Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

( By Michael Bloom ) [Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

The world is in the midst of a “Nuclear Renaissance” where a large number of new nuclear energy projects are under way. Currently, new nuclear plants are being designed to be larger and larger in order to take advantage of economies of scale and offset the large capital cost of construction. Large reactors are reliable, clean, and produce safe energy to the masses, but they do have some limitations.

Large plants are limited by the infrastructure of the power grid, the difficulty to finance, and the long construction timeline. Nuclear plant designers could address these limits by building much smaller reactors and also making them more cost effective. Doing so would create a strong catalyst for continued growth and diversification in the nuclear industry.

Several decades from now there might be a bright future for a small class of nuclear reactors known as (STAR) short for Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor. Currently in development by a team that includes the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of California, the goal of STAR is to make small scaleable power plants that can compete with the cost per output of the larger plants.

In order to do so, STAR reactors will be manufactured in a plant similar to commercial airliners. After being manufactured, STAR will be shipped safely to a construction site determined by a utility. At any point in time, the utility could increase capacity of their plants by adding more modules of STAR. The flexibility and scalability would make financing much easier and in turn, give utilities the ability to constantly add new plants to their nuclear fleets.

“In addition to those pioneering efforts, small-size reactors are employed in training, isotope production, research, naval propulsion, and in some space applications.

But what role could small-scale nuclear reactors have in generating central station power? The International Atomic Energy Agency indicates that more than 50 new concepts and designs for advanced small or moderate-size reactors are under development in more than 15 IAEA member states. Proponents of such designs believe they have the potential to meet such needs as providing energy for islands that are not served by a national grid or for regions lacking the infrastructures and grid capacity needed for large plants. Small reactors could also power such energy-intensive industrial activities as water desalinization or the extraction of oil from tar sands.”

STAR reactors may also mitigate any existing concerns, real or make-believe, about nuclear material proliferation.

“One frequently cited drawback to widespread use of nuclear power is the risk of fissionable material being diverted to produce weapons. In the 1990s, researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory began looking at reactor system designs intended to minimize the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation. The initial research effort concluded that this goal could be met by a sealed reactor that was transportable and autonomous in operation and that would have a very long reactor core lifetime. Such a reactor would eliminate the need for handling or processing fresh or spent nuclear fuel and otherwise minimize the potential for any possible misuse of the reactor.”

Currently, the power grids in many developing nations are unable to transmit large quantities of electricity over long distances making it pointless to construct a large plant. STAR would make it possible to spread nuclear power to developing countries, increasing the standard of living all over the globe.

STAR might be the next big thing in nuclear industry but it will be a while before it is ready. Several technological advances are still needed as seen below.

“One of those technologies is a yet-to-be-developed and qualified advanced cladding and structural materials that will enable service in lead for the 15 to 30 years core lifetime at peak temperatures of up to about 650 °C. Other technologies that need to be developed are qualified transuranic nitride fuel meeting performance requirements, a whole-core cassette refueling system, and a means for in-service inspection of components immersed in lead coolant.”

Hopefully, for the sake of global energy needs and environmental concerns, STAR will have a bright future.

For more information and a link to this story featured in ME’s July Magazine follow this link.

( By Carrington Dillon )  [Approx. Read Time: 0.5 minutes]

I’m going to give DGM credit for getting me thinking about this one.  Recently, he brought up his frustration with titles of nuclear news articles in the media.  It’s true that subtlety, the media has a lot of power on the way we conceive certain subjects.  One of those is Nuclear Power.  For example, check out the NY Times’ “Nuclear Energy” news wire.  The insult to your intelligence immediately hits you as soon as you scroll down the page.  There are actually articles about terrorism, dirty bombs, etc. that are being related to Nuclear Power.

Who is for a petition, letter writing campaign, or some other form of persuasion to get the NY Times to fix this blaring problem with their categorization of Nuclear Energy?  Please feel free to comment.  As always, your ideas are welcome, no matter how small or insignificant they seem to you.

