Show Notes for "This Week In Nuclear" Podcast

Tritium: Fuel for Antinuclear Reactions

2010-01-22T10:54:00.000-05:00

Fast Fission Podcast #22 - Get the MP3 File Here

There is a political and public relations cauldron boiling in Vermont over a recently discovered tritium leak at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. Tritium is a mildly radioactive isotope of hydrogen and has a 10 day biological half-life when it is ingested by humans.

The leak is minute and completely inconsequential from a safety standpoint: the tritium levels very low. Only one ground water sample is slightly above federal drinking water standards (even though the sample points are far away from any sources of drinking water). In fact, the levels are so low that even if you drank water from the test wells, and nothing else, for an ENTIRE YEAR your radiation exposure would be only about 1/10 of what you would receive from one medical x-ray, and a small fraction of your exposure from the natural background radiation. Eating the same quantity of brazil nuts every day, one of the most naturally radioactive foods, would result in MORE exposure to radiation than bathing in the water in these test wells!

These facts have not stopped the antinuclear groups in the area from going berserk. They know when they have the upper hand on a public relations issue, and they are doing everything they can to take advantage of it. Adding fuel to the fire are allegations of false statements by plant officials. At a PSB hearing last spring a plant executive stated he did not believe there was any active buried piping containing radioactive fluids. The official said the plant would verify that was the case and would get back to the board, but reportedly they did not. Potentially adding to the communication difficulties - the phrases “Buried piping” and “underground piping” do NOT mean the same thing. To an engineer the term “buried” piping refers to piping that is buried underground in direct contact with the soil. Underground piping means the piping is below grade and could be located in a vault or concrete trench.

Plant personnel have apologized for the miscommunication and are actively looking for the source of the leak. Timing could not be worse because the VT public service commission has yet to make a ruling on Entergy’s proposal to create a new nuclear only generating company, and the VT state legislature has yet to vote on the plant’s request for a license extension.

Vermont Yankee has passed every NRC inspection in flying colors and is operated both safely and reliably. In fact, the plant recently earned the highest possible rating from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.

John Wheeler

This Week in Nuclear

Cloudy Days Ahead for the Sunshine State

2010-01-22T10:53:00.000-05:00

Download the MP3 Here

This past week the Florida Public Service Commission voted to deny requests by the state’s two largest utilities to upgrade the state’s electrical systems by adding renewable energy, new gas turbines, a new gas pipeline, new reactors, and transmission lines. This politically motivated decision is mind-numbing in a state with an over-taxed grid and an electricity supply that has not kept up with population increases.

In this podcast Rod Adams of The Atomic Show and the Atomic Insights blog joins me for a chat about this terribly near-sighted decision, some possible motivations, and what it means for the people of Florida.

Some other links related to this story:

Renewable Energy plans will be scuttled by the FL PSC Decision.

Westinghouse condemns the FL Decision.

This Week in Nuclear Begins It's 5th Year!

2010-01-22T10:52:00.002-05:00

Download the MP3 Here

Last week the Pakastani government arrested five American citizens on the suspicion that they were planning to attack the Chashma Nuclear Plant. All five men are dual nationals of Pakistan and the USA and they recently lived in Washington DC.

According to news reports all five have been questioned by both the Pakistani police and the FBI. They were arrested while trying to make contact with Al-Qaeda terrorist groups. Another news report indicates the five have been charged and will stand trial in Pakistan.

The Chasma Nuclear plant is a small 300 Mw pressurized water reactor that was built in Pakistan with the assistance of China. It is very similar to the Quinshan nuclear plant. The plant is very reliable – during a recent fuel cycle it ran at 95% capacity factor. It’s unclear what sort of threat the men posed to the plant, but it is doubtful that there was much of a risk to the plant or to the public. Even if the men had taken control of the plant, without detailed knowledge of the plant’s safety systems it would be very difficult for them to cause reactor damage. Core damaging events usually take many hours to reach the point at which the fuel begins to over heat and by that time the military would be able to retake control.

Happy Holidays everyone! This week marks the 4th anniversary of the first episode of This Week in Nuclear. Wow! Time has flown by!

Producing the show has been an amazing experience for me; I’ve met people from all around the world, many of whom I consider my friends; I’ve been exposed to new ideas and new situations; and I’ve expanded my knowledge of the nuclear business in areas like politics, communications, and financing. While I came into this adventure with a lot of experience operating nuclear plants and training nuclear workers, and the longer I do this the more I learn. God willing I’ll be at this for at least another four years! Thank you for your support!

I apologize for the slow down in the number of shows over the last three weeks. I’ve had a very busy time at work since the beginning of December trying to get the typical end of year things taken care of in time for the holidays. I’m taking some time off, too, so I had to make sure everything was set before I left. Thank you for your patience and I’ll be starting back up again the first week in January. Until then I’m taking a little time off.

New Jersey Anti-Nuclear Groups Fight On

2010-01-22T10:51:00.003-05:00

Fast Fission Podcast #20 – MP3 File

In April of 2009, after a long fight with well-funded anti-nuclear groups, the Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant in New Jersey was granted a 20 year license extension. At the time, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission called Oyster Creek’s application “the most extensive license renewal to date.” It’s worth noting that the NRC commissioners voted 3 to 1 in favor of the license extension, the only dissenting vote was from Gregory Jaczko who was subsequently appointed NRC Chairman by President Obama and continues to serve in that position.

Anti-nuclear groups viewed the plant’s license extension as a temporary setback, and they are again trying to shut down the plant. They have been unable to show any safety or environmental basis for their cause, so they are taking another approach – trying to force the owners to make enormous plant modifications they hope will make the plant too expensive to operate. They have succeeded in getting a bill in front of the New Jersey state government that would force the plant to install cooling towers, something that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. They argue that the plant’s cooling water intake from Barnagat Bay kills fish and a forcing the plant to use cooling towers would reduce the number of fish killed by the plant’s cooling water system. The anti-nukes are trying to get the State to require cooling towers as a condition of renewing the plant’s water discharge permit.

A similar tactic was attempted by the anti-nuclear group Riverkeeper in New York against the Indian Point nuclear plant. That case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. In the end Riverkeeper’s claim was denied.

Local newspapers are predicting large crowds will be on hand Monday, December 14 at the State House Annex in Trenton where the hearings will take place. This will be an interesting case because similar bills are before both houses of the NJ legislature, and lame duck Governor, Jon Corzine opposed the plant’s license renewal.

These attempts to portray nuclear plants as evil fish killers are laughable. All central station power plants use large quantities of cooling water. They pull the water in and discharge it back a few degrees warmer. Environmental permits already specify how much the plants are allowed to heat the water, and I’ve known of times when power plants have reduced power because they were approaching the water discharge thermal limits, particularly in the heat of the summer. Also, many plants like Indian Point were forced years ago to install multi-million dollar fish catching systems on the water intakes to gently redirect the fish away from the intake screens to safety in the warm discharge water.

I for one am tired of hearing the newspapers and television news refer to anti-nuclear organizations as “environmental” or “public advocacy” groups.” It is easy to argue that ill-informed anti-nuclear activism has resulted in serious damage to the environment and cost many lives by slowing down the growth of nuclear energy. Air and water pollution caused by the alternatives, burning fossil fuels, has far more impact on our health and environment. Let’s stop calling groups like Riverkeeper, New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, and the Radiation & Public Health Project “environmentalists” and “public advocates”. Instead, let’s call them what they are: anti-nuclear groups.

Let's also acknowledge it's quite possible to be both pro-nuclear AND pro-environment. In fact, the two go hand in hand.

John Wheeler

Indian Nuclear Workers Poisoned - Media Botches Story (Again)

2010-01-22T10:51:00.000-05:00

Fast Fission Podcast #19 – mp3 file

On November 24th a strange thing happened at the Kaiga nuclear plant in southern India. During a routine check for radiation exposure, about 65 maintenance workers tested positive for higher than normal levels of tritium in their urine. The plant is a CANDU reactor which uses heavy water as a moderator, and heavy water contains tritium. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen with two neutrons and one proton. It is radioactive with about a 12 year half-life.

When plant officials investigated the source of the exposure they discovered someone had intentionally contaminated a cooler of drinking water with a vial of water containing tritium. The workers were sent to the local hospital for monitoring and were later sent home. No one required hospitalization and the highest exposure any of them received was about 3 rem, about 60% of the annual limit in the USA for occupational exposure. The tritium-containing heavy water is not chemically poisonous – it behaves in the human body like regular water. It has a biological half-life in humans of about 10 days, and that can be shortened by doing things to speed the fluid exchange process like drinking extra water, administering intravenous fluids, and in severe cases dialyses. Based on what I’ve read of the event and the levels of exposure it is most likely the workers were sent home and told to drink lots of water for the next several days.

Tritium decays by firing off a beta particle (essentially a high energy electron) leaving behind a helium-3 atom. Beta particles are relatively weak and can not penetrate the dead layer of skin on your body. It is of most concern when it is ingested into the body as it was in this case. As I said the total exposure here was nothing for the workers to be concerned about. There are some reports that the workers were sickened, but I’m unsure of the accuracy of these reports. It is more likely that people not familiar with the details believed the workers were sickened because they were sent to the hospital for monitoring.If the reports are true, then the illness was not caused by radiation.

The Indian authorities are investigating to determine who poisoned the drinking water, and why. There are several theories being considered; one related to anti-nuclear sentiments surrounding India’s expanding commercial nuclear energy plans, another related to the upcoming 25th anniversary of the Bopal chemical plant disaster that happened on December 3, 1981.

This was certainly an event that will cause the Indian government some concern, not because of the consequences, but because of the security implications. The workers affected are very lucky that the culprit used heavy water and not something truly toxic. Power plants have many, many chemicals on hand for a variety of industrial purposes, and some of them could have been lethal.

What REALLY caught my eye about this story was the irresponsible and inaccurate way the event was characterized in the press around the world. Almost every major news outlet called it a “radioactive leak” that “sickened workers.” It was not until hours later that a few started to carry scaled back headlines with more accurate accounts. I really have to wonder if any of these international news services have anyone on their staff with a clue about nuclear energy. If they did, and that person did just a small amount of legwork and fact checking they could have easily reached a correct conclusion: there was no leak, and workers were not sickened by radiation.

There are striking similarities between this story and the maintenance mishap last week at the Three Mile Island that caused airborne contamination inside their containment. Neither involved a leak, neither resulted in risk to the public, in both cases only plant workers were affected, and those affects were essentially so small as to be undetectable. Contrary to all this, in both cases news outlets blew their reporting: initial reports were grossly wrong, reported leaks when there were none, and reported worker health was being affected by radiation – also wrong.

Clean, Green Energy Jobs

2010-01-22T10:50:00.000-05:00

Fast Fission Podcast # 18 - mp3 file

Duke Energy is one of the largest power producers in the Western Hemisphere. They produce 35,000 MW of electricity in the USA, plus 4,000 in Latin America. They have virtually every type of power plant: nuclear, coal, gas, hydro, wind, and solar. They also run natural gas distribution systems in two states.

Duke knows energy, and Jim Rogers, their CEO, knows Duke. When Jim Rogers speaks about energy people listen. Last week Mr. Rogers was talking energy and jobs. Jim says Duke's experience has shown that nuclear energy provides more jobs and higher paying jobs than wind or solar power plants.

"In an operation of a nuclear plant, there [are] .64 jobs per megawatt. The wind business–and we have a very large wind business – is .3 jobs per megawatt. In the solar business – and we're installing solar panels – it's about .1. But the difference in the jobs is quite different, because if you're wiping off a solar panel, it's sort of a minimum wage type of job, [with] much higher compensation for nuclear engineers and nuclear operators. If our goal is to rebuild the middle class, nuclear plays a key role there, particularly if coal is out of the equation."

Mr. Roger's comments made me wonder how many jobs might be created if we were to build new power plants of each type to meet our energy demands. I started with the most recent Energy Outlook provided by the US Government at the Energy Information Administration web site. This report states that 259 GW of new plants will be needed by 2030. The number includes 30 GW to replace aging plants and the rest is for modest energy demand growth.

Multiplying that 259,000 MW times the Duke estimates for the number of people per MW, we get the result (rounded to the nearest 1000):

New Nuclear: 166,000 jobs
New Wind: 78,000 jobs
New Solar: 26,000 jobs

These numbers ignore the 2,000 to 3,000 jobs created building each new nuclear plant during the four year construction process. Building wind and soar would also provide temporary construction jobs. I also did not adjust for the lower capacity factors associated with wind and solar generation. We'll assume smart grid technologies will enable improvements in wind and solar energy capacity and existing reserve capacity will back up wind and solar. After all, these are the kinds of assumptions that wind and solar proponents make all the time.

In Episode 60 of "This Week in Nuclear" I discussed how every dollar spent building new nuclear plants provides far more energy than either wind or solar. Now we're discovering that nuclear plants also produce more jobs per MW. Combining these two findings we gain an important insight: every dollar spent on new nuclear plants provides not only more energy, but also more jobs.

It's not often that we find one solution for two very tough problems, but that's exactly what we have done: Investing in nuclear energy can provide much needed high paying jobs that can't be sent overseas, in addition to reliable, clean energy to power our economy.

John Wheeler

"Leak" at Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant: CNN and ABC News Get it Wrong

2010-01-22T10:49:00.000-05:00

This Week in Nuclear Episode 80 – MP3 File

If you were watching CNN or ABC News last night and this morning you may have believed a major accident was underway at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. Both news sources reported there had been a “radiation leak” at the plant and more than 100 workers were contaminated.

Both CNN and ABC News were blatantly wrong; there was not a “radiation leak” from the plant. What happened was a minor spread of radioactive dust and particles during maintenance activities inside the reactor building. Some workers in the vicinity got material on their clothes and skin that had to be washed off. The material was easily contained and there was no leak from the plant into the environment.

I first learned about this from April Schilpp, who I follow on Twitter. April is a communications specialist in Lancaster, PA.

In this podcast April and I discuss what happened, how the social media helped get the word out, and how the companies and other stakeholders could have used social media to keep the mainstream news sources honest.

Was it Lots of Wind or Lots of Hot Air in Spain Last Sunday Night?

2009-11-12T23:57:00.001-05:00

Fast Fission Podcast #16 – mp3 file

Renewable energy supporters were spreading the word today that this past Sunday wind energy in Spain produced 53% of the country’s electrical demand.

The Spanish wind power industry broke a record on Sunday morning, when turbines nationwide met 53% of the nation's demand for electricity with production of around 10,170 megawatts (MW), according to La Asociacion Empresarial Eolica (AEE), the Spanish wind industry alliance.

This was certainly an achievement, but before we get too excited we need to read carefully and consider the situation. This was an intermittent peak in wind energy output that happened to achieve 53% of the electricity demand when the total demand was very low. This occurred during a 5 ½ hour window in the early morning hours of a Sunday morning in November. Everyone was asleep, there virtually no lighting load, no cooking, few factories were running, no air conditioning, and probably very little heat. As a result, total demand was relatively low.

Before we declare renewables a resounding success, take a look at a more telling statistic: the 11.5% overall contribution of wind to Spain’s grid during all of 2008. That means that day in and day out 88.5% of Spain’s electricity came from nuclear, gas, oil, and coal. Of that, the only carbon-free source was nuclear.

