Skip to main content

An Energy Truth Shines Through

Amb. Jim Nicholson 
From Jim Nicholson, who served as U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See from 2001 to 2005:
Well, there's another thing that I hope he [Pope Francis] realizes, and that is that the best way to help the poor in this world is to help them come out of that poverty and get electricity. There are over a billion people in the world that still do not even have electricity, and fossil fuel is the hope for that electricity. It's cheap, it's readily producible, and if you can't refrigerate medicine and you can't read in the dark, and you can't grow out of that poverty and there's a real link there, and the Holy Father, I think, needs to be very careful about this green movement that he sort of seems to align himself with in this encyclical on global climate change, and I hope that he will realize that.
One may disagree with most of what Nicholson says here. But not with his main point: “the best way to help the poor in this world is to help them come out of that poverty and get electricity.” It’s such an important message – and important for the public to understand - that we’ll take it wrapped however anyone cares to wrap it. The rest will be resolved in the fullness of time.

Comments

Aaron Rizzio said…
There's nothing in the encyclical against the use of nuclear energy.

How much fission energy would be required to elevate the entire world to the OECD average? Given a world of 10 billion people by the end of the 21st century ~6,000GW(e) of capacity would be required (double that to reach US consumption rates). 6,000GW of LWRs would require over a million tons of uranium/yr mining production rate, which is probably impractical. Also insufficient fissile material would have been generated for fast sodium (S-PRISM or Terrapower)reactors -- a fissile bottleneck. What will be the only option? U233 stockpiles bred up from operating NPP fleets over the course of the 21st century and used to fuel low fissile inventory MSRs.
Aaron Rizzio said…
There's nothing in the encyclical against the use of nuclear energy.

So how much fission energy capacity would be required to elevate the entire world to the OECD average? Given a world of 10 billion people by the end of the 21st century ~8,000GW(e) of capacity would be required (double that to reach US consumption rates). 8,000GW of LWRs would require a production rate of over a million tons of uranium/yr, which is probably impractical. Also insufficient fissile material would have been generated for fast sodium reactors (S-PRISM or Terrapower) -- a fissile bottleneck. What then will be the only likely fission option? U233 stockpiles bred via our existing NPP fleets over the course of the 21st century and utilized to fuel future low fissile inventory MSR/LiFTRs.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…