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 6 minutes]

Recently, Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, Alex Flint, offered an extensive update on the current condition of the nuclear industry as well as a forecast for the future.  Mr. Flint addressed the Senate Republican Conference on June 8th, 2009.  We’re a month late with this, but I don’t remember seeing it reported anywhere else (I could be wrong).

Here are some excerpts from Mr. Flint’s prepared exchange:

Addressing nuclear costs, Mr. Flint commented about CWIP and Loan Guarantees:

“In general, U.S. utility companies are not large enough to finance these projects using traditional utility financing schemes – a 50:50 debt:equity structure.

However, there are steps that can be taken to address that challenge.

A number of projects that are regulated by public utility commissioners will be financed using the Construction Work-in-Progress (CWIP) approach in which a company is permitted to recover part of the cost before the plant goes on-line, a concept that is similar to putting a larger down payment on a house.  Such an approach is estimated to result in long-term savings to the consumer of 25 percent.

The DOE loan guarantee program could also significantly reduce interest costs on new plants, making it possible for utilities to order plants, reducing long-term costs to consumers.

It is for that reason that NEI strongly supports reform of the DOE’s Title XVII loan guarantee program and proposals such as the authorization of a Clean Energy Deployment Administration.”

Mr. Flint then addressed job creation and positive economic impacts by the industry:

“It is important to understand the economic significance of constructing 45 nuclear plants.  That effort will generate up to 82,800 construction jobs (with peak employment at 128,800).

These jobs include skilled trades such as welders, pipefitters, masons, carpenters, millwrights, sheet metal workers, electricians, ironworkers, heavy equipment operators, insulators, engineers, project managers, and construction supervisors.

Once built, these 45 plants will generate up to 32,200 high paying permanent fulltime jobs in rural counties where the plants are located.

Each year, each new reactor will generate approximately $430 million in expenditures for goods, services and labor, and through subsequent spending because of the presence of the plant and its employees.

The average nuclear plants also contributes more than $20 million annually to state and local tax revenue, benefiting schools, roads and other state and local infrastructure.  By 2030 these 45 new nuclear plants will be generating over $3.3 billion in annual revenue to the federal government.”

Mr. Flint then lays it all out with his take on the whole Yucca Mountain situation.  This part actually got me pumped up a little bit:

“First, all credible scientific evidence to date suggests that Yucca Mountain is suitable to serve as a geologic repository for spent fuel.

But it is clear that due to political commitments the President made during the campaign, the administration may not support opening the Yucca Mountain repository even if it receives a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Given that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act remains the law of the land, and recognizing the legal and moral obligation that the government has to fulfill its responsibility under that law, the industry believes the NRC’s review of the Yucca Mountain license application should continue.

In parallel, the administration should convene an independent panel of the best scientific, environmental, engineering and public policy leaders to fully investigate the critical issues and make a recommendation to President Obama and Congress on how best to proceed with managing used nuclear fuel.

Given the clear need for expansion of nuclear energy programs in the United States and worldwide, the nuclear industry proposed two years ago that our nation should revisit the decision to use a once-through fuel cycle and instead pursue a closed fuel cycle that includes recycling. This integrated approach includes at-reactor storage, private sector or government-owned centralized storage, research and development on recycling technology and continued development and licensing of a federal repository.

If the administration unilaterally decides to abandon the Yucca Mountain project without enacting new legislation to modify or replace existing law, it should expect a new wave of lawsuits seeking further damage payments as well as likely requests for refunding of at least $22 billion already collected from consumers that has not been spent on the program from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Further, given the uncertain path forward for the Yucca Mountain project and the difficult economic times facing American families and businesses, Energy Secretary Steven Chu should reduce the fee paid by consumers to cover only licensing costs incurred by DOE, NRC and local Nevada government units that provide oversight of the program.”

You should really read the entire speech here.  You can watch it here. It is a great synopsis of the industry, and that’s why I thought it was necessary to post on Clean Energy Insight.  Thanks, Alex.  Keep up the good work.