John Wheeler

Small Reactors May Reduce Combat Casualties

2009-11-11T21:37:00.000-05:00

This Week in Nuclear #79 – MP3 File

A Special note from John Wheeler:

Today is Veteran’s Day in the United States - the day we stop to reflect about the men and women of our armed forces, to acknowledge their many sacrifices, and to thank them for their service to our country. The day holds special significance for me personally because of the many, many members of my family and close friends who are currently serving in the military or who have served in the past. I have close family members who have served during every armed conflict since World War II, and probably earlier ones too if I knew that history. So to the veterans in my family; Mark, Elizabeth, Jake, and Bill, if you happen to listen to this show – this is a shout out to you and to all of your fellow soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coast guardsmen, and merchant mariners – THANK YOU for your service. The world is a safer place because of your hard work, dedication, and sacrifice. And to my father Johnny and step-father Charlie who are no longer with us, you’re in my thoughts today.

Because it’s Veteran’s Day, I thought it fitting for this show to focus on nuclear energy as it relates to potential uses in the military. At the Thorium Energy Alliance Conference in October I had the pleasure to meet Col. Paul Roege from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. He spoke about the military’s rising use of energy in combat and the problems this energy intensity creates for soldiers tasked with protecting the our supply chains. By using a more dense energy source the military can reduce the amount of material they need to transport, and that will in turn save lives, lots of lives! This is why the military is considering small mobile reactors.

The Un-Scientific American

2009-11-11T00:16:00.001-05:00

Fast Fission Podcast #15 – MP3 File

This story will come as no big surprise for my pro-nuclear blogger friends, but for those of you who are not quite as engaged with the online energy debate, you really need to know about this.

Since I was a teenager I’ve enjoyed the magazine Scientific American. I’ve viewed them as informative and a good source of credible, accurate information about emerging trends in many fields of science and technology. The periodical began in 1845 and over the years its contributors have included, according to their website, more than 120 Nobel laureates and such amazing thinkers as Albert Einstein and Jonas Salk.

This it way it pains me so much that this magazine has deteriorated to the level of utter trash and garbage. I will think long and hard before I ever again purchase a copy of the magazine. In this podcast I discuss why.

When I first read the Scientific American article I was outraged and angry, but now I’m just sad. Sad that a respected journal and a source of information for more than 100 years has deteriorated to the point that it is willfully being used as a platform to push a political agenda with total disregard to fundamentals of research and sound science.

Links:

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables by Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi at the Scientific American

Critique of ‘A path to sustainable energy by 2030′ by Barry Brooks at BraveNewClimate.com

John Wheeler

Wind Tax Windfall, Nuclear Tax Burden

2009-11-07T20:48:00.000-05:00

This Week in Nuclear Episode #78 – MP3 File

In this episode of This Week in Nuclear I interview Joseph Somsel, the author of “How Taxes Pervert Our Energy Choices”.

Our discussion covered a wide range of topics including:

How favorably short depreciation schedules for wind have created a “gold mine” for investors, virtually independent of how much electricity the wind turbines produce.

How would nuclear investors benefit if new nuclear plants received the same treatment as new wind turbines.

How tax law have created massive subsidies for wind energy, but added tax burdens for nuclear.

A creative option for funding the industrial infrastructure for nuclear fuel cycling.

Comparisons of the lifetime energy provided by similar investment in wind and nuclear.

Who pays for new transmission line to support new wind turbines and new nuclear plants.

What do nuclear loan guarantees actually guarantee?

Be sure to read some of Mr. Somsel’s other works. Here are a couple of places to start:

The American Thinker

Energy Pulse

John Wheeler

Media Misses the Mark on North Korean Nukes

2009-11-03T22:45:00.000-05:00

Fast Fission Podcast #14 – MP3 File

I awoke this morning to news reports that North Korea has once again resumed their production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. I suspect that’s no real surprise to anyone who pays attention to such things. After all, they threw IAEA inspectors out this spring and told the world of their plans.

All of the major news outlets carried the story, and virtually every one reported that the North Koreans obtained the plutonium by reprocessing spent fuel from their nuclear plant. The term “nuclear plant” in this instance refers to their small 5 MW test reactor, NOT a nuclear power plant designed to produce energy for industrial use or electricity generation.

Nuclear reactors come in many sizes and shapes; test and training reactors at universities, research reactors for government and industry, reactors used to produce medical isotopes, reactors inside nuclear power plants, and reactors designed to produce weapons materials. Each type is uniquely suited for its purpose, and usable weapons-grade plutonium is not produced by accident. It can only be obtained by reprocessing a unique kind of nuclear fuel from a reactor is operated a very specific way. In episode 77 of “This Week in Nuclear” I explained the details of why this is true, so go back and take a look if you’d like the details.

These are critically important differences. Imprecise reporting like this leads to misunderstanding on a broad scale. There is a huge misperception in the general population and among many otherwise well-informed policy makers that nuclear power plants can explode like atomic bombs, and that rogue nations could use their commercial nuclear power plants to kick start weapons programs. Both of these are wrong, and these misunderstandings are used to stoke anti-nuclear sentiments. In the end, failing to understand these differences can contribute to policy decisions and regulations that could deprive society of the benefits of nuclear energy.

Here’s what you need to remember: Used fuel from commercial nuclear power plants can not be used to make atomic bombs. No nation has ever created a nuclear weapon from spent fuel that came from a commercial nuclear power plant.

John Wheeler

Sacramento's Costly Mistake

2009-11-02T22:33:00.001-05:00

Fast Fission #13 – MP3 File

I recently invited listeners of my podcasts and readers of my blog to leave voice mail using the “call me” button at http://thisweekinnuclear.com . Thank you Patrick Park from California who called in with a question about the Rancho Seco nuclear plant that was shut down by voters about 20 years ago. Patrick wanted my opinion regarding whether or not the plant was safe and if electricity rates would be lower today if the plant was still in operation. He also mentioned the difficulty California is having keeping the lights on during peak electrical demands (like hot summer days).

Audio File

That’s a great question! Sacramento Municipal Utility District (or SMUD) was the owner of the Rancho Seco nuclear plant. Fortunately there is a lot of information on the SMUD web site. By looking at the utility’s current energy mix and by comparing the relative costs and environmental impacts, it is fairly easy to hypothesize what would be happening if the plant were running today.

The current energy mix at SMUD is 60% natural gas, 20% hydro, 8% biomass, 8% wind, 1% coal, and the remaining 3% is geothermal, solar, and small hydro.

If Rancho Seco was in operation today, it would displace all of the coal and a large portion of the natural gas SMUD burns now. If the plant was running today it is safe to predict

Energy rates would be lower because the nuclear energy would off-set a large portion of the high cost natural gas they presently burn.

Greenhouse gas emissions would be lower because nuclear energy would eliminate all the coal they burn, and a big piece of the natural gas.

By now the plant would be paid off and with a license extension it would be running for another 20 years. This would help keep energy costs low for another two decades.

The plant was a 913 MW Babcock & Wilcox pressurized water reactor. It entered commercial operation in 1974. While anti-nuclear activists will disagree, the plant was safe and there was nothing inherently bad about that design. In fact, there are very well run B&W plants in service today. For example, the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 is a 846 MW reactor that also came online in 1974. ANO Unit 1 has a very high capacity factor, has a top performance rating by the Institute if Nuclear Power Operations and is recognized around the industry as a consistently good performing nuclear plant.

Whether or not shutting down Rancho Seco was a good idea depends on your point of view. If you sell coal or natural gas then shutting down the plant was great! If you are an anti-nuclear activist, then you probably feel like shutting down Rancho Seco was one of your movement's biggest victories. However, if you are a rate payer, or if you believe that burning fossil fuels is harming our environment, then shutting down the unit was a huge, costly mistake.

John Wheeler

Nuclear Energy's Tiny Footprint

2009-11-01T21:54:00.003-05:00

Fast Fission Podcast #12 – MP3 File

I recently came across a fascinating study that was done by five researchers from The Nature Conservancy. If you have not heard of them before, the Nature Conservancy is

the leading conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people

The study compares the impact to natural habitats in the United States of various types of new energy development. They refer to this as the “land use intensity” of energy, and it is measured in energy produced for a given land area. Specifically, they estimated the amount of land that will be needed for the USA to meet energy demands by the year 2030 for various energy sources. The group is concerned that the build out of new energy sources to meet growing demand and combat climate change could cause what they refer to as “energy sprawl” with detrimental impact to natural habitats. It turns out, there is a lot to worry about!

The results? It takes on average 72 square kilometers of land to provide one megawatt of energy for one year when wind turbines are used. Solar energy is better at 15 to 37 square kilometers, depending on the technology used. Nuclear energy has the lowest impact on land use of ANY energy source. In fact, nuclear energy has about one sixth the impact of solar thermal generation, and one thirtieth the impact of wind generation.

It takes just 2.4 square KM, or about one square mile to provide one megawatt of electricity for one year when that energy is derived from nuclear energy. This is a great example of how the incredible energy density of nuclear energy provides benefits to society.

Student Loans for Nuclear Plants

2009-10-31T13:41:00.001-04:00

Fast Fission Podcast #11 – MP3 File

A bi-partisan group of US Senators is pushing for an increase in the nuclear federal loan guarantee program. They argue the USA can not meet air pollution goals without a sizable nuclear expansion, and the loan guarantee program is essential to getting new construction underway. As it stands now the Federal government has approved $18.5 Billion in loan guarantees, but the industry is pushing for $50-100 billion.

Anti-nuclear groups are mounting a full assault, much as they did earlier this year when a small group in the House tried to get a similar provision added to the Waxman-Markey bill. In that case the anti's succeeded and the pro-nuclear provision was struck from the bill.

Anti-nuclear groups like Greenpeace call the proposal a "massive subsidy," but that stretches the truth. Loan guarantees are not subsidies, they are a guarantee by the government to repay investors for a portion of the cost if the borrower defaults. Their purpose is to reduce the risk of the loans so lenders can offer lower interest rates. The borrowers bear the full cost of the program plus administrative fees.

There's a parallel that many of us are familiar with: the federal college student loan program. The government guarantees student loans so that college students with limited resources can borrower money with favorable terms and at low interest rates. The program allows them to invest in an education they might otherwise be unable to afford. Even though the government backs student loan, the borrower is still required to repay the loan. If the borrower suffers some kind of financial catastrophe and is unable to repay, then the government pays off the loan and works with the borrower to recoup their losses. The program helps people invest in their future and the cost to the government is very, very low because the default rate is almost zero.

Think of the loan guarantees as student loans for nuclear plants. The government stands behind the loans, allowing the borrowers to get favorable terms for large investments they otherwise could not afford. The borrowers pay for the program, and they pay back the loans. Just like the student loan program, the nuclear loan guarantees are a wise investment in our future!

Radiation Health Risks from Nuclear Plants

2009-10-31T13:40:00.000-04:00

Get the MP3 Here

Sometimes bad things happen to good people for no apparent reason. This is particularly true when it come to illness. Sometimes people get sick and sometimes people die without ever knowing why or how they became ill. This can be difficult to accept because we believe we deserve answers and we want to find the cause of our suffering. We want to have someone or some thing to blame for our illness - that's human nature.

Over the years anti-nuclear activists have taken advantage of this aspect of human nature to spread fear about nuclear energy. I was listening to a radio show the other day and a gentleman called in to the show who was apparently the victim of this kind of misinformation.

[you’ll have to listen to the clip to hear what he said]

This gentleman firmly believes that radiation from a nuclear plant caused his father's death, and somehow influenced the health of his entire school class. He also claimed there are thousands of other people similarly affected. We all have friends and family members who have developed illnesses for no apparent reason, so it is easy to empathize with this gentleman.

I really do feel for him and his family, but the facts tell the opposite story: working in a nuclear plant is safer than just about any other profession, safer even than working in a retail store. Today, there are over 60,000 people working for nuclear utilities around the USA, and many thousands more at national laboratories and in related industries, plus hundreds of thousands who have worked there in the past. To suggest there is some grand conspiracy to cover up an epidemic of health effects is not only unrealistic, it is pure fantasy. There is no evidence to suggest that occupational radiation exposure at commercial nuclear plants has caused any ill health affects to workers or to the public.

In fact, many progressive scientists are beginning to consider the possibility that that low levels of radiation may have beneficial health effects because radiation may stimulate cellular repair mechanisms that protect against disease. This is called the “hormesis theory”. Here are some links to information about the hormesis theory. By the way, the hormesis theory does not only apply to radiation, it is a widely acknowledged affect that is the basis for homeopathic medicine.

Radiation Hormesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Introduction to Radiation Hormesis http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html

US Taxpayers Funding Wind & Solar Overseas

2009-10-31T13:39:00.000-04:00

Get the MP3 Here

It's 9:00 at night and I'm on an Amtrak train heading north out of Washington DC where I attended an awe inspiring inaugural Thorium Energy Alliance Conference. What a great event! I learned a lot about thorium as an energy source and about the various kinds of reactors that might take advantage of thorium's unique properties: its amazing energy density, proliferation resistance, safety, and suitability for low cost reactors that could be assembly line produced and deployed around the world. So I'm sitting on the train scanning the news coming across Twitter when a story from the NY Times almost made me scream out loud! I am NOT KIDDING! If I was at home not in a train car full of sleeping passengers I'd be screaming at my Blackberry in frustration!

Here's the deal: the United Nations recently formed a new agency called the International Renewable Energy Agency whose goal is to encourage deployment of renewable energy around the world, and foster sharing of technology between developed and undeveloped nations. Essentially, it is an international trade association promoting mostly wind and solar energy. So you might say, “No big deal, let them do their thing!” right?

Wrong!

The United States signed on to the group in July and, under UN rules, is now required to foot the bill for 22% of the new agency's operating expenses! That means that the US taxpayers are on the hook to pay $4 million per year now, and the annual amount will grow to $11 million per year within the next few years! Let's get this straight – we're paying between $4 and $11 million the worst economic recession in decades to fund deploying unreliable intermittent energy sources that can't operate without ongoing massive government subsidies. Developing nations don't need high cost intermittent energy; they are desperate for reliable base load energy.

So OK, $11 million is not that much money in the grand scheme of things, but in my mind it is throwing money down a rat hole. If these nations can't afford to buy the wind turbines, how are they ever going to afford to subsidize their operation and maintain them? Either we'll continue to subsidize them for years to come, or the turbines will go idle.

The other thing that really got me going was a statement by the new agency's boss, Helene Pelosse, a French official. When asked if IRENA, as the new agency is known, would hold a pro-nuclear policy she replied, “IRENA will not deal with nuclear energy, simply because it is not renewable. Nuclear and renewable energy have nothing to do with each other.” Ms. Pelosse obviously does not keep up with the times! If she had listened to "This Week in Nuclear" episode #74 she would know that nuclear energy is in fact renewable because it can be naturally replenished and is virtually inexhaustible. Her position so violently opposed to nuclear energy exemplifies just how scared renewable energy providers and investors are of nuclear energy. They KNOW renewables can never compete on a level playing field with low cost, safe, reliable, carbon-free nuclear energy.

