|The Week That Was
November 25, 2000
The Hon. W. Kenneth Davis, former Deputy Secretary of Energy, explains how we might deal with the coming power generation crisis. The neglect of this serious problem during the 90's is another story that will need to be told.
The Week That Was November 25, 2000 brought to you by SEPP
We invite discussion of Kenneth Davis' analysis of the coming power crisis. Just to kick it off REBIRTH OF NUCLEAR POWER
If you feel somewhat depressed about the outlook for electric power after 2010, fear not. A remarkable milestone has been reached this year in the nuclear power sector of the U.S. electric utility industry. It is fully described in the Fall 2000 issue of the EPRI journal. The story in brief:
The operating licenses of approximately 10% of current U.S. nuclear reactors are scheduled to expire by the end of 2010, an eventuality once seen as the beginning of the end for the nuclear option in the United States. But well-maintained nuclear power plants have demonstrated their capability for safe, reliable operation well beyond their initial 40-year license term - a period based on amortization accounting rather than inherent operation limitations. This year, more than two decades of preparatory engineering and planning by nuclear utilities and EPRI have paid off in the NRC's approval of 20-year license renewals for two nuclear plants, effectively extending nuclear's franchise for power production well into the new century. About one-third of the country's 103 nuclear reactors plan to apply for renewal by 2003, and most currently operating plants are expected to renew their licenses. With capital costs for the plants largely paid for, the revitalized nuclear fleet will be among the most competitive power generators available.
The average capacity factor of nuclear plants has increased to 85%, thanks to reduced outages and refueling shutdowns. The best-run plants produce at a cost of less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, giving coal-fired plants a run for their money. If plants are fully amortized, just think what this will do to the cost of power.
And this may be the answer to the power crisis.
Dear friends of clean nuclear energy,
The international association of ENVIRONMENTALISTS FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY (EFN), has recently launched a new campaign titled "100.000 signatures for nuclear energy".
The aim of this campaign is to bring moral support to clean nuclear energy, to demonstrate to politicians, to the people, and to the media that a great number of persons throughout the world firmly believe that nuclear energy is or can be a clean energy for a better future.
We enclose below an ASCII text version of this campaign
Do not hesitate to print this page, sign it (if you haven't done so yet), make copies, circulate it, and invite the greatest possible number of friends, relatives, and colleagues to sign this campaign as well.
The signed pages (even if just a few signatures) are to be returned to EFN by e-mail or by fax, as indicated below.
YES, I share the idea that nuclear electricity can be clean and
This page is to be photocopied, signed, circulated, and sent by mail to :
Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy
This petition can also be signed on the internet at the following
Internet address : http://www.ecolo.org/petition.eng.html
Each signature counts and brings moral
For more information : http://www.ecolo.org
AN APPEAL: How you can help SEPP fulfill its mission
The Science & Environmental Policy Project began in late 1990 as a research effort by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer and a handful of graduate students. The Project had two goals: (1) to gather material for a book on global environmental issues, and (2) to conduct a survey of scientists affiliated with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the extent of what was, even then, being touted as scientific "consensus" on global warming.
What the graduate students discovered with their survey convinced Dr. Singer to set his book aside and instead to circulate among senior members of the American Meteorological Society a "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists" on greenhouse warming, which was quickly endorsed by 46 leading climatologists and atmospheric physicists (and eventually by nearly 100). That statement, issued on February 27, 1992, drew widespread media attention and was cited more than 150 times in the press. It was the first inkling journalists had that there was no scientific consensus on the reality of a global warming. Indeed, there has been raging debate.
SEPP was incorporated in the state of Virginia in 1992, and established as a nonprofit, 501(c)3 educational organization in late 1993. Today, having expanded from that core of 46 scientists, it draws on an international network of some of the finest minds in science who donate their time to promoting sound, credible, peer-reviewed research as the only basis for the health and environmental policies that affect us all.
You can help in two ways:
1. Download SEPP reports, press releases, and articles and pass them on to newspaper editors, journalists, educators, civic leaders, and others. Help stop the fear- mongering and the distortion of science. This is the most important thing you can do.
2. Support SEPP with your tax-deductible contributions. The environmental pressure groups, which present so much wrong information, have a combined clout of more than $1 billion a year. The Science & Environmental Policy Project has had far-reaching impact on about one-hundredth of one percent of that figure. It's money well and effectively spent.
In response to inquiries about funding for SEPP, we issue again the following statement:
"SEPP does not solicit financial support from either industry or governmental sources. Proposals for funding are directed solely to charitable foundations and private individuals. Some income is derived from SEPP conference fees and the sale of its books and reports to the public.
As a non-profit educational and research 501(c) 3 organization, accepting tax-deductible contributions, SEPP is required to file an annual report with the IRS.
SEPP operates on a modest budget. Its officers and associated scientists do not receive salaries but contribute their services on a pro bono basis."
Please be generous. And thank you.