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 3.5 minutes]

With all the attention that yesterday’s meeting between President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev received, I thought that it was necessary to raise awareness of the “Megatons to Megawatts” program that turns former Russian nuclear warheads into nuclear energy fuel.  This program wasn’t mentioned a single time in yesterday’s negotiation announcements.  This is especially a shame since the “Megatons to Megawatts” program is such a great program that largely goes unnoticed on a public stage.

From the negotiations between the two countries came one agreement to negotiate, by the year’s end, a reduction in one another’s nuclear weapon arsenals.  I felt that this may have left some people wondering, “where do these weapons go?”

I only recently learned of this private program that, at no cost to taxpayers, turns nuclear weapons into nuclear energy fuel.  You may have heard of the phrase “10% of American lightbulbs are powered by a former Russian nuclear warhead.”  Thanks to the “Megatons to Megawatts” program, that is true.

The goal of the program is to recycle 20,000 Russian nuclear warheads into nuclear energy fuel by 2013.  As of June 30th, 2009, 14,686 Russian nuclear warheads have been eliminated and turned into nuclear fuel.  Another relevant statistic from this program is that 367 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium has been recycled into 10,621 metric tons of nuclear energy fuel–a testament to the importance and effectiveness of this program.

With the recent and upcoming agreements between the Russian and American governments to reduce their nuclear weapon stockpiles, hopefully, this program will be expanded and brought to light on a larger stage.

You can learn more about the program here: http://www.usec.com/megatonstomegawatts.htm

( By Keith Hernandez ) [Approx. Read Time: 7 minutes]

This is a follow-up to a previous blog posted on June 22, 2009: ‘Battle Royale on Uranium Mining‘.  Currently, there is talk of opening a new uranium mine in southern Virginia.  In particular, a statewide study has been approved to examine the potential risks and feasibility of such mines.  The proposed site in Pittsylvania County, VA is very rural and the opposition for the mine is stiff.  Below is a background and history discussion for the subject.  There are some very pertinent historical events that warrant opposition of this new mine, but misinformation is going to be its biggest enemy.  All political, economical, and aesthetic issues aside, this blog is intended to present straight-up hard facts about uranium mining operations and regulations.

The Process

The nuclear fuel cycle begins with mining and processing uranium ore. There are two methods for extracting ore. Open pit and underground mining operations remove ore from the ground with mechanical equipment. In-situ Leaching (ISL) operations pump solutions into the soil in order to extract uranium ore in a slurry.

The extracted ore is then milled and refined into ‘yellow cake’.  This refining process yields liquid mill tailings that are usually stored in evaporation ponds.  These ponds themselves contain low level radioactive contamination.  They can also release radon gas when improperly maintained.  Other wastes from the process create large stockpiles of sub-grade ore and slightly uranium enriched rock.  These stockpiles can create radioactive dust that spread to surrounding areas through wind transport.

Additional background can be found in the following links:

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/uranium.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/mill-tailings.html

Background

Commercial nuclear power generation in the United States has a spotless record with respect to radiation related deaths.  This success is due largely in part to the regulations that guide our industry.  Unfortunately, uranium mining was not always regulated as it is today.  Much was unknown about the effects and hazards of radioactive material.

Historically, uranium mines were plagued with all the health hazards of regular mines, but they also had additional risks from the naturally occurring radioactive isotopes found in the ore.  One of the most notorious accidents occurred in Church Rock, New Mexico on July 16, 1979.  A tailings pond dam ruptured and released the contaminated water into local water sources.

However, barring any major accidents, many of these sites did not pose immediate health threats, and according to an NRC study circa 1980, the possible effective lung dose (including possible radon release) received over 15 years by an individual living near a “cluster” of uranium mills is 41 millirem.  This is about the same amount of exposure received from a full set of dental x-rays (40 millirem).