Well, I'm glad I got that rant off my chest – time to stare out the train window and contemplate how we'll get Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors deployed to save planet Earth.

Why am I so passionate about nuclear energy?

2009-10-31T13:38:00.000-04:00

Get the MP3 Here

Today is Blog Action Day 2009 and this year's topic is Climate Change.

Is man made climate change real or not? Heck, I don't know. What I DO know is this: whether or not human activity is causing global warming or not, there are certain things that it just makes sense for us to be doing.

We need to wean ourselves off of imported fossil fuels as our primary energy source. Oil and gas won't last forever and prices are sure to rise as supplies dwindle and demand grows. Imported fossil fuels come from places in the world that have amassed huge amounts of wealth at our expense. A lot of that money is funding people who want to kill us and destroy the freedoms that millions of people have died to earn and to protect.

We should stop burning coal because it is polluting our air and water with arsenic, mercury, acid rain, and particulate matter that we know is killing tens of thousands of people each year. Thousands more die each year digging coal out of the ground.

We need to become energy independent so that the countries that supply our fossil fuel addiction will no longer have influence on our foreign policies and internal business.

We need to create high paying jobs for our people producing energy that we make at home, and energy products we can export to the rest of the world. This will improve our standard of living and ensure our children and grandchildren have at least as good a life as we have.

We need to respect the environment and choose a way of life that is both sustainable and supports a high standard of living.

We need to find a way to help the less fortunate people of the world to rise out of poverty. Access to plentiful, low cost, clean energy is the single most important factor in raising the standard of living of a society.

I live and work in the United States, but that is not relevant; all of these same basic principles apply regardless of where you live.

I am an engineer and an experienced manager. I could make a good living in any industry. I choose to work in the nuclear industry because I believe in the technology and the great contributions that nuclear power does and will do for society. Nuclear energy can help us accomplish all of these lofty goals. I know this in my head and in my heart. Nuclear energy is not perfect, no source of energy is. When used wisely and with respect energy from the atom helps us make the world a better place for ourselves, and all future generations.

Peace!

John Wheeler

Blog Action Day 2009

Nuclear Blogger Meeting

2009-10-31T13:37:00.000-04:00

Get the MP3 Here

Who says blogging and podcasting has to be all work and no play? Come and join your favorite nuclear bloggers, reporters, writers and podcasters at an "underground meet up" on Tuesday, November 17 , 2009 at 6:00 PM at the Omni Hotel. Participants will include more than a dozen of today's most influential pro-nuclear voices on the Internet and in print.

My sources tell me the following people have indicated they plan to attend:

Rod Adams, Atomic Insights Blog and The Atomic Show podcast

Dan Yurman, Idaho Samizdat blog and The Energy Collective

Yours truely (John Wheeler, This Week in Nuclear)

Nancy Roth, Andrea Jennetta; Fuel Cycle Week Blog

Ted Rockwell, Learning about Nuclear Blog

William Tucker, author, Terrestrial Energy and blogger at Energy Collective,

Edward Kee, moderator of the “Nuclear Power, Next Generation Group,” at Linkedin,

Jarret Adams, Areva US blog,

Tim Chambers, Dewey Square Group, and

Dave Bradish, lead blogger, Nuclear Energy Institute

Cam Abernethy, Webmaster, Nuclear Street

Alan Rominger, North Carolina State University

Lisa Stiles, pro-nuclear activist and occasional contributor to NEI Nuclear Notes and various other blogs and podcasts

Jeff Madison of Cool Hand Nuke

Ruth Markus, blogger at http://nuclearpowertalk.blogspot.com , and a former ANS president

Word is spreading quickly and the celebrity list is growing by the day!

I referred to the event as "underground" because while it is being held at the same venue as the ANS Winter Meeting, our gathering is independent of ANS. And hey, "underground"describes independence and spontaneity which is certainly the case. Plus having an 'underground meet up" sounds much cooler than saying we're having a meeting or a party! Anyway, it is sure to be a great time. Who knows, maybe we'll do a live show!

Everyone is invited - just show up! If we overflow the space we'll move to a nearby social establishment!

Light refreshments are being provided by Areva and Cool Hand Nuke. Many thanks to Dan Yurman for his leadership in kicking this off!

Media Bias, Anyone?

2009-10-31T13:36:00.000-04:00

Get the MP3 File Here

I have a Google alert set up to notify me when nuclear related news stories hit the wire services and I’ve noticed something interesting: every spring and fall there’s a flood of media coverage when nuclear plants begin shutting down for refueling outages. In fact just today I received 14 messages letting me know that a hand full of nuclear units shut down to refuel. Power plants like to schedule maintenance when electricity demand and replacement power prices are at their lowest, and that means in the fall and spring.

The spring / fall outage practice is not unique to nuclear plants; other kinds of power plants do it too. Interestingly enough, though, we rarely hear about coal, hydro, gas or wind power plant outages. The media does not seem to report when large coal or hydro plants shut down. If the news were being fairly reported, statistically, we would be hearing about even more power plant shutdowns.

Take coal for example; according to Wikipedia there are 1493 coal power plants in operation in the United States (compared to 104 nuclear plants). Taking into account typical nuclear refueling outages and the lower reliability of coal plants each spring and fall there are 25 to 30 nuclear plant outages and more than 400 coal plant outages. We should be getting blasted with news reports of coal plants shutting down! Instead, while there are more than ten times as many opportunities to report coal plant outages, we virtually never get those reports. I looked today and I could not find a single news story in the last week of any coal or hydro plant in the United States shutting down for any reason!

This is a subtle example of media bias against nuclear energy. ANYTHING that happens in a nuclear plant is news, yet we almost never hear of events, routine or otherwise, that take place at other kinds of power plants. I suppose the reporters and editors would argue they’re only reporting what the public wants to hear. Perhaps it’s the other way around – maybe they are selecting which events to report as a way of pushing an agenda. I’ll let you decide which is true but I think the data speaks for itself.

By the way, the photo on the right above is of the Gardiner Reid Power Plant in Nevada. According to the Environmental News Service, this plant produces the greatest amount of greenhouse gas of any power plant in the United States. The photo on the left is Wolf Creek Nuclear plant, an 1140 MW nuclear plant that produces zero greenhouse gasses while supplying enough energy for about 800,000 customers. Wolf Creek began a refueling outage today.

Will the USA Follow Europe and Become Dependent on Russian Gas?

2009-10-31T13:35:00.001-04:00

Get the MP3 Here

News stories are not always as benign as they appear.

On October 9, 2009 Forbes.com ran a story about Gazprom, Russia's state owned natural gas company. It would seem they've set up shop in Houston, TX and have begun a very aggressive program to enter the US natural gas market. They are targeting 5% of the market within 5 years, and 10% within 10 years.

Their strategy? Import LNG into the US and sell it at a price low enough to undercut domestic suppliers. Since the US uses about 60 billion cubic feet of gas per day, that would mean importing 6 billion cu feet per day from Russia. That amount of gas would mean $64 Million flowing out of the US into Russia every day, along with a loss of American jobs and energy security.

Russia already has undue political influence in Europe where they control a large percentage of the natural gas supply. There's little the USA can do to prevent the Russians from carryout out their plan; LNG is a commodity bought and sold on the international market. The only sure way to prevent importing energy is to have a supply of lower cost home-grown energy. The only large scale domestic energy sources with low enough costs to compete with gas are coal and nuclear. Wind and solar can't compete with the price and are too unpredictable for base load energy. With air pollution and carbon concerns, it's unlikely coal will be an option for expansion in the near term, at least until carbon capture and storage is commercialized.

That leaves nuclear energy as the only option. And it is a good option too! Each new nuclear plant that comes on line eliminates the need to burn 250 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. Using current natural gas prices,every large nuclear plant displaces $857K per day in gas sales. The same is true in Europe, where each nuclear plant built takes a bite out of Gazprom's profits.

Nuclear-Powered Electric Vehicles

2009-10-31T13:34:00.000-04:00

Get the mp3 here

Will hybrid electric vehicles spell the end of the oil age? At least one major international bank thinks so. This week Deutsche Bank released a report that predicts a oil prices will spike causing US consumers to flock to high-mileage hybrid vehicles. This in turn will cause petroleum demand to dive and never recover. In the end, electric and hybrid electric vehicles will take over the roads.

When this happens, with one-fifth of the electric grid powered from clean nuclear energy, we'll be shifting our transportation energy source from imported oil to home grown nuclear energy.

But not everyone agrees. According to the WSJ Environmental Capitol blog, Lux Research, a research and consulting firm that specializes in providing strategic analysis related to emerging technologies, believes high battery price, low oil prices, and low demand for new cars could limit the growth of hybrid electric cars.

I agree that economics will be a key factor in whether or not the average consumer will choose hybrids or EV's over traditional gasoline or diesel powered vehicles. But there's more to consumer behaviors than simple economic; convenience, and emotions pay a role, too.

I wonder if anyone over at Lux Research has actually driven a hybrid. I have and I can tell you that even at current fuel prices the cost savings to driving a hybrid are significant and the increase in range means fewer stops at the filling station. There's something very satisfying to getting 500 miles from a 10 gallon tank of gas! Of course the same thing is possible in light weight diesel engine vehicles.

A Lot to Like in Kerry-Boxer

2009-10-31T13:33:00.000-04:00

Get the MP3 Here

The senate has released their version of the climate bill and there’s a lot to like in it. The bill was drafted by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California. Unlike the House climate bill, the Senate version makes it clear that meeting CO2 reduction targets is impossible without nuclear energy. The bill contains at least a starting point for discussing how to responsibly promote the expansion of nuclear energy.

This is good news! We finally have the new Congress going on the record in favor of nuclear energy, and influential Democrats doing so who in the past would never have been so vocally supportive. There will be plenty of debate, and the nuclear “Title” might not survive to the final climate bill, but this is a big step in the right direction!

Nuclear's Brand Recognition

2009-10-31T13:32:00.000-04:00

Download mp3 here

I’m happy to see the nuclear industry getting it’s name out there in the public eye. It’s about time!

The latest venture is sponsorship of the Washington Capitols Hockey Team in an advertisement promoting the “Clean Air benefits” at Verizon Center in Washing DC. Hey, if T. Boone Pickens can do it, so can we! According to the Associated Press, the ad has some anti-nuclear groups fuming! In my book that’s a good thing! Greenpeace hates it when we tell the truth in a way that the public can relate!

This follows on the heels of NEI and Entergy’s sponsorship of a Newman Wachs Atlantic Championship race car.

Keep it up! Before you know it Nuclear Energy will be a household name!

What Nuclear Waste Problem?

2009-10-31T13:27:00.003-04:00

Get the MP3 Here

Download printable version here

I have a family member that I love dearly and have an infinite amount of respect for. She is a fantastic mother, a caring person, respected in her chosen profession, and a good friend. She would do anything she could to help someone in need. When we first met she was strongly opposed to nuclear energy. Over the years we have discussed it from time to time and I’ve had some influence on her perspective. She's not totally won over yet, but we’re making progress. Not too long ago she asked me, “But what about the waste? That really worries me!” She really didn’t believe me when I said “There’s no such thing as a nuclear waste problem. That’s nothing but a myth.”

Let me explain.

Used nuclear fuel is very safely stored in earthquake proof storage pools and dry storage casks at nuclear plants around the USA. It can stay there until we’re ready to recycle it, and we WILL recycle it eventually because it would be a waste not to do so. When we remove used fuel from a reactor more than 90% of the potential energy is still in the fuel. It would be wasteful to even consider putting it in a hole a mile underground! Also, when we do recycle it, the left over material is much smaller and is much easier to handle, but we’ll talk about that in a few minutes.

First we need to look at the components of used power reactor fuel, and recognize that with recycling each of the components can be separated from one another. A typical batch of used nuclear reactor fuel is made up of the following materials (not counting the structural materials):

Uranium: 93%
Plutonium: 1.5%
Minor Actinides: 0.2%
Fission Products: 5.3%

When the fuel is new the concentration of the isotope U-235 is about 4% and U-238 is the rest. After the fuel is burned in a reactor the uranium is mostly U-238 (very close to the isotopic mix of natural uranium) because most of the U-235 gets burned out by absorbing neutrons and fissioning. There is also a small but important amount of plutonium that is formed when uranium atoms capture neutrons but do not fission. This is called “breeding” and in fact at the end of life of a reactor fuel load more than 20% of the heat generated is from the fission of plutonium atoms formed by breeding. All of this plutonium and uranium can be mixed back together to make new nuclear fuel. This is what is commonly referred to as mixed oxide fuel, or MOX fuel. MOX fuel is currently used in commercial reactors in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium.

Risk of Diverting Used Power Reactor Fuel for Weapons

This is a good time to discuss a common misperception about reprocessing and the risk that a rogue nation would use commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing as a source for weapons grade plutonium. It turns out this really is not an issue. The plutonium from used fuel is a mixture of five isotopes, Pu-238 through Pu-242.

Let’s take a look at how each plutonium isotope would affect a nuclear weapon:

Pu-238, 240, and 242 all spontaneously fission which produces neutrons and a lot of heat. If used in a bomb, the material would heat up and melt the high-explosive material used to trigger the device. The neutrons can also cause an early detonation which would lower the yield of the bomb. Pu-241 decays to an undesirable isotope americium-241. Americium-241 emits intense alpha particles and gamma rays. If used in a weapon it would cause a high radiation fields that would make handling the device very difficult. It would also make the weapon easier to detect. Only Pu-239 is good for weapons. In weapons grade plutonium, the Pu-239 makes up more than 90% of the total, but in reactor grade plutonium only about 53% of the material is Pu-239. The rest made up of the other undesirable plutonium isotopes.

So while it is technically possible to create a nuclear explosion using reactor grade plutonium, in the real world with real world limitations and constraints it would be virtually impossible to create a deployable nuclear weapon from reactor grade plutonium. The US NRC agrees with me in this. On the safety of MOX fuel fabricated from down-blended weapons grade plutonium after it has been used in a nuclear power plant the NRC says,

Using the plutonium in the reactor as MOX fuel makes using it for any other purposes difficult.

Of all of the nations that have developed nuclear weapons, none have ever obtained their plutonium from used nuclear fuel from a power reactor. Usually it comes from special kind of test or research reactor called a “fast reactor” that makes mostly Pu-239.

This raises a logical question; if reactor grade plutonium is unsuitable for building bombs, why did the USA ban reprocessing commercial fuel in the mid-1970’s? The basis for the commercial fuel reprocessing ban was political and was NOT supported by sound science or engineering. Even though President Reagan later overturned the ban, the damage was done. Now, thirty years later, companies like Areva and GE are proposing new fuel recycling facilities in the USA but those are years away from being a reality. In the mean time, this is yet another area where the USA has lost it’s technological lead. Canada, Russia, France, and the UK all went on to develop reprocessing industries and now sell MOX fuel to customers around the world.

We have not completely overcome our national irrational aversion to MOX fuel. NRC rules make it very difficult for commercial reactors in the USA to take advantage of MOX fuel. It is not enough for plant operators to prove MOX fuel will perform as expected based sophisticated computer modeling and hundreds of reactor years of experience around the world. Any operator who wants to take advantage of MOX fuel must

Amend their operating license to allow using MOX fuel, a process that includes public comment and inevitable interference by anti-nuclear groups,

Operate with test fuel assemblies for “a few years”

Analyze the performance of the fuel, then submit a report to the NRC

Finally, the NRC must review and approve the final application.

