another 18 are currently under review.

Five years ago, when Calvert Cliffs became the first U.S. nuclear plant to renew its license, the process was a novel concept. Today it's routine. And one day, it could be in Holland too.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…