Below is a chronology (worldwide) of major accidents resulting from uranium tailing pond failures.  Notice that there were many in the US prior to 1980 and zero after these laws were enacted.  Also keep in mind that tailing pond failure, while a major factor, is only one dimension of environmental impact that results from uranium mining.

http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdafu.html

These environmental and health tragedies lead to reform in our federal regulations. Uranium mining is now closely regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). There are many federal laws that provide these government agencies with standards, requirements, and the sovereignty to enforce.

Laws and Regulations

The applicable laws enforced by the EPA can be found below.  These laws caveat the laws that the NRC enforces:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/pdfs/ssg_appd-e.pdf

The applicable laws enforced by the NRC can be found below:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part040/part040-appa.html

These laws are the result of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) which was enacted by Congress in 1978.  This act is broken into two titles:

Title I: Reclamation Work at Inactive Tailings Sites

“Two sites in North Dakota were withdrawn and tailings from some sites were combined, resulting in 19 tailings disposal sites.”

“By August 1999, 17 more sites were completed and brought under the general NRC license, including sites at Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico; Burrell, Pennsylvania; Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; Durango, Colorado; Falls City, Texas; Green River, Utah; Gunnison, Colorado; Lakeview, Oregon; Lowman, Idaho; Maybell, Colorado; Mexican Hat, Utah; Naturita, Colorado; Rifle, Colorado; Salt Lake City, Utah; Shiprock, New Mexico; Slick Rock, Colorado; and Tuba City, Arizona.  The only remaining sites are those at Grand Junction, Colorado and Moab, Utah.”

“DOE initiated the groundwater cleanup phase of the UMTRA Project in 1991.  It has completed all of the 20 scheduled baseline risk assessments for the groundwater cleanup phase and has transmitted them to concerned parties.  Two sites did not have groundwater contamination.  DOE has developed Groundwater Compliance Action Plans for demonstrating groundwater compliance at 13 sites and submitted them to the NRC for concurrence.  DOE has demonstrated groundwater cleanup compliance at eight of those sites.”

Title II: Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities and Mill Tailings Sites

“Of 16 uranium recovery facilities currently licensed by the NRC under its regulations (10 CFR Part 40), there are 12 conventional uranium mills and four in situ leach (ISL) facilities.  There is also one former conversion facility under reclamation for 11e(2) byproduct material.  Two of the conventional mill site licenses have been terminated and the reclaimed tailings areas transferred to DOE for long-term care under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.28.”

“No NRC-licensed conventional uranium mills are operating.  One mill is in stand-by status and will likely resume commercial operation in the future.  The remaining conventional uranium mill sites have completed, or are completing, reclamation activities to provide long-term stabilization and closure of the tailings impoundments and the sites.  Two of the four ISL facilities are presently operating, one is on stand-by status, and one will likely resume operations in the future.  The NRC inspects these sites at semiannual to three-year intervals depending on the operational (or stand-by) and reclamation status.”

These quotations from the NRC site describe in detail the activities nationally for ALL uranium mining operations. These results show tremendous effort and progress with this issue.  The number of sites that are now rehabilitated and under continual monitoring is impressive.

The law also covers requirements for capping, ground water monitoring, and rainfall runoff standards.  Again, these requirements must be addressed before a company receives its permit from the NRC to build and operate.  This involves a detailed review by the NRC of every aspect of the mines design and construction.  Review and monitoring persists not only through the design stages, but through operation and decommission.  Any new mine in Virginia is most certainly accountable to these standards.

Conclusion

It is very important for the public to be aware of the facts.  While neither advocating for or against uranium mining, this blog’s purpose was to inform.  The nuclear industry has traditionally kept a shroud of secrecy around its operations and inner workings.  It is time to get the facts out in the open, and let the public decide for itself.  This is especially true for the rural communities in Pittsylvania County, VA.  Is anyone giving them the real facts?

( By Mark Stewart )

Rep. Henry Waxman (L) and Rep. Ed Markey (R)

As you’ve probably heard by now, The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday by a relatively thin margin.  While the bill throws the nuclear industry a bone with an exclusion of new nuclear from base generation targets, the bill as a whole misses the mark when it comes to real solutions.