Utilities are in the business to make electricity, not perform research and development. Unless the rules are streamlined to allow the thoughtful application of international experience it is unlikely many utilities will choose to use MOX fuel. The Catawba nuclear plant in South Carolina went through this process as part of a US DOE funded program. They ran a test from 2005 through 2008 with several MOX test assemblies. The MOX fuel in the test was fabricated from down-blended weapons grade plutonium, not from reprocessed reactor fuel, and was part of a government program to dispose of excess weapons grade material.

Let’s Finish Recycling Our Used Nuclear Fuel

After we remove the uranium and plutonium and recycle it back to other reactors to be burned again we are left with a combination of actinides and fission products making up about 5.5% of the original mass. Within this mixture there are several highly valuable isotopes that can be extracted and sold commercially. Many like strontium, cesium, iodine, chromium and iron have medical uses such as treating various kinds of cancer and perform special tests. There are also many industrial uses for isotopes like californium, americium, and krypton. These materials can fetch hundreds or even thousands of dollars per gram!

Recycling Nuclear Fuel is a Good Idea

Including structural materials and other factors, with reprocessing the volume of waste requiring long term disposal is only about 25% of the original volume. This can be safely vitrified (mixed with glass) as is done in France, or encased in corrosion resistant containers, then monitored while the radiation decays to near background levels. Also, when the MOX fuel is returned to the reactor we are greatly increasing the amount of energy extracted from the original uranium. This means we need to mine less uranium ore (creating less environmental impact) and we greatly extend our fuel supply. It does cost more to reprocess fuel compared to the current once-through fuel cycle, but because the price of uranium is such a small component of the total electricity costs from nuclear plants, the financial impact is very low.

The chemical / mechanical process used to recycle reactor fuel is called the PUREX process. In this process the used fuel is first dissolved in aqueous nitric acid. Then kerosene and tributyl phosphate, an organic solvent are added. The Pu and U stay together and separate out from the minor actinides and fission products.

What is “Depleted Uranium” and Is it toxic?

Anti-nuclear activists often try to make a big deal out of how “depleted” uranium is handled. When dug out of the ground, natural uranium ore contains three isotopes, U-238 (99.27%), U-234 (0.001%), and U-235 (0.2%). To prepare the uranium for use as a reactor fuel the percentage of U-235 is raised to anywhere from about 1% to about 4% of the total. This is accomplished by removing some of the U-238 from the mixture to increase the relative amount of U-235. This process is called “enriching” the uranium. The left over U-238 that is removed during the enrichment process is called “depleted” because it is depleted of U-235.

Because the U-235 is more radioactive than the left over U-238, depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural ore. If we chose to, we could put the depleted uranium back into the hole in the ground where we extracted the ore, and we would be leaving the encironment less naturally radioactive than it was in its natural state. Of course, environmental regulations won’t allow that. That’s no worry; there’s a good market for depleted uranium because of its unique physical and chemical properties. It is very dense (about twice as dense as lead) so it makes great counter weights for aircraft. Depleted uranium (DU) is a very good radiation shield, so it is used as safety shielding for medical personnel who work in nuclear medicine around x-ray machines and other imaging devices. Also, DU is very tough so it is used by the military as armor for vehicles and in armor piercing rockets.

According to the World Health Organization, the health risks of exposure to depleted uranium are extremely low.

Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used.

With this in mind, the WHO inspected sites where DU weapons were used in Kosovo and concluded there was very little risk of exposure to people who live nearby.

References:

Federation of American Scientists at http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/plutonium.htm

“Terrestrial Energy” by William Tucker

Answers.com at http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-fuel-reprocessing

The European Nuclear Society http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/p/purex-process.htm

NRC on MOX Fuel at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/mox-bg.html

World Health Organization in depleted uranium at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

A Gathering of Visionaries

2009-10-31T13:26:00.001-04:00

Get the MP3 Here

Sitting in the audience at the 1st Thorium Energy Alliance Conference, I could not help but think about the people who stood around that pile of uranium and graphite in a squash court almost 70 years ago at the site of the first man-made self-sustained nuclear chain reaction. Most were visionaries, brilliant scientists, some engineers, and a few reporters. I wondered how many of them truly understood the significance of what they were doing that day and how their work would change the world.

The mix of talent was the same here today; engineers, physicists, and media. They clearly have a vision for the future and a compelling case for getting there. This podcast is an audio recording of the keynote address for the conference provided by Kirk Sorensen of Energy from Thorium, a passionate engineer with a vision that is best told in his own words.

I've been reporting events from the conference using Twitter. If you are not following me on Twitter you might want to give it a try. You can follow me here or on the link on the right side bar of this page.

John Wheeler

Saber Rattling & Iran's Nuclear Program

2009-10-31T13:22:00.001-04:00

Get the MP3 File Here

News outlets around the world were buzzing last week when Iran announced in a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it has built a second nuclear fuel enrichment facility deep under a mountain near the city of Qom. The UN security council appeared outraged and the US government claimed it has known of the facility for “some time.”

There continues to be deep disagreement between Iran and the UN Security Council about the Islamic Republic’s intentions and their responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran claims they are following the rules to the letter: they notified the IAEA about the facility 180 days before it is scheduled to go into operation, precisely as required by their agreement with the IAEA. President Obama on the other hand, stated Iran is “breaking the rules all nations must follow.,” and other members of the Security Council seem to agree. They cite a later UN provision that requires Iran to notify them before building any such facility.

Herein lies the problem: there are TWO SETS OF RULES! The earlier version required Iran to notify the IAEA before loading special nuclear material into a new facility – essentially they had to tell the IAEA (a branch of the UN) 180 days before beginning operation. A later version of the rule requires notification before beginning beginning construction of an enrichment facility. Iran claims they are not required to comply with the later version because other parties to the agreement (the USA and Europe) failed to meet their end of the deal. Specifically, under what are called the “additional protocols” and the “Subsidiary Agreement” the USA and Western European nations were to recognize Iran’s legitimate right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and in exchange Iran would agree to notify the IAEA before BUILDING more enrichment capacity. The earlier version of the agreements required notification later in the process – before OPERATING a new enrichment facility.

At least one nuclear weapons expert says Iran is right. Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, says Iran is both legally and technically correct. According to Mr. Ritter, Iran agreed to voluntarily follow the later agreement pending ratification by their Parliament. Since their Parliament has never ratified the agreement, Iran is not legally bound to it. Instead, Iran is bound by the earlier agreement requiring Iran to inform the IAEA about the facility before beginning operation.

Mr. Ritter also says the IAEA currently has a 100% accounting for all of Iran’s nuclear material and none has been diverted to weapons production or enriched to weapons grade. If Scott Ritter is correct, and I have no reason to doubt his expertise, then two things are true: (1) Iran has not broken any laws or treaties by building a second enrichment facility, and (2) there should be no cause for alarm or immediate concern that they will develop nuclear weapons.
This past weekend I had the opportunity to enjoy the company of a group of old friends, all of them well educated and well traveled. Somehow we got on the topic of Iran’s nuclear program and they seemed surprised by my opinion that Iran is being bullied by the US and other security council members. “Why?”, they asked, “would an oil rich nation like Iran bother with a nuclear energy program when they have all the energy they need?” I think there are many people who have the same question and conclude Iran’s sole purpose for developing a nuclear energy program is to produce weapons. To me the answer is fairly simple: Iran wants what every nation wants; products to export with a value greater than their imports, a secure energy supply, and good jobs for its citizens.

While Iran is the 5th largest petroleum producer in the world, they import 40% of their energy supply! This is because they lack the refining capacity to turn their crude oil into fuel products. They are exporting crude oil, a valuable raw material, but they are missing out of the opportunity to create jobs and wealth at home by turning that raw material into higher value products to use at home and to sell abroad. They would like to generate a surplus of wealth that they can invest into building more refining capacity and more manufacturing capacity for other kinds of durable goods. They are exporting a lower value product, essentially paying other nations refine it, then importing the higher valued finished products.

In addition, virtually all of their electricity comes from burning oil. This is oil they could be exporting to earn cash, or refining at home and exporting the products for even greater earnings. Because nuclear energy can produce electricity at a fraction of the cost of oil, they want to build nuclear plants replace the oil-fired plants. This way they can sell more oil or refined products, and refine oil with lower cost energy from nuclear plants. They are also looking to the future. As oil becomes more scarce the cost of continuing to burn oil for electricity will become a greater and greater burden on their economy. They need to have an energy source that is insulated from that price volatility. It makes perfect economic sense that Iran wants to build nuclear power plants and to produce their own nuclear energy fuel.

I have been critical of Iran in the past for their unwillingness to operate their nuclear program under full transparency and for their aggressive statements that tend to destabilize an already fragile situation in the Middle East. I still hold those opinions. However, I support their developing nuclear know how and the capability to build power plants and create their own nuclear fuel. Of course I oppose their developing nuclear weapons, yet I believe that if they have a strong desire and motivation to acquire nuclear weapons there is very little any other nation can do to stop them. Military action short of total annihilation would create only temporary setbacks and would foster such ill will that revenge and retaliation would inevitably follow.

Thorium Energy Alliance Conference

On a much more positive note, I want let you know about a very special event that will be held on October 19th and 20th in Washington DC. The first ever Thorium Energy Alliance Conference will be held at the Kellogg Conference Hotel. This is a two day event that will feature topics like understanding thorium energy, recent investments in the technology, various reactor designed that use thorium as a fuel, and much more.

Here's a flier for the conference and links to their web site where you can get all the information on rates, locations, and the agenda. I am still unsure if I'll be able to attend, but I am doing my best to be there. One thing that I think is fantastic is that the entire conference will be video taped and will eventually be posted on the Thorium Energy Alliance web site. When that happens even if you are unable to attend in person you'll be able to review more than 20 hours of video on line.

Episode 74 - The Renewable Question, News & Events

2009-09-30T19:22:00.001-04:00

Download the Audio File Here

In this podcast I discuss the question “Is Nuclear Energy Renewable?” that I first posed in a recent blog post.

In addition, I added the following discussion of recent news and events:

Indian Point License Extension Proceeds Despite Anti-Nuclear Hurdles

Despite barriers erected by anti-nuclear groups to block the license renewal for the Indian Point nuclear reactors, the two unit nuclear plant in NY has passed two major hurdles in the life extension process.

On August 12 NRC issued their final safety evaluation report and concluded there are no safety issues that would preclude running the plants for another 20 years.

On Sept 23 the independent Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and independent team of experts that advice the NRC, recommended that the license extension be granted.

Unless renewed, the current licenses expire in 2013 and 2015.

In 2007 the anti-nuclear group Riverkeeper filed five contentions opposing the 20 year license extensions. The NRC granted Riverkeeper a hearing to review arguments on three of their five contentions. In those hearings Riverkeeper was unable to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims and the NRC ruled the contentions had no merit.

On the NRC’s web site they have a schedule showing a tentative final decision on Indian Point’s relicensing in February of 2010.

Riverkeeper’s opposition of the plant is backed by several elected officials including Andrew Cuomo, the State Attorney General with a long family tradition of anti-nuclear politics. Twenty years ago his father, then Governor Mario Cuomo successfully closed the brand new Shoreham nuclear plant. In Super Mario’s deal the state purchased the plant for $1, and passed on $5 Billion in construction costs to taxpayers who received nothing in return except some of the highest electricity rates in the country. That case was a perfect example of the flawed two-step licensing process in which utilities were first issued a permit to construct the plant, and then after the plant was built they applied for a license to operate the reactor. The new reactor licensing process is a combined construction and operating license (called a COL) that should be more predictable for utilities and investors.

The NRC has received 17 COL applications from utilities interested in building 26 new reactors, but has suspended the review of four applications at the request of the applicants.

Pro-Nuclear Victory in Germany

This week there was a huge win in Germany for supporters of nuclear energy. Angela Merkel was reelected Chancellor and vowed to reverse that nation’s plans to prematurely shut down their 17 nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy currently provides 31% of Germany’s electricity and closing the reactors will mean higher energy costs and greater reliance on imported coal and natural gas. Her coalition government now has a comfortable majority over the opposition Green Party and Social Democratic Party who were responsible for instituting the nuclear phase out in 1998 in favor of wind and other renewable energy sources.

Germany’s plan to replace nuclear energy and fossil fuels with renewable has not yielded the results that the Green Party promised. While it’s true that with heavy government subsidies the production of wind energy in Germany has grown exponentially, the amounts are still too small to offset growth in demand. Since 1991 Germany’s coal imports have more than doubled from 20 million short tons per year in 1991 to about 49 million short tons in 2006 and their natural gas imports have risen by more than 10%. German utilities are planning to build several new coal plants to keep up with demand. With the possibility of nuclear plants staying open beyond 2020 some of those coal plant projects will need a second look.

Other News

INL has created a new FaceBook page for news, videos and photo galleries of energy research projects. They have recently won several new energy research grants (thanks to Tom Fields and Ryan Weeks)http://www.facebook.com/idahonationallaboratory

Upcoming Events:

Center for Energy Workforce Development – Annual Summit October 7-9 in Indianapolis, IN

Symposium on Nuclear Energy in Pennsylvania and the Mid-Atlantic – October 15 – 19 State College PA (thanks to Karen from Penn State)

Thorium Energy Alliance – First Meeting in Washington DC on October 19 and 20, 2009 (Thank you to John Kutsch)

“How to Identify, Control & Mitigate Risk Factors for Time and Cost Effective Project in US Nuclear Construction” – By Nuclear Energy Insider on Oct 26-27 in Washington DC. $200 discount if you mention “This Week in Nuclear” when you register (thanks to Louise).

ANS Winter Meeting – November 15-19 in Washington DC

Peace!

John Wheeler

Is Nuclear Energy Renewable?

2009-09-30T19:19:00.002-04:00

Broad support for nuclear energy is growing. The once maligned energy source is finding new friends across the political and social landscape from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to Bob Geldolf of the Boomtown Rats. Conservatives Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have been talking up nuclear energy for some time. Now even people like liberal columnist Thomas Friedman and Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace are advocating a nuclear expansion. All this is happening because people are becoming more educated about nuclear energy. They are beginning to view the anti-nuclear crowd as close-minded and unable to acknowledge the differences between nuclear weapons and the peaceful, safe uses of nuclear energy.

With this kind of support building, it's time to answer an important question...

Is Nuclear Energy Renewable ?

It's an important question because "renewable energy" is viewed by governments, policy makers and opinion leaders as the path to a cleaner, safer world. In addition, "renewable portfolio standards," designed to reduce carbon emissions and cut fossil fuel consumption by forcing utilities to generate part of their power from renewable sources, ignore the carbon-free contribution made by nuclear energy facilities. Permitting utilities to credit nuclear energy towards meeting renewable portfolio standards would help the nation meet greenhouse gas reduction targets more quickly and more cheaply.

It's time to examine the definition of "renewable" and determine if nuclear energy deserves to receive the RENEWABLE seal of approval.

