Look what the nuclear industry copy cats dragged in

As referenced on our Just the Facts page, a series of articles using in some cases identical, and often near-identical, message points have appeared in publications across the country. Clearly pulled from a nuclear industry handout, we're calling them out. In the meantime, we took a look at the authors' phraseology. Here are some examples:

1. Reprocessing as "recycling."

"France uses recycling to obtain 80% of its electricity from nuclear power". Paul Steinmeyer, The Day, September 14, and The Hartford Courant, September 16.

"France uses recycling to obtain 80% of its electricity from nuclear power." William B. Reed, Montgomery Advertiser (September 13) and Huntsville Times (September 18.)

"France successfully recycles its used fuel to produce 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power." Ivan Maldonado, The Tennessean, September 21.

"France recycles used fuel from its 54 nuclear plants to obtain 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power." Howard Shaffer, Concord Monitor, September 24.

"Today France – which obtains 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. . . " Henry B. Spitz, Cincinnati Enquirer, September 25.

"Nearly 75 percent of France’s electricity is produced from used nuclear fuel that has been recycled." Barry Butterfield, Lincoln Journal Star, September 27.

"France today generates 80 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power, much of it generated through recycling." William F. Shugart II, Forbes magazine, October 1.

2. "Used fuel" is "valuable," not "waste."

"Used fuel should not be confused with nuclear waste. It contains tens of billions of dollars worth of valuable plutonium and uranium." Steinmeyer.

"Still referred to as waste, used fuel contains valuable nuclear materials."  Reed.

"Often mistakenly referred to as nuclear waste, used fuel contains valuable nuclear materials." Maldonado.

"Recycling is a way to re-use the valuable resources in used nuclear fuel to produce more nuclear-generated electricity." Spitz.

“Those countries realized that spent fuel is a valuable asset, not simply waste.” Shugart.

3. No link between reprocessing and nuclear weapons production.

“No country has ever developed the capability to produce nuclear weapons from the recycling of used nuclear fuel.” Shaffer.

“The fact is, no nuclear materials have ever been diverted from recycling for weapons production.” Reed.

“The reality is that no nuclear materials ever have been obtained from the spent fuel of a nuclear power plant.” Shugart.

The fantasy of a better nuclear mousetrap: uranium metal fuel

An article in the MIT Technology Review, asserted that a new, improved reactor fuel (pictured) might be able to off-set the obvious expense of nuclear energy which is also too slow to address climate change. The author's lead -- "slowing climate change will most likely require a vast expansion of carbon-free nuclear power" -- caught our attention. Read the  Beyond Nuclear response. We drew upon our Advisory Board, and particularly upon input from Dr. M.V. Ramana of Princeton University, to set the record straight, including the observation that "the fuel proposed by the Lightbridge company, and cited in Talbot’s article, has potentially disastrous flaws in that it uses uranium metal (rather than uranium oxide), which could swell and cause fuel failure. There can also be very high temperatures at the center of the fuel."

Coalition asserts Fermi 3 transmission corridor violates NEPA

The environmental coalition intervening against the proposed new Fermi 3 reactor has re-asserted its nearly three-year old challenge, directly to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's five Commissioners themselves, that the inextricably interlinked transmission line corridor needed to export the electricity to the grid is still in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The coalition's Toledo-based attorney, Terry Lodge, filed a Petition for Review with the NRC Commissioners by their ordered deadline. The petition defends not only the contention's merit, but also its separation from the NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) panel's request to the Commissioners for permission to undertake a sua sponte review. More.

"FirstEnergy: A Major Utility Seeks a Subsidized Turnaround"

IEEFA (the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis) has published a report, FirstEnergy: A Major Utility Seeks a Subsidized Turnaround. It is written by Tom Sanzillo, IEEFA Director of Finance, and Cathy Kunkel, IEEFA Fellow. It includes analysis of FirstEnergy's proposal to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, for a multi-billion dollar ratepayer bailout of FirstEnergy's Sammis and OVEC coal burners, as well as its Davis-Besse atomic reactor.

"Cleveland-based institute blasts FirstEnergy, its 'financial spiral'"

As reported by the Akron Beacon Journal, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has warned about FirstEnergy's attempts at "regulatory capture and ratepayer bailouts as it struggles to reverse a deepening spiral of debt service and revenue declines."

FirstEnergy is seeking permission from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) for a $3 billion ratepayer bailout, in order to prop up its uncompetitive Davis-Besse atomic reactor on the Lake Erie shore east of Toledo, and its Sammis coal plant on the Ohio River in southeast Ohio.

Beyond Nuclear is most familiar with FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company's (FENOC) regulatory capture of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Beyond Nuclear, and environmental allies Citizen Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don't Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio, have been officially intervening against FENOC's application for a 20-year license extension at the age-degraded, problem-plagued Davis-Besse reactor since Dec. 27, 2010. Every single contention filed by the environmental coalition's legal counsel, Terry Lodge of Toledo, has been vociferously opposed not only by FENOC's team of lawyers, but also by NRC staff and NRC Office of General Counsel. And every single environmental coalition contention has ultimately been rejected by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and/or the NRC Commissioners.

In his July 2013 report "Renaissance in Reverse," Vermont Law School energy economist Mark Cooper listed Davis-Besse as one of the top reactors in the U.S. at near-term risk for permanent shutdown.