While there’s nothing wrong with pursuing renewables like wind and solar energy, these  technologies have yet to prove that they can be reliable, competitive in the energy market, and adequate to meet the ever increasing energy demand.  If the U.S. is serious about cutting CO2 emissions, New Nuclear Power is the only feasible CO2 free power solution that is ready TODAY.

Leave it to Congress to overcomplicate what could be a simple issue.  By drafting legislation that funds and promotes only “renewable” energy instead of all “clean” energy, the House missed a chance to solidify emission-free electricity supply in the U.S. as well as set the framework for thousands of high-paying skilled construction and engineering jobs.

This marks the second such missed opportunity this year as President Obama’s stimulus package failed to include any nuclear provisions.  The ACES bill still has to go through the Senate and I am hopeful that Senators Bennett, Alexander, Bunning, Voinovich, and others can stand up for clean, CO2 free, nuclear energy while debating this bill.

( By Carrington Dillon )

We posted an article a week ago on Duke Energy and AREVA’s plans to negotiate the construction of a 1,650 MW EPR in Piketon, Ohio.  Since then, Ohio Senator George Voinovich wrote this letter to the people of Ohio in support of the deal.  For the past eight years, Senator Voinovich has been either the Ranking Member or Chairman of the Senate Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee.

In the letter, Senator Voinovich expresses his enthusiasm for two nuclear industry projects slated to take place in Ohio. First, the Duke/AREVA announcement of the possible EPR and Nuclear energy production center in Piketon, Ohio.  Second, the Babcock & Wilcox announcement of their new mPower Modular Nuclear Reactor manufacturing centers slated for Euclid and Barberton, Ohio.

[ I wanted to write about the B&W mPower reactors earlier in the week, but Rod Adams over at Atomic Insights has done a great job following that story.  See here. ]

Senator Voinovich then states an interesting statistic.  It is widely known in the nuclear industry that nuclear power accounts for over 70 percent of emission free energy in the United States.  However, Sen. Voinovich brings up that wind and solar energies account for only 1.4 and 0.08 percent, respectively, of our nation’s emission free energy.

The next interesting topic that Sen. Voinovich covers is his previous conversation with President and CEO of Westinghouse, Dr. Aris Candris.  Dr. Candris cited an important fact to Sen. Voinovich; approximately 12,000 jobs are created for each new nuclear plant when you include manufacturing jobs.

I’d like to clarify that statement a slight bit.  The number is correct from recent economic impact studies done by energy utilities who plan to build new nuclear reactors.  However, those 12,000 jobs will be jobs that are either created or supported from the construction of the new plant.  I would hope that that technicality doesn’t  take away from the economic importance or magnitude of that number.  That is still the largest and most realistic job promise than any other energy industry has been able to make to date.

Here is the rest of Sen. Voinovich’s letter:

“We don’t want to be left behind. Now is the time for Ohio to take a leadership role on the nuclear stage with the vast amount of industrial talent in our great state, and to become a manufacturing center for nuclear components.

Organized labor gets it.

They understand expanding nuclear power will create a lot of well-paying jobs.

Everyone is starting to get it – nuclear is a three’fer: Without it, we will not be able to reach our goal of reducing carbon emissions; Without it, we will not be able to provide the base-load electricity our growing country will demand; And, without it, we will not be able to rebuild our manufacturing base.

Ohio is poised to be the heart of it all during the nuclear renaissance. Let’s seize the moment.”

Thank you, Senator, for standing up and publicly extolling the industry as an engine of job creation and growth.  We get it here at Clean Energy Insight.  Hopefully, the rest of your colleagues will follow.  When Clean Energy Insight starts our letter-writing campaign, we will be sure to send Sen. Voinovich a sincere Thank-you and post it here on the blog.