First let's look at the definition of RENEWABLE. The Energy Information Administration, a non-partisan section of the US Department of Energy, is tasked with providing "policy-neutral data, forecasts, and analyses to promote sound policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment." The EIA defines "renewable energy," as “Energy sources that are naturally replenishing but flow limited. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time." The EIA currently recognizes biomass, hydro, geothermal, solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action and tidal action as renewable energy sources.

There are three key phrases in the renewable energy definition: "naturally replenished", "virtually inexhaustible" , and "limited in the amount of energy available per unit of time." We'll evaluate the attributes of nuclear energy against each of these three criteria to determine if nuclear meets this definition of renewable.

Criteria 1: Is nuclear energy naturally replenished?

Nuclear energy is naturally replenished under the certain conditions. Most people view nuclear fission as a man-made phenomena, and would be surprised to learn about the Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor.

The Oklo reactor was a naturally occurring fission reactor that operated in west Africa up until about 1.7 billion years ago. Not only did scientists discover that nuclear fission has occurred in nature, they also determined that "breeding" occurred naturally in the Oklo reactor. "Breeding" is what scientists and engineers call the process by which nuclear fuel is naturally replenished as a reactor operates. The Oklo reactor was an amazing natural machine that ran, produced heat, and bred some of it's own fuel for 2 billion years!

Breeding nuclear fuel is not just a hypothetical possibility; mankind has already demonstrated breeding on a commercial scale. In fact, the final core that ran in the Shippingport reactor in PA was an experimental breeder core. Analysis of the Shippingport core after five years of operation proved that there was more fuel present at the end of life than when they started it up. In fact, after five years the core was still going strong and was shut down only because the experiment had ended.

Thus, criteria 1 is met because through the process of breeding nuclear energy is naturally replenished.

There are other arguments that support the "naturally replenished" criteria. For example, some scientists and engineers believe that uranium can be commercially extracted from seawater. Since rain and erosion naturally washes uranium out of rocks and into the sea where it would be collected, the rain provides an additional mechanism naturally replenishing our nuclear fuel supply.

Finally, nuclear fuel can be recycled through "re-processing" in which impurities are removed from used nuclear fuel. This allows the fuel to be reused over and over again greatly extending its life and increasing the amount of energy extracted from it. While this is not a natural process, it further supports the concept of a fuel supply that can be replenished.

Criteria 2: Is nuclear energy "virtually inexhaustible?"

Some anti-nuclear groups argue that the supply of uranium will limit the expansion of nuclear energy. According to the European Nuclear Society, there are sufficient known uranium reserves to power the world's reactors for "several decades." That would certainly NOT support the "virtually inexhaustible" criteria, but that is not the whole story. This statistic accounts for only "known" uranium reserves. Uranium is a fairly abundant mineral and most experts believe there is a lot more uranium available that will be discovered when market demand rises and there is economic incentive for prospectors and mining companies to search for more. There are recent examples to support this belief. For example, just one newly discovered uranium vein under a Virginia farm contains enough ore to power all the reactors in the USA for two years.

The limited supply argument also completely ignores the existence of thorium, another fissile element that is even more abundant that uranium. There is sufficient thorium to run our entire electric grid on nuclear fission for more than 1000 years. Thorium has many useful properties that make it an excellent fuel for commercial reactors, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion (go to Energy From Thorium for more info).

Finally, as breeder reactors become more commonplace the ability for nuclear fuel to be naturally replenished will add to the already abundant fuel supply.

Criteria 2 is met: taking into account the abundance of uranium and thorium, recycling, and breeding, the nuclear fuel supply is virtually inexhaustible. With the use of already demonstrated technologies mankind is unlikely to ever run out of fuel for nuclear reactors.

Criteria 3: Is Nuclear Energy "Limited"?

The final criteria the EIA uses to describe renewable energy is "limited in the amount of energy available per unit time." This is an interesting criteria because the use of the word "limited" is highly subjective. All energy sources are "limited" because each provides a finite amount of energy per second, minute, or hour. It's even more curious to consider why the EIA would establish a criteria that conflicts with a goal of any usable energy source: to be available WHEN needed and IN THE AMOUNT needed? The use of "limited" in this context describes an attribute of existing renewables (wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and biomass) rather than a criteria by which other energy sources should be measured for entry into the club. In fact, it can be argued that "limited" is an undesirable attribute rather than a criteria. For these reasons we won't consider "limited" a criteria energy sources must meet to be considered renewable, but rather an attribute to describe the existing inventory of renewable energy sources.

When compared to low density, intermittent energy sources, nuclear energy is a superior on-demand, large scale energy source.

Conclusions

While the US government does not presently characterize nuclear energy as a renewable energy source, there is an undeniable scientific basis for considering nuclear energy "renewable" because

nuclear energy is naturally replenished, and

nuclear energy is virtually inexhaustible

In fact, nuclear energy is a superior renewable energy source because it meets these criteria and it is available on demand in large, controllable quantities.

Based on the above Energy Information Administration and policy makers should recognize that nuclear energy is a renewable energy source. In addition, existing and proposed Renewable Portfolio Standards should be revised to allow full credit for nuclear generated electricity. Doing so will foster creation of a level playing field in which technologies can succeed or fail based on their technical merits, costs, and benefits provided.

Printable Version (pdf)

Episode 73 - Exploring Nuclear Lake (video)

2009-09-30T19:17:00.000-04:00

Download the Video File Here

Join me on an expedition to Nuclear Lake, the site of an early atomic research and development facility. The Nuclear Lake Facility was the site of a plutonium spill that has been the target of a great deal of anti-nuclear criticism over the years.

Recently anti-nuclear activists have posted fictitious accounts of mutant fish and acid-like water in Nuclear Lake.

We were shocked fishing in nuclear lake at the shear size and magnitude of the fish. They were nothing like we had seen before. We had several basscrocodile mix fish that weighed in at 17-30 lbs. i do not understand why this is not catching the eye of the authorities. I reported this to the nuclear regulatory commitee with no response. Beware fishing there, fish from shore, I personaly saw several fish over 8 ft. in length feeding on large canadian geese.

and

do not swim here. I has lost a lure in a submerged tree brance and was severely bitten by the strange fish there when reaching in to retrieve the line. Do not submerge human flesh in any way!!! The fish here do not resemble normal fish. beware, i would not eat them.

Come with me to Nuclear Lake and we'll discover the truth.

Thomas Friedman is Right - We're a Nation of Anti-nuclear Wimps!

2009-09-30T19:16:00.001-04:00

We're a nation of wimps. At least that's the opinion of NY Times Op Ed Columnist and three time Pulitzer Prize winning author Thomas S. Friedman. I read his column fairly regularily and don't always agree with his opinions, but in this case Friedman is right on the money.

We are, in fact, the wimps of the world. We are, in fact, so wimpy our politicians are afraid to even talk about how wimpy we are.

How so? France today generates nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, and it has managed to deal with all the radioactive waste issues without any problems or panics. And us? We get about 20 percent and have not been able or willing to build one new nuclear plant since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, even though that accident led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or neighbors. We’re too afraid to store nuclear waste deep in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain — totally safe — at a time when French mayors clamor to have reactors in their towns to create jobs. In short, the French stayed the course on clean nuclear power, despite Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and we ran for cover.

Later in the article he proposes the US implement a $1 per gallon Federal gasoline tax to pay down the national debt, and fund a national healthcare plan. That makes little sense to me.

Such a tax would raise $140 billion per year. If the United States were to choose to use that tactic to drive down demand for imported energy, then why not put 100% of the proceeds back into the energy infrastructure to build clean, homegrown, on-demand energy sources. Half of that sum, $70 billion could fund the construction of about 15 GWe of new nuclear capacity PER YEAR. At that rate of investment, within seven years we would double the amount of reliable, carbon-free energy we get from nuclear energy facilities while boosting our ailing manufacturing industry and putting hundreds of thousands of people to work.

Then we wouldn't be wimps anymore.

...and for the record, while we don't always agree on things, in my humble opinion Mr. Friedman's "The World is Flat" is one of the classics of our time.

Episode 72 - Sea Stories from the USS John C. Stennis

2009-09-30T19:14:00.000-04:00

Listen to the Podcast Here

Download the MP3 file here

I’m writing this from the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS John C Stennis. We're somewhere off the coast of California steaming north to the ship's home port in Bremerton, Washington. It's a pretty nasty day outside; the Pacific Ocean is cold and dark blue with cop, white caps and salt spray reaching up from below to sting your face. The wind on the flight deck is a chilly 58 knots and seas are six to eight feet. Inside the ship there is a gentle rocking motion and it's a bit on the cool side. Most everyone is wearing sweaters or light jackets although it's the middle of summer.

I had an opportunity to chat with the ship's captain yesterday, and I was reminded of the unique and impressive club to which he belongs. To be the commanding officer of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier an officer must first have been a distinguished naval aviator, a pilot with thousands of hours of flight time and hundreds of carrier landings. Then, at the rank of Captain, they are sent to Nuclear Power School and qualify as Engineering Officers of the Watch along with all the other navy nukes just out of college. As a result, carrier CO's are both aviators and nukes – a combination that puts them in a very exclusive fraternity.

I also had lunch the ship's medical officer, a former navy nuke who after his first tour of duty decided to attend medical school where he did residencies in flight medicine and family practice. As a result, he's a nuke, a flight surgeon, and a family practice physician; the perfect combination for the head physician aboard a nuclear powered aircraft carrier! Today we toured his medical and dental facilities where he manages a staff of physicians, medical corpsmen, dentists, nurses and other staff; a virtual floating hospital capable of meeting the routine and emergency care needs of more than 6,000 people aboard the Stennis and several hundred more in other ships assigned to the carrier group.

This is a floating city of 6000 that never sleeps. At all hours of the day and night the ship is alive with activity. From the bridge where they guide the ship through the water to the bakery where they create delicious pastries and bake hundreds of loaves of bread each night, sailors work around the clock to keep the ship safe, clean, on mission, and very well fed. And except for aircraft, forklifts and other mobile equipment all of the energy used on board comes from the two nuclear reactors operating a few feet below where I sit.

Evolution of Ship Propulsion

On my flight to San Diego where I joined the Stennis I finished reading the second chapter in the story of the Adams Atomic Engine by my friend Rod Adams. Rod will be happy to hear that he's stimulated a great deal of contemplation on my part, hence this podcast.

If you've listened to this show before you'll know that I'm an engineer, a manager, and a nuclear reactor operator. I've spent most of the last 25 years working on or around the kinds of nuclear energy facilities that have dominated land-based commercial and sea-based naval nuclear power for the last fifty years. I'm referring to what we call light water reactors because they use water as a coolant and to slow down or moderate the neutrons to make them more readily absorbed by the fuel. In these energy facilities the fuel atoms fission or split apart which releases fast moving particles. These particles bounce off nearby atoms and molecules creating friction.

As the fuel and surrounding material heats up from this friction, the heat is picked up by the ordinary water coolant as it passes through the reactor. This hot water is used to create steam either in the space above the fuel or in big tanks called "steam generators." The steam is blown through turbine blades to make the turbine spin, and the turbine is attached to an electrical generator that makes electricity by spinning coils though a magnetic field.

This design was a natural evolution for power plant designers sixty years ago. Nuclear energy was new on the scene, but they already had decades of experience with steam turbine power plants fueled by coal, oil, and gas boilers. When they set out to harness nuclear fission to make electricity, they were able to take existing steam plant designs and replace the boilers with reactors. This reduced the number of uncertainties because the only new technology was the nuclear reactor. Rod Adams points out in his story that the light water reactor was a logical evolution of existing power plant designs during a period where time was of essence and expertise in the new technology was limited.

As I thought about the origin of light water reactor designs, I realized that I experienced a very similar evolution in my personal education and experience; first I learned how to operate oil-fired steam ships and then moved on to learn what it meant to replace the boilers with nuclear reactors. It was an exciting time for me because I got to experience first hand the benefits of nuclear energy.

My Sea Story

I'll never forget my very first trip across the Atlantic as an Engine Cadet on the container ship SS Edward Rutledge when I learned that we were burning two barrels of oil per mile. One morning two or three weeks into the voyage the Chief Engineer, Thomas Taylor from Terre Haute, Indiana looked over his steaming cup of black coffee and said in an unexcited voice, "Well John, we just burned a million dollars in fuel." I almost fell out of my chair! In 1981 a million dollars was an almost unimaginable amount of money to a 21 year old middle-class kid (also from Indiana, BTW)! The type of oil burned by steam ships is called “bunker C" and it's one of the lowest grades of refined petroleum. It's thick and sticky and has to be heated up with steam before it can be sprayed into the boilers where it is burned. Sometimes other fuels are used: on the SS Arco June, a super tanker I worked on that brought Alaskan oil to the US west coast, we had to switch from bunker C to low sulfur oil when ever we traveled in and out of Long Beach harbor because of the tight air pollution rules. We had to store that fuel oil in special heated tanks because it was like tar and would not pump at room temperature.

Fuel oil and hot steam pipes in a power plant are a dangerous combination; fuel oil that comes into contact with hot steam pipes can easily ignite and there were stories galore of major fires and gruesome, painful injuries and deaths. I also learned how hard we had to work to prevent even a drop of fuel oil from leaking or being spilled into the sea because of the impact to the environment and huge Coast Guard fines. Fuel spills were relatively easy to trace back to the guilty ship because the Bunker C would cling to the hull of the ship and leave a trail of sheen on the water for miles.

Later as I studied nuclear engineering and learned to operate nuclear power plants it seemed almost miraculous how much energy could come from so small a package, and how clean and safe nuclear power was compared to oil. With nuclear energy there was no need for routine refueling, no hazard of oil fires, no concern for oil spills, and no air pollution. The switch from oil to nuclear was a logical and natural evolution to a cleaner, safer, and more compact energy source.

The Story of Chief Engineer Thomas Taylor

Chief Taylor, who was in his 60's at the time, had been through a similar transition during his career. He had started as a skinny 16 year old kid shoveling coal into the furnace of a Great Lakes steamer. During World War II his father had traveled with young Tom the two hundred miles or so from Terre Haute north to Gary, Indiana on Lake Michigan to sign his son on as a coal tender, a job that exempted him from the war draft. The Chief chuckled when he told this part of the story: when his new boss, the boiler room fireman saw Tom, his new man, the fireman cursed, "God Dammit! They're sending me babies!" and threw his hat on the floor in frustration and stomped on it. Chief Taylor had obviously proved himself and eventually worked his way up through the ranks as ships switched from coal to oil. He felt the same wonder as I later felt about the switch to nuclear because compared to coal, oil was so clean, easy to handle, and far less hazardous. It's funny now that I think about it, but the Chief once told me to stay “away from that nuclear stuff" because in his opinion it was "too dangerous." He ever had the opportunity to learn about nuclear power and was relying on myths and rumors perpetuated by the opponents of nuclear energy. I learned a great many things from Chief Taylor and we kept in touch for years, but that was one piece of advice I decided to ignore as I learned more about the benefits of nuclear energy.

In the years since then, commercial ship propulsion has continued to evolve from steam turbines to large diesel engines or gas turbines. Steam plants are complex machines with miles of cables, thick steel pressure vessels and pipes that must withstand thousands of pounds per square inch of internal pressure. There are also thermodynamic limitations to how efficient steam turbine plans can be even under ideal conditions. Diesel engines and gas turbines cost less to operate because the engines themselves cost less, they are simpler to maintain and operate, require fewer people, and burn fuel more efficiently. It was only a matter of time before diesels engines and gas turbines replaced oil fired steam turbines for commercial ship propulsion.

The Future of Nuclear Reactor Designs

All this brings me back to my original point: water cooled reactors are wonderful machines that will continue to serve us well for decades to come. But just as steamships switched from coal to oil, and then from steam turbines to diesel engines and gas turbines, the time has come for the next generation of commercial nuclear energy facilities. The next logical step is small modular gas cooled reactors. These new reactors will use modular construction techniques that will lower production costs, improve quality control and enable investors to scale up capacity more gradually. Gas cooled reactors coupled with gas turbines will improve thermal efficiencies that will produce more electricity for a given size of reactor.

New fuel types like non-metallic ceramics and liquid thorium will make it virtually impossible for rogue nations to divert civilian fuel to weapons programs, and these new fuel designs will revolutionize the industry because they will eliminate the risk of meltdowns. These improvements will reduce the complexity of nuclear energy facilities, and in doing so will reduce construction costs. All of these characteristics will reduce the risk to investors and will thus increase the rate at which small reactors will be deployed.

The people who oppose nuclear energy, including some who compete directly with nuclear energy for market share know all this and they will work to slow down these advancements. There is a major fly in the ointment: our government is standing in the way of these small reactor innovations. Our regulatory framework and licensing processes are unfair and are NOT up to the challenge. The fee structures for approval and licensing are biased against small reactors, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not demonstrated a willingness to devote sufficient resources to move towards evaluating these new safer designs because it will require them to depart from their established comfort zones.

Other stakeholders are also slowing innovation. For example, the timeline the Dept of Energy has published for deploying Generation VI reactors is far, far too long. They estimate it will take 15 to 20 years to build the first demonstration plant! In reality most of the engineering challenges have already been solved and proven in the real world. The DOE needs to take the project away from the research community and give it to engineers with orders to build one!

The first nuclear submarine was designed, built, and launched just 13 years after the first controlled nuclear chain reaction, and the first commercial nuclear plant was designed and built in a matter of months, not years, without the benefit of more than 50 years of experience and modern computer aided design techniques. Those engineers used slide rules and hand calculations where today's engineers and scientists have more computing power on their desks than existed in the entire world in 1950.

We need a national commitment to move forward rapidly and decisively on small gas-cooled modular reactors with determination and leadership. We need to put aside the politics of fear and favoritism and focus on the truth inherent in real world experience and sound science. I am not suggesting we throw safety to the wind; on the contrary, the potential consequences of inaction or slow action are far greater than the risk of moving forward with urgency.

You may think I am asking for too much, but if we don't demand change, and demand it loudly, then this natural evolution will be too long in coming. We'll miss the opportunity to enjoy the results we need now to eliminate air pollution and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. This change will be as natural an evolution as the switch from sail to steam, and we need leadership to get us there as quickly as possible!

Have a great week!

Small Reactors & a Nuclear Vacation

2009-07-04T17:36:00.001-04:00

Download the mp3 File Here

Listen online here

I am about to head out on a little adventure that I’ll tell you more about in a few minutes. My bags are packed and I need to be out the door in 55 minutes.

We may be seeing the early beginnings of a fundamental shift in the commercial nuclear industry away from the one-size-fits-all approach where bigger is better. In the last few weeks there have been some interesting developments associated with small reactors and at the same time more large reactor projects are being put on hold.

About two weeks ago I told you about the announcement by B&W that they have designed a small modular reactor called the mPower reactor that will be factory built and shipped by rail to assembly sites. There are several other companies and partnerships developing a variety of small reactor designs: the Chinese and South Africans are working on Pebble Bed Modular Reactors; GE Hitachi is working on the Prism reactor, and start-ups Hyperion and NuScale have their own small reactor designs well underway. Even Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates is getting into the action; his investment company Intellectual Ventures is working on the “Traveling Wave” reactor. Apparently the NRC has acknowledged the need; they have requested public comment on whether or not the government should change the licensing fee structure for small reactors. Under the present fee structure it can cost literally hundreds of millions of dollars to get a new design through the licensing process for a single new reactor. That high fee is a huge impediment to innovation and new designs. You can read my letter to the NRC here.

To my second point, two or three weeks ago the US Dept of Energy announced which companies will get loan guarantees for the first wave of new reactors under the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The companies are NRG Energy, SCANA, Southern Company, and UniStar Nuclear Energy (a partnership between Constellation and Areva). Those reactor construction projects are moving ahead. In fact, a friend at Southern Company told me they will be “moving dirt” this month at the site of the new Vogtle reactors in Georgia. At the same time, several other North American projects have been put on hold including Exelon’s Victoria project in Texas, AmerenUE’s second unit at Callaway, and Ontario announced they are curtailing their new nuclear plans for now.

With the current vintage of large reactor offerings, the high initial capital cost poses a significant challenge for even very large companies. Small reactors on he other hand will carry a much lower price tag. This is one reason these small modular reactors offer so much promise. They will enable companies and investors to buy nuclear generating capacity in smaller bites, and to scale up gradually as their needs dictate. In addition, many of the construction bottlenecks that exist with large reactors do not carry over to small reactors. The plant components are smaller and can be manufactured in more places. In fact, some of the small reactor designs do not have high operating pressures because they use coolants other than water. In these cases, new reactors will not need forged reactor vessels like those required for light water reactors.

A Nuclear Vacation?

So what I am going to be doing for the next week? Surprisingly it has a lot to do with small reactors. I am on my way to the west coast to spend four days aboard the nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis! I’ll be joining the ship in San Diego on July 6 and will spend four days steaming north to Bremerton, Washington. This will be a new experience for me and I am really looking forward to it. While working in the Merchant Marine I traveled around the world on oil-fueled cargo ships, and I spent five years operating a submarine nuclear reactor plant for the Navy, but I have never been to sea on a nuclear-powered surface ship. The USS John C. Stennis is powered by two nuclear reactors that are large by mobile reactor standards, but would qualify as “small reactors” in the commercial nuclear world. I’ll be living, eating, sleeping and experiencing life aboard an aircraft carrier with ~ 5,000 of my new best friends all within a few hundred feet (or perhaps even a few feet) of two operating nuclear reactors.

Yes, this is how nuclear geeks spend their vacations! I will be blogging and hopefully I will have an opportunity to record a podcast or two while at sea. Stay tuned for more!

Peace!

John

Small Reactor Licensing - A Letter to the NRC

2009-07-04T17:34:00.001-04:00

The NRC is considering a change to their fee structure for small reactors, and invited public comment. Here is a copy of the letter I sent.

Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Subject: Comments on the Proposed Changes to Licensing Fees for Small Reactors

To Whom It May Concern:

I graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy with a Bachelors Degree in Marine Engineering with a concentration in Nuclear Engineering. I have more than 20 years of experience operating nuclear reactors for the US Navy and in the commercial power industry. I was Engineering Office of the Watch and Plant Engineer qualified at the S3G nuclear prototype, and I have held Senior Reactor Operator Licenses at the Turkey Point and Indian Point nuclear plants. Having operated both small and large reactors, I can speak from personal experience that small reactors can be designed, built, and operated with equal certainty and safety as large power reactors. In fact, small reactors have many advantages over large reactors that can be used to increase safety margins if the designer so chooses. Examples include natural circulation, air-cooled decay heat removal, and enhanced security features. From my informed point of view there is no technical basis for concern that small reactors pose excessive risk to public health and safety.

The USA desperately needs new clean, cost-effective, carbon-free energy sources to power our economy and replace our aging energy infrastructure. Because of the extraordinarily high cost and intermittent operation, renewable sources can not accomplish this task alone. We need small nuclear reactors to provide industry and investors with a new lower cost, scalable option for adding nuclear generating capacity to our nation’s power grid. In addition, small reactors could provide process heat in a number of applications in which large reactors are not practical. With that in mind, I support restructuring licensing fees to significantly reduce or eliminate the cost for small reactors for five reasons:

Licensing fees are so high that they are an impediment to investment and innovation.

The current fee structure is unfairly biased towards multi-billion dollar nuclear plants with huge power outputs.

The current fee structure is biased against nuclear energy in general. For example, designers and manufacturers of solar, wind, and renewable power plants are not required to pay such high licensing fees nor do they reimburse the government for costs associated with routine regulation and oversight.

Nuclear energy has become a critical part of our national economy and should receive equal treatment in our regulatory framework. Other industries such as the airline industry, the food industry, and the automobile industry are not subject to the same fees and are not required to reimburse the Federal Government for regulatory costs.

Small reactors can be built using factory-based modular construction techniques. Deploying of a fleet of small modular reactors would invigorate our nation’s manufacturing industry and would provide thousands of jobs in regions of the nation that have been hardest hit by the recent economic events and the transfer of manufacturing jobs to other parts of the world. Our licensing framework should be revised to encourage investment in small reactors and in doing so promote job growth.

Our nation has outgrown the reactor licensing framework of the past. It is time to level the playing field for nuclear energy. This requires us to rethink our entire reactor licensing and regulation fee structure. The fees associated with licensing small reactors are a great place to start! Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important topic!

Sincerely,

John Wheeler

Producer, “This Week in Nuclear” Podcast

Could small modular nuclear reactors be the "Game Changing Technology" in the fight to reduce carbon emissions? (Podcast Episode #70)

2009-07-04T17:33:00.001-04:00

In this video podcast I discuss the role of the social media in the unrest in Iran. I also speculate about how the B&W mPower reactor and other small modular reactors might be a key to reducing CO2 emissions.

Watch the video below. Download the video clip here.

MIT Energy Initiative

Twitter

B&W's mPower Reactor

Coal2Nuclear

And you thought nuclear engineering & science was all about energy? Guess Again! (Podcast Episode #69)

2009-07-04T17:32:00.001-04:00

While at the American Nuclear Society Annual Conference last week I had the opportunity to speak with several students about their interests and fields of study. The broad range of responses is insightful and serves to illustrate that commercial energy generation is just one of many career options related to nuclear engineering, science, and technology.

The students also help dispel the myth that nuclear careers are only for technical specialists. The industry needs people who focus on business, communications, government affairs and many other non-technical disciplines!

Watch the video and you'll see what I mean!

Will Exelon Job Cuts Derail Long Term Workforce Planning Strategies?

2009-07-04T11:20:00.002-04:00

This past Monday an Exelon representative at the ANS Annual Conference in Atlanta provided a compelling description of efforts they have underway to attract and retain nuclear talent. Three days later the company announced they will eliminate 500 jobs, including 400 from their corporate staff. It raises eyebrows because the company is viewed by others in the industry as already "lean" and very effective at corporate oversight of their nuclear operations.

John Rowe, Chairman and CEO of Exelon"]

Having been through several reorganizations in three different nuclear companies, I certainly understand the need to periodically reassess and adjust the structure and size of an organization. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder how the layoffs will be viewed by the company's workforce development partners and by potential new employees who may be considering careers with one of the industry's largest employers.

Fortunately, there are plenty of opportunities out there for displaced Exelon employees. A quick look at just one job posting board revealed more than 50 openings.

The company also stated they intend to reduce pay and freeze executive salaries to yield a savings of $350 Million next year which is about 3.5% of their operating and maintenance budget.

While Chairman and CEO John Rowe blamed the economic slowdown on the need to cut jobs, it's tough not to consider how the cost-cutting might be related to Exelon's attempt at a hostile takeover of NRG Energy.

Addition 6/26/2009 - Sources at Exelon stated that the layoffs announced earlier in the week would be focused in corporate suppport functions and would not affect nuclear technical functional areas.

A Student Conference for Young People Interested in Nuclear Careers

2009-07-04T11:19:00.000-04:00

"Live" from the 2009 ANS Conference in Atlanta, GA.

Download the Video File Here

John Wheeler and guest co-host Rod Adams of "The Atomic Show" meet with a group of students from the University of Michigan to discuss the ANS Student Conference. The student conference will be held in April 2010 at the University of Michigan. For more info go to the conference web site at http://www.studentans2010.org. Watch the video below or download the clip using the link above.

Featured are (left to right):
Guest co-host Rod Adams of "The Atomic Show"
Mahima Gupta - Activities Chair
Michaela Eddy - General Chair: Logistics
Travis Trahan - General Chair: External Relations
Robyn Spink - Hospitality Chair
Adam Hoffman - Tour Director
John Wheeler - host of "This Week in Nuclear"

Lessons from Dr. Evil

2009-06-07T02:45:00.002-04:00

This Week in Nuclear Has Moved to http://thisweekinnuclear.com

Please go to the new site and update your links and feeds.
I will stop posting on this site soon!

Listen to the podcast here.

Have you noticed that the numbers we use in daily conversation keep getting bigger and bigger? When I was young my father pointed out to me that a family who had one million dollars could live off the interest alone, and would have a tough time spending it all. While that was certainly true at the time, the value of a million dollars is not what it used to be. Here’s a clip of one of my favorite movie villains to help illustrate my point (you’ll have to listen to the podcast on this page to hear the audio clip of Dr. Evil).

Even Dr. Evil had trouble comprehending the size of a billion dollars, but what hundreds of billions or even a trillion? We hear and read those numbers in the news and in conversation, but what do they really mean? It’s easy to understand the number of zeros that make them different, but that still be pretty abstract. I contend that many of us really don’t comprehend how large those numbers are when it comes to measuring things in the real world. We need visual or mental references to help us understand the scale of such large quantities.

Let’s use electrical power as an example. The base unit of measure for electrical power is the Watt, but what is the difference between a watt, a KW, a MW, and a GW?

1 watt will barely power a small incandescent light bulb like a bathroom night light.
1 kilowatt (1,000 watts) is equal ~ 1.3 HP, about the same energy output as a small lawn mower engine. The average household in the USA uses about 1 KW of electricity on an on-going basis if averaged over an entire year.
1 Megawatt (1 million watts) is enough electricity to power a small town. Large diesel locomotive engines generate in the 3 to 5 MW range.
1 Gigawatt (1 billion watts) is the size of a large central station power plant, and is enough energy to power about 1 million homes.
1 Terawatt (1 trillion watts) is energy on a continental scale. The total worldwide electricity demand is about 15 TW.

Now to the real point of this show – I want to speak to you about the carbon capture and storage, and the scale of the challenge this concept presents. To put it bluntly, the scale is bigger than huge, it’s even bigger than enormous. The amount of carbon dioxide gas released by coal and natural gas plants is planetary in scale. Let me describe what I mean by that.

The US DOE estimates that US and Canada stationary power plants produce 3.8 billion tones of CO2 per year,and the world wide total is 33 billion tones. But really – how big is that? Here’s the answer: At standard temperature and pressure, one ton of CO2 occupies 556 cubic meters. It’s still a little tough to visualize how much material that is. Well, the International Carbon Bank and Exchange did some calculations for us. The USA’s emissions of CO2 each year would cover every square foot of the continental Unites States to a depth of 1 foot.