( By Lakshmi Pendyala )

Energy ministers of the Group of Eight industrialized nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the USA), G8 met in the last month to define joint strategies to address growing energy needs and climate change. Their joint declarations made with the European Energy Commissioner were strongly in support of nuclear energy.

The three objectives of the Energy Ministers Meeting were:

1. To define common strategies to cope with global climate change
2. To promote energy investment for security and sustainable development
3. To determine measures that will help reduce energy poverty

From the following notes in the joint declaration, it is clear that they recognize the role of nuclear energy in meeting the objectives.

“We note that, in the opinion of a growing number of countries, the use of nuclear power can diversify the energy mix, contribute to energy security while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that three guiding principles should be followed while designing the proposed energy technology platform, as follows. Focus on a limited group of key technologies during the starting phase of the platform such as solar and wind energy, smart electrical grids, low-carbon vehicles, modernization of coal-fired power stations and CCS and considering the interest of a growing number of countries, nuclear power;”

In the above statements, a clause of particular interest is, “in the opinion…and in the interest of a growing number of countries”. It affirms the increasing support for nuclear power from the industrialized nations. In sequence, International Energy Agency released a document, The Impact of the Financial and Economic Crisis on Global Energy Investment, the background paper prepared by the IEA for the meeting. One of its many statements endorsing nuclear energy reads as follows:

“Nuclear technology is the only large-scale, base-load electricity production technology with a near zero carbon footprint, apart from hydro power (where potential is often limited).”

Let’s hope that the prominence gained at the G8 Energy Ministers Meeting sends the message to the climate dialogue at the G8 Summit in July.

( By Michael Bloom )

Here at Clean Energy Insight we promote nuclear energy because it is safe, great for the environment, and less expensive than other environmentally friendly alternatives. We know producing cheap clean energy is great, but we also want to battle America’s energy needs with energy conservation. We will be adding many posts on conserving energy but to get you started we will begin with one of the largest energy consumers in your home “Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning”.

Ways to Save

1. Install a programmable thermostat to control the temperature while you’re away from home and you could save well over $100 a year.
2. Replace your air filter at least once every 3 months.
3. Perform regular maintenance on your HVAC system (check list).
4. If you have an old HVAC system consider replacing it with a more efficient system.
5. Insulate doors and windows with weather stripping.
6. Insulate any place where air or heat could escape like your attic.
7. Using ceiling fans in the summer instead of turning the thermostat down.

For more detailed information on “Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning” check out this guide.

Tax Breaks

Taking steps to make your home more energy efficient can also provide you with up to $1500 in tax breaks due to the recent economic stimulus bill. The tax credit will cover 30% of improvements like installing energy efficient air conditioners, furnaces, and heat pumps. The stimulus also covers adding more insulation and installing energy efficient doors/windows. The tax credit has a lifetime cap of $1,500 and expires after 2010. For more detailed information click here.

One of the issues that Clean Energy Insight is supporting at the moment is the opportunity to mine the biggest Uranium deposit in US history in Pittsylvania County, VA (www.virginiauranium.com).  Two of the people on our team are from this area and have seen the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost during their lifetimes in the textile and furniture industries.  By mining this deposit in Southwest Virginia, we can provide high-paying jobs and energy for our future.  It sounds like a good idea to me.

Aaron Ruby of the Virginia Energy Independence Alliance (www.virginiaenergy.org) has submitted a letter to CEI to provide more information on this issue.  Thanks a lot, Aaron.

America is too dependent on foreign uranium

The Virginia Energy Independence Alliance has a solution

America is too dependent on foreign sources of uranium.  The Virginia Energy Independence Alliance (VEIA)—a broad-based coalition of more than 500 concerned citizens, industries, associations and academia from across Virginia and beyond—wants to develop Virginia’s abundant, untapped uranium supply to break America’s dependence.

Nuclear energy supplies 20% of America’s electricity and 37% of Virginia’s.  Nuclear energy is cheaper than wind and solar, cleaner than coal, oil and natural gas, and the most efficient energy source in the world—bar none.