Let me repeat that so it will sink in…. burning of fossil fuels is producing enough CO2 waste to blanket the entire continental United States to a depth of one foot. As I said, the problem is one of planetary scale. From a very common sense point of view, the challenge of compressing that enormous volume of gas or converting it to solid or liquid, then storing it in a way that it can not escape for several hundred years is simply not doable. I am not being pessimistic, just practical. It is a huge waste of time and resources to embark on a path to even attempt to capture and store CO2 when there is another solution: don’t create it to begin with!

Nuclear energy is an already tried and true technology that produces virtually no CO2. Anti-nuclear people will tell you that nuclear energy does create CO2 because of the energy used in fabricating fuel, manufacturing the building materials, and plant construction. Yes, that’s true, but it is a very small amount by comparison. Plus, if we ran our electrical grid on nuclear energy then most of that energy would be generated without emitting greenhouse gas.

Since I’m talking about the scale of waste products produced, I have to mention the mountains of solid waste produced by every coal plant every year. A typical large coal power plant burns the equivalent of a two-mile long train of coal every day! That’s a 700 mile long train every year. Since up to 10% of that original coal ends up as solid waste, every coal plant disposes of the equivalent of a 70 mile long train of toxic ash every year.

The world uses about 6 billion tones of coal each year. That’s a pile of coal one mile high and 2.3 miles across! That same ratio we generate 600,000,000 tones (600 million tones of solid coal waste every year. That’s a pile of waste more than 500 feet high, higher than three statues of liberty stacked one on top of the other!

By comparison, all the nuclear plants in the USA create only 2,000 tones per year of used fuel. If you took all of the used fuel from all of the commercial reactors that have been generating 20% of the USA’s electricity for the last forty years it would all fit on one football field to a depth of only seven meters. That used nuclear fuel is in the form of stable ceramic material encased in corrosion resistant metal, and can be very easily and safely stored until it is recycled or processed to remove valuable materials contained within.

The problem of trying to capture and store such an enormous volume of CO2 from coal power plants is practically unimaginable. Even if we are able to capture and store all that pressurized gas, we’d still have to keep it contained for more than 100 years. On the opposite end of the spectrum, the amount of used fuel generated by nuclear plants is minuscule by comparison and can be easily stored and monitored. Its common sense, but sometimes the truth is obscured by the numbers.

Next time you hear someone talking about spending millions or billions of dollars on carbon capture and storage research projects in hope of enabling us to keep burning coal, ask yourself, “I wonder if they’ve ever listened to Dr. Evil.”

OSHA: Nuclear Plants Safer Than Offices

2009-05-06T22:32:00.003-04:00

An interesting article at ReliablePlant.com about safety improvements at US commercial nuclear plants after the TMI partial core meltdown 30 years ago. Yes, the title of this article is true, but there is more:

When it comes to safety, added layers of protection only enhance nuclear energy’s capability to provide clean, efficient power, with performance levels increasing steadily over time. In 2008, U.S. nuclear plants surpassed coal, natural gas, oil and all other fuels that make electricity by operating to more than 90 percent of their total rated capacity. Nuclear plants also generated approximately 805.7 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity last year, enough to serve the total year’s electricity needs of one-fifth the U.S. population.

A great example is Arkansas Nuclear One where workers have gone a mind-boggling nine years and 23 million man-hours without a loss work time accident.

Nearly 23 million hours worked over a span of almost nine years without a lost time accident is a remarkable feat for any industrial facility. That is exactly what Arkansas and Nuclear One employees have accomplished and the meter is still running. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently approved ANO's continued participation at the voluntary projection program star level, the program's highest rating, a status ANO has maintained for 12 years and a nuclear industry record.

I get so sick of anti-nuclear claims that nuclear plants are unsafe!

Please update your links to http://thisweekinnuclear.com

Please update RSS Feeds to http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?feed=rss2

When Leaders Lack the Knowledge to Lead (Podcast Episode 66)

2009-04-26T17:17:00.003-04:00

Go to the new "This Week in Nuclear" Web Site to Listen to Podcast Episode #66.

Please update your links to http://thisweekinnuclear.com

Please update RSS Feeds to http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?feed=rss2

House Climate Change Bill & A Bit of Nuclear History - Episode 65

2009-04-24T20:31:00.004-04:00

Listen to the Podcast Here

The Markey / Waxman Climate Change Bill

Momentum is building towards greenhouse gas regulation in the United States. Two weeks ago the house of representatives released draft climate change legislation sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey. On Friday the US Environmental Protection Agency turned up the heat when they declared CO2 and other greenhouse gasses “hazards to public health” and labeled CO2 a pollutant. This action gives the EPA authority to regulate CO2 emissions even if congress does not pass legislation focused on curbing greenhouse gas releases.

The Waxman/Markey draft legislation would evoke a national renewable energy portfolio standard that will force electric utilities to get a large percentage of the energy they sell from renewable sources. The legislation defines renewable energy as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, and wave energy. The required percentages would phase in starting at 6% in 2012, increasing to to 25% by 2039.

Calendar year Required annual percentage

2012 ..................................................................... 6.0

2013 ..................................................................... 6.0

2014 ..................................................................... 8.5

2015 ..................................................................... 8.5

2016 .................................................................... 11.0

2017 .................................................................... 11.0

2018 .................................................................... 14.0

2019 .................................................................... 14.0

2020 .................................................................... 17.5

2021 ..................................................................... 17.5

2022 ..................................................................... 21.0

2023 ..................................................................... 21.0

2024 ..................................................................... 23.0

2025 through 2039 ............................................ 25.0

Utilities who are unable to meet the mandated standards would be fined $50 per megawatt hour of every megawatt they sell that exceed the renewable limits. That penalty could very quickly bankrupt companies that fail to comply. For example, a single 1000 megawatt coal fired power plant would be fined $1.2 million per day.

This is a nearly impossible mandate to meet. If this provision becomes law several things will happen:

There is already a huge amount of capitol flowing into wind and solar energy because of the lucrative subsidies that pay much of the installation costs, plus tax credits that some states and the federal government have put into place to encourage investment into these politically favored but uneconomic energy sources. Taxpayers are already footing a lion’s share of the expense of installing most wind and solar power plants.

A national renewable portfolio standard will cause even more demand for these intermittent power sources. Unfortunately there is no way the supply can keep up with demand. Utilities in areas of the country with plentiful hydo power will initially be able to meet the standards, but most of the USA has little hydro power. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2007 the combined total for wind, solar, wood and other biomass, and geothermal accounted for only about 2.2% of electricity generated in the USA. This means that within three years utilities in much of the country would need to triple the amount of renewable energy they sell. Electricity rates will sky rocket, and that increase will follow through to the entire economy. The cost of energy is embedded in the price of every product and service produced, and rising energy costs will cause inflationary pressures across the economy. The Cambridge Energy Research Associates, an energy consulting company, estimates renewable energy standards will cause prices to increase by 15%. They state that even with massive subsidies wind energy costs 30% more than natural gas, the most expensive form of traditional energy. Solar is even more costly.

Renewable energy portfolio standards will cause inflation across the board and will make goods and services produced more expensive and less competitive than the same products produced in parts of the world where energy costs are lower. Any modest increase in the number of jobs from an expansion in wind and solar will be short lived and will be more than offset by the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector.

All this makes you wonder – if the fundamental goal of this legislation is greenhouse gas reduction, then why wouldn’t Waxman and Markey take advantage of the lowest cost, most scalable form of CO2-free energy, nuclear power? Consider this, a hypothetical utility with 100% nuclear power would emit zero carbon dioxide or other air pollution yet would fail to meet the energy mix mandated by the Markey/Waxman bill. This is simply outrageous!

Renewable energy portfolio standards represent terrible policy – it’s a manifestation of politicians trying to act as engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs, a strategy doomed to fail. If the goal is CO2 reduction, then a straight forward approach will have far better results. It’s really quite simple; the government should set an across the board price on CO2 emissions then get out of the way and let the market figure out the most cost effective way to generate CO2-free energy. An appropriate price on CO2 would spawn research and development into wind, solar, coal with carbon capture, biomass, tidal, and nuclear energy. The technologies that offer the most CO2 reduction for the price will be rewarded with further investment and growth. Innovations would create jobs and new products that would become exports to other countries that also want to reduce CO2 emissions.

All this is so obvious I have to question the underlying motivations of the politicians who advocate a RPS. Are they really interested in reducing climate change, or are they using the climate change soap box as an opportunity for personal gain? Outside of their political life are they personally invested in the same technologies they are trying to mandate? We already know this is true in some instances. Al Gore, for example, lobbies Congress on one day and returns to his seat at the head of Generation Management Investment, a company that makes millions in profits from carbon offsets and from investments in renewable energy. He even buys his much touted “carbon offsets” from the company he owns – he essentially pays himself for his high-carbon lifestyle.

It is no surprise they are lukewarm on nuclear energy: nuclear power is a threat to their business because it is far more effective at reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other air pollution, at a much lower price, in much larger scales, and it is a stable, reliable energy source.

Operation Sea Orbit – 1964

Last week the world watched the story unfold about the pirate attack on the merchant ship Maersk Alabama. I felt compassion for and a connection with for the ship’s crew because of time I spent in the merchant marine early in my career. I have plied the very same waters where the pirate attack took place, and I couldn’t help but wonder if any of my former shipmates were among those affected. When the USS Bainbridge steamed to the rescue I was even more engaged because I have friends and relatives in the navy, and because I recognized the famous name of the Bainbridge. After a little Internet research I connected the dots on some interesting historical facts.

The present day USS Bainbridge is a guides missile destroyer commissioned in 2005. The ship is named after Commodore William Bainbridge, who was the commander of the famous frigate USS Constitution during the War of 1812. The current ship is the fifth ship to bear the name. I was familiar with the forth USS Bainbridge. That ship was the first nuclear powered destroyer. In the mid to late 1980’s I worked at Knolls Atomic Power laboratory. One of the nuclear plants on the site was called “D1G”, and was the prototype for reactor and steam plant of the nuclear powered USS Bainbridge. The nuclear USS Bainbridge was commissioned in 1962. In 1964 the USS Bainbidge joined the USS Long Beach, the first nuclear cruiser, and the USS Enterprise, the first nuclear aircraft carrier to form the first all-nuclear carrier battle group. This offered a huge advantage for naval tactics and logistics because the battle group could for the first time travel thousands of miles without the need for refueling. In 1964 the Navy decided to showcase this new capability and created Operation Sea Orbit in which the three ship carrier battle group cruised around the world in 62 days, traveling 30,565 miles without refuleing. The photo on my web site for this podcast episode is one taken of the three ships during their cruise around the world.

The story does not end there. Operations Sea Orbit was the idea of Adm. John S. McCain, Jr., the father of Senator John McCain. Adm. McCain was not a navy nuclear officer, but he recognized the advantages offered by nuclear energy. He used Operation Sea Orbit to demonstrate to the world that nuclear power was safe, reliable, and full of potential. With this exposure to the technology it should be no surprise that his son, Senator John McCain, became a staunch supporter of nuclear energy. I am sure you all heard Senator McCain’s promises during the last presidential campaign to expand the number of nuclear power plants in the USA as a way to increase energy independence, create jobs, and reduce air pollution. From a personal perspective it is hard for me to fathom that Operation Sea Orbit took place when I was just three years old. It’s even more amazing to realize that the USS Enterprise, the lead ship in Operation Sea Orbit and the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, is still a commisioned vessel in active service in the US Navy. That ship is 45 years old and is not scheduled for retirement for another 5 or 6 years! The USS Enterprise is a testament to the durability, safety and reliability of nuclear power plants. The ship has eight Westinghouse pressurized water reactors that provide all the energy required for the equivalent of a small city generating electricity, launching aircraft, distilling water, and driving that massive ship through the water at speeds in excess of 30 knotts. The reactors have operated day in and day out for almost fifty years with five thousand sailors living and working within a few hundred feet of the reactors all the time.

The nuclear industry enjoys the benefits of a fantastic amount of accumulated knowledge and wisdom about how to design, build, and operate nuclear plants safely and reliably. In fact, we’re now in the third and forth generation of nuclear power scientists, engineers, operators, and technicians who are benefiting from thousands of reactor-years of operating experience all the way back to long before Operation Sea Orbit. Anti-nuclear activists attempt to block license renewals with an argument that nuclear reactors are worn out and dangerous after 40 years, yet here we have a perfect example of the same basic technology going strong well past 50 years – safely, reliably, and without contributing to air pollution. Commodore Bainbridge would be proud!

This Week in Nuclear Web Site Reminders

This web site has a number of new features:

· There is a podcast player and show transcripts.

· In addition to the podcast I frequently post news stories on my blog.

· Because I can not possibly cover all the interesting nuclear news out there, I have a “News” page that pulls in recent stories from several of my favorite blogs and news sources.

· There are also nuclear related videos, including a page of YouTube videos related to nuclear energy that is updated daily. Some are serious, and some are funny, but it’ always informative and entertaining!

Be sure to follow me on Twitter where my user name is TheJohnWheeler. When I publish a new podcast or blog article I always send out a message using Twitter to let everyone know. There is a link to my Twitter feed on the web site.

Finally, there’s a link to the Facebook Fan page for This Week in Nuclear. If you use FB please join the fan page and let your friends know about the show.

Peace!

John

New Web Site

2009-04-14T21:06:00.002-04:00

I’m pleased to announce a completely renovated web site. In a few weeks this blog will go inactive and my blog and podcast transcripts will be contained entirely at http://thisweekinnuclear.com.

Features include:

For Podcasts – a web based audio player, show transcripts, an archive of all prior shows, and the ability to search the shows by key word.

For News – there’s a new feature that automatically compiles recent nuclear related blog posts and news from around the Internet into a single, easy to read page. The update is dynamic; new articles and blog posts are automatically added as they are published.

My last several blog posts and show notes are right on the home page, so it is easy to locate my most updates.

I’ve added nuclear related videos to the site, including a page that automatically pulls in new videos from YouTube. Like the news feed, this page is dynamic and new videos arrive as they are created anywhere in the world. I’ve also posted some of my favorite videos, and will add more in the future.

I included a calendar of events that I will be attending. If you are going to be at one of these events please look me up.

I’ve integrated social networking tools to make it easier for us to stay in touch and up to date. There’s a live Twitter feed, a link to the Facebook Fan Page for “This Week in Nuclear”, and a link to my LinkedIn profile ( John Wheeler’s LinkedIn profile).

Finally, there’s an updated shopping page. When you shop at Amazon.com you can support the show by starting your search at my site. You’ll get the same low prices and I’ll get a small percentage of sales to offset the costs of producing and hosting the show.

I am really pleased with the new web site and I hope you will be too! Please post your comments below!

Please update your browser bookmarks, links, and blog rolls.

If you subscribe to this blog via its RSS feed, the new feed is: http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?feed=rss2

Anti-Nuclear Edward Rep. Markey Releases Draft Climate Change Legislation.

2009-04-14T20:55:00.000-04:00

It has not received any attention in the media, but on March 31, 2009 House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Environment released their plan to fight global warming. As I predicted back in Episode 62 of This Week in Nuclear , they are promoting a federal mandate on wind and solar power funded by huge increases in energy costs.