While America and Virginia are undergoing a nuclear renaissance that promises to vastly expand our nuclear power generation, America is increasingly dependent on unreliable foreign countries for our supply of nuclear fuel.  How could this possibly make sense? America imports 92% of the uranium we use each year to fuel nuclear energy.  Virginia imports 100%.  Where do we get our uranium?

We import anywhere from 30%-50% of our uranium from Russia.  By 2013, all the uranium we import from Russia will come from the Kremlin-run uranium enrichment company, Techsnabexport.  How will America fuel our nuclear power if the Kremlin cuts off our supply of uranium - as it did to Eastern Europe’s natural gas supply in early 2009?  This dependence is dangerous, and puts our national security and future energy supply at risk.

One solution to our dependence is right under our feet in Southside Virginia’s Pittsylvania County.  Pittsylvania County is home to the largest untapped uranium deposit in the United States.  The Coles Hill deposit—as it is known—could contain enough uranium to supply Virginia’s current nuclear power demand for the next 65 years.

As one of the most economically distressed regions of the Country, with unemployment reaching almost 15% in some areas, Southside Virginia desperately needs economic opportunity.  Mining and milling the deposit will create as many as 500 new, local jobs, generate millions in local tax dollars each year and stimulate job creation in other related local industries.<

A decades-old moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia is the only obstacle standing in the way of developing this vital resource and reaping its abundant rewards.  Fortunately, science is on our side.  Modern nuclear energy and uranium mining are safe.  The National Academy of Sciences is conducting an 18-month study of uranium mining in Virginia that will lead the way to energy independence and 500 new jobs in Southside Virginia.

To find more information and join the VEIA, visit their Web site, www.virginiaenergy.org.  You may also show your support by signing the VEIA petition at www.virginiaenergy.org/support-the-cause/sign-the-petition or by joining the Virginia Energy Independence Alliance Facebook fan page.

The solutions to our challenges are right under our feet - right here in Virginia.  Let’s use them to cure America’s dependence on foreign energy.

American Energy Independence from Jason Phillips on Vimeo.

( By Carrington Dillon )

Before we get ahead of ourselves with this blogging venture, I’d like to thank some people for helping us get started.  Mark Flanagan of NEI Nuclear Notes and Rod Adams of Atomic Insights gave us some great advice for starting this thing up.  It is obvious from the quality of their nuclear advocacy blogs that they are both very busy.  So, I’d like to sincerely thank these two pros for reaching out and taking the time to answer some questions we had about blogging.  It was nice to get such a warm response from you two.  We hope to continue working with you to successfully save the world for a long time to come.  Thank you both.

( By Carrington Dillon )

Welcome to Clean Energy Insight.  We are a group of nuclear industry professionals volunteering our time to advocate nuclear energy.  Clean Energy Insight was born out of discussions between members of NA-YGN (North American Young Generation in Nuclear) on how to better encourage political action in favor of nuclear energy.

NA-YGN is a national not-for-profit organization for nuclear industry professionals to develop professionally, share their passion for nuclear technology, and give back to the community.

Here at Clean Energy Insight, we believe that the time has come for the nuclear industry to quit taking a backseat and become proactive in the public debate on clean energy.  The goal of Clean Energy Insight is to give you the tools you need to become advocates for the most environmentally friendly, affordable, and reliable form of energy.

We created and will operate this website in our spare time, with our own financial backing.  We hope our efforts create a genuine and effective website to join the existing online nuclear advocacy movement.  There are no corporate special interests at play here. Our special interests include scientific research and realistic solutions to the issues that affect our daily lives.

As the newest generation of nuclear industry professionals, we will take control of this debate and force science, not politics, to be the judge in the debate on clean energy.  We have the tools, intellectual capital, and youthful initiative to take control of this debate and enlighten the American public on what nuclear energy can do for them.

We will be the ones to “put science back in its rightful place.”  We will move energy forward.

Sincerely,
Carrington Dillon