Although nuclear energy produces 70% of the CO2-emission free energy in the USA today, in the entire 648 page bill the word "nuclear" is mentioned only twice (once is to provide an editorial change to a prior bill).

Full Text of the Draft Legislation

House Press Release

Key parts of their plan:

Create a national renewable portfolio standard to force utilities to generate (or purchase) at least 25% of the electricity they sell from "renewable sources" and pass the cost to rate payers (see page 15 of the bill)
Establish a green house gas trading system (see page 358)
And yes, federal government regulation over personal hot tubs (see page 223)

The Markey/Waxman bill would force California-style energy rules on the entire USA. We all know how that turned out! The Senate will have their hands full in creating a more balanced, logical approach to fight climate change that is based on sound science and good economics.

Nuclear Expansion Grows Near & Oyster Creek Gets another 20 years

2009-04-10T23:29:00.003-04:00

Listen to Episode 64 of “This Week in Nuclear” Here

President Obama Promotes International Nuclear Fuel Bank

At a speech delivered in Prague, Czech Republic this week President Obama advocated establishing an international nuclear fuel bank. The idea is this: countries who pledge not to develop nuclear weapons programs and who do not enrich uranium would have the assurance of a stable fuel supply for their peaceful nuclear energy programs. Countries who posses the ability to enrich uranium under the International Non-Proliferation Treaty would provide the service for the international community. Much of the initial fuel in the bank would come from diluting weapons grade uranium, essentially continuing efforts begun by Russia and the USA to reduce weapons stockpiles.

President Obama also indicated support for the fuel bank to be located in Kazakhstan, a proposal that was endorsed by the European Union in March. The EU has already pledged $33 Million for set-up expenses, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have the lead to set up standards and policies and overseeing operations of the bank.

An international fuel bank would eliminate at least one of the obstacles that nations perceive in setting up new civilian nuclear energy programs. If they have no uranium or thorium resources of their own, or no ability to enrich the fuel, they will have to rely on other nations for their fuel supply. As with any commodity with a small number of suppliers, the potential for collusion and political leverage are high. In principle a fuel bank would provide greater assurance that if nations invest to build nuclear power plants they will be able to acquire fuel to run them.

Oyster Creek License Renewed for 20 Years

This week the Nuclear Regulatory commission granted at 20 year license extension to the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey. The license renewal followed almost four years of safety and environmental analysis and deliberation by the Atomic Safety Licensing Board. Anti-nuclear groups waged a vigorous fight against the plant’s life extension, but in the end they were, according to the board, unable to provide any scientific analysis or evidence to support their claims that the plant is unsafe.

The NRC called the Oyster Creek review the “most extensive license renewal review to date.” In addition to the analysis done by the NRC staff and the ASLB, the license extension request was reviewed by the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. In the end the NRC commissioners approved the extension on a 3 to 1 vote, the lone dissenting commissioner was Gregory Jaczko.

The Changing Face of the NRC

Commissioner Jaczko, who holds a PhD in Physics, is considered by many to oppose the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful uses. He formerly worked for Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass), one of the most vocal anti-nuclear politicians in Washington, and he was appointed to his position on the commission as part of a political deal between Harry Reid and former President Bush. Harry Reid wanted his man on the commission so he could exert greater influence the outcome of the Yucca Mountain license application. The commission normally has five voting members, one of whom serves as the chairman. They all have equal voting power. At present there is one vacancy, and another vacancy will be created when Commissioner Peter Lyons’ term expires in June of this year. It is widely speculated that President Obama will name Jaczko to lead the commission when the current Chairman Dale Klein’s term expires in 2011, or sooner if Chairman Klein were to retire early. Kristine Svinicki, the final commissioner, has a term that will expire in June of 2012. All this means President Obama will have at least two seats on the NRC to fill this year, a chairman to appoint in 2011, and another commissioner to appoint during his last year in office. Commissioner Jaczko’s term does not expire until 2013. It will be interesting to see how the tone and direction of the NRC will change as the new commissioners come on board, and as the chairmanship changes. I’ll be monitoring this in the coming months and will be reporting on it here at “This Week in Nuclear.”

Southern Nuclear Moves Forward with New Nuclear

There is some great news out of Georgia! Executives from Southern Nuclear reportedly gave Westinghouse and Shaw a “thumbs up” to move forward with preparations to build two new nuclear units at their Vogtle station in Georgia. Shaw and Westinghouse have already signed contract with Southern for two new AP-1000 reactors at that location. Last week Southern stated they plan to break ground this summer, but plan to delay the first safety related concrete pour until after they receive their construction and operating license from the NRC.

UAE Nuclear Program Steams Ahead

The United Arab Emirates could be the first nation in the Middle East to have a fully functioning nuclear energy industry. During his last week in office President Bush signed an agreement allowing American companies to share commercial nuclear technology, equipment, and services with the UAE. President Obama is following that lead and has even called the UAE approach “A model for the world.”

Scores of nuclear executives, engineers, and business development people from around the world have visited the Emirates in the last several weeks to seek their shares of what is expected to become a booming business. The UAE states they plan to have their first commercial reactor up and running by 2017, and they are being very open out their willingness to conduct everything with full oversight by the IAEA. They also have no plans to develop fuel enrichment capabilities and they plan to buy their nuclear fuel on the international market.

At the last ANS meeting I had an opportunity to speak with an industry executive who told me the UAE had adopted a very bottom up, systematic approach: first they are creating a regulatory framework and oversight body, then they will select principle partners and a technology or reactor type, and finally they will begin construction. In parallel they are ramping up their education and training infrastructure so they can develop internal nuclear talent and a local workforce.

New “This Week in Nuclear” Website

I’m pleased to announce the roll out of a completely renovated web site at http://thisweekinnuclear.com. My goal with the new site is to create a portal for nuclear energy news and information extending well beyond my podcast.

Features include:

For Podcasts – a web based audio player, show transcripts, an archive of all prior shows, and the ability to search the shows for key word.
For News – there’s a new feature that automatically compiles recent nuclear related blog posts and news from around the Internet into a single, easy to read page. The update is dynamic; new news articles and blog posts are added as they are written.
My blog posts and show notes are right on the home page, so it is easy to locate my most recent podcasts or blog posts.
I’ve added nuclear related videos to the site, including a page that automatically pulls in new videos from YouTube. Like the news feed, this page is dynamic and new videos arrive as they are created anywhere in the world. I also have some of my favorite videos, and will add more in the future.
I included a calendar of events that I will be attending. If you are going to be at one of these events please look me up.
I’ve integrated social networking tools to make it easier for us to stay in touch and up to date. There’s a live Twitter feed, a link to the Facebook Fan Page for “This Week in Nuclear”, and a link to my LinkedIn profile( John Wheeler’s LinkedIn profile).
Finally, there’s an updated shopping page. When you shop at Amazon.com you can support the show by starting your search at my site. You’ll get the same low prices and I’ll get a small percentage of sales to offset the costs of producing and hosting the show.

I am really pleased with the new web site and I hope you will be too! Please send me a note with comments and suggestions.

I have a favor to ask of my fellow bloggers and web site owners. Please take a few minutes to update any links back to my site to point to http://thisweekinnuclear.com . I know many of you point to my Blogger where I post show notes, or to my podomatic site where the podcasts are hosted. In a few weeks I will stop updating both of those sites since my new site has the capability handling everything in one place. As a web developer, one of my goals with this update was to consolidate my three sites (web site, blog site and podcast hosting site) into one, and to use technologies that will make it easier and less time consuming to make updates. I’ve accomplished that, and after a reasonable transition period those other sites will go dormant because I will stop updating them.

I would like to give a special “thanks” to those of you who have donated to the show via the Paypal link on the web site. It means a lot to me to know that you value the show enough to contribute financially. Every little bit helps, and your financial support and encouragement keep me going.

Have a great week!

John Wheeler

More Wind = More Gas and More CO2

2009-03-18T19:49:00.002-04:00

I have been saying for months that despite what T. Boone Pickens and Greenpeace would like us to believe, increasing wind generation will INCREASE burning of fossil fuels and raise CO2 emissions. Apparently major European electricity producers agree with me.

"The deployment of high levels of intermittent renewables for electricity generation will require the construction of additional carbon-emitting plant as back-up for when renewables are not available to meet demand," EDF argued. "This is likely to be predominantly gas-fired and will therefore undermine efforts to reduce dependence on non-domestic fuel sources."

Anti-nuclear activists are fighting back, claiming the nuclear industry is trying to “steal” the renewable energy market and undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"We should be maximising renewables and harnessing as much of that clean, safe energy as we possibly can – not propping up the French nuclear industry."

Funny…last time I looked EDF was awash with cash from selling their clean, cheap nuclear-generated electricity to the rest of Europe where expensive gas and wind are draining national bank accounts.

The Straight Scoop on Clean vs. Renewable vs. Carbon-Free Energy

2009-02-21T11:31:00.010-05:00

“CLEAN is in the Eye of the Beholder” or

“The Laws of Nature Can’t be Legislated”

Listen to the Podcast here

This week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid let it be known that congress plans to tackle climate change by imposing federal standards that will require utilities to generate a percentage of their electricity from “renewable” energy sources. On the surface this may sound like a good idea, but Reid’s careful selection of words betrays his intent. He emphasized he would push “renewable” energy, not “low-carbon” or “clean” energy standards. This distinction makes all the difference in the world. It’s curious, too, because if they are in fact trying to reduce CO2 emissions as Reid states, then why wouldn’t he be promoting CO2-free energy? In truth, Harry Reid has another agenda in mind and is using the climate change soapbox to further his cause.

This week I’ll share the true intent of Harry Reid’s plan, and I’ll demonstrate that “renewable” energy standards will do little to reduce CO2 emissions. On the other hand, a regulatory framework that penalizes CO2 emissions and rewards low carbon generation would have an immediate and dramatic effect on reducing global warming gasses.

First, let’s discuss the difference between the phrases “clean energy” , “renewable energy” , and “low-carbon energy.”

“Renewable” Energy

The government has defined “renewable” energy as solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, waste to energy, and biofuels. Even though uranium and thorium supplies will last for hundreds or thousands of years, nuclear energy is not considered “renewable.” The phrase “renewable portfolio standards” or RPS refers to government mandates that require utilities to purchase a certain percentage of energy from renewable sources, regardless of price. This equates to a hidden tax and renewable energy subsidy because it forces the electricity rate payers to buy energy that could otherwise not compete in the market place. An RPS subsidizes renewable energy providers using inflated energy bills. About 25 states have some sort of RPS, and the Obama administration has started talking about implementing renewable portfolio standards on a national level. This would be a very bad idea but more on that later.

“Clean” Energy

“Clean Energy” is perhaps the most misused phrase in the energy business. Everyone claims to be clean! We’ve all heard industry trade association claims about “clean coal” and “clean natural gas.” There’s even a company out there called Clean Energy that is in the business of promoting natural gas as a transportation fuel. Clean Coal refers to coal power plants with mechanisms to remove a large percentage of the chemicals and particulate from the exhaust, but “clean coal” still has all the CO2 of “dirty coal.” Clean or not, burning coal releases about 2 pounds of CO2 for every kW-hr of electricity generated. A typical 1000 MW “clean” coal plant releases an astronomical 2 MILLION pounds of CO2 per hour! Natural gas burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels with fewer chemicals and particulates in its exhaust. However, burning natural gas still dumps huge qualities of CO2 into the atmosphere. For every one kW-hr of electricity generated, natural gas produces 1.3 pounds of CO2, only about 1.3 MILLION pounds of CO2 per hour for a 1000 MW plant!

Biofuels claim to be clean, but their production is resulting in the deforestation of the Amazon jungle in Brazil, and farm equipment uses diesel fuel which emits CO2 and other pollutants. Hydro power is certainly clean unless you are concerned with the thousands of square miles flooded and natural habitats lost. Solar energy is a huge consumer of land; about 35 square miles for the same output as a large coal plant but without the reliability. At their end of life used solar panels are hazardous waste. The environmental web site “TreeHugger.com” reports that solar panels contain “extremely toxic materials with unknown health and environmental risks.” Interestingly, unlike used nuclear fuels these toxins never decay, yet the people opposed to nuclear energy don’t see the irony in their bias.

Wind has its own dirty problems. No one is talking about who will pay to decommission and remove old wind turbines when they break down and their owners go out of business. Thousands of broken down and abandoned windmills scattered around the country could hardly be called “clean.” Many environmentalists are concerned about the thousands of migratory birds and bats that are killed by wind turbine blades every year. Its not just animals that are at risk; I read a report this week that says 41 workers and 16 members of the public have been killed in the last several years from wind turbine accidents , blade failures, and other related hazards. Again, the irony escapes those who call nuclear plants unsafe – not a single worker or member of the public has ever been killed from radiation at a US nuclear plant. Once again, “clean” is in the eye of the beholder.

Nuclear energy has "clean" issues, too. The industry needs to maintain control of its used fuel until reprocessing begins in a few years. Once that happens the long term used fuel issue will be virtually eliminated because the remaining material will be even smaller. On the positive side, the current amount of material that needs to be controlled is miniscule and can very easily and safely stored. Nuclear energy is the only energy source that is 100% accountable for the physical plant and all by-products for the life of the plant and though decommissioning. Other power plants do not have to set money aside to pay for returning the plant site to a green field.

By contrast, coal plants are free to release their gaseous waste into the air and dump their solid waste into ponds and landfills. One such coal waste pond at a power plant in Tennessee failed on December 23^rd and flooded 400 acres with 12 feet of toxic muck containing lead, arsenic, and uranium. Fifteen homes were damaged or destroyed.

[This paragraph edited on 3/26/09] Another bit of irony is this: that coal slurry spill in Kingston, Tennessee released about 20,000 curies of radioactive uranium that was naturally present in the original coal, but concentrated in the coal ash. The enormous volume of the coal sludge means the event was most likely the largest “spill” of radioactive material in history, yet we didn’t hear a sound from the anti-nuclear establishment! The same groups that go ballistic at when nuclear plants release minute quantities of tritium had absolutely nothing to say! By the way, tritium is a mildly radioactive form of hydrogen that decays relatively quickly. The Union of Concerned Scientists and Nuclear Policy Research Institute were strangely silent on this single largest uncontrolled release of radioactive waste in the history of the USA.

Do you think the coal industry will be forced to spend billions of dollars to install redundant safety systems at all their coal sludge ponds? Now, honestly, that amount of radioactive material poses absolutely no threat to anyone, but this serves to illustrate the bias that exists in the media and in our energy policies.

The bottom line is this: the definition of “clean energy” depends on who you are hearing it from. If the goal is reducing CO2 emissions, then the term “clean energy” when used by the coal and natural gas industries is completely meaningless. The only exception might be research and development into carbon capture and sequestration technologies, but that is still completely unproven and has many serious safety and cost hurdles to overcome. It will be many, many years before we see carbon capture from coal or gas plants on an industrial scale.

“Emissions-Free” Energy

The terms “Low-Carbon” or “emissions free” energy are pretty straight forward. They refer to sources of energy that have very low CO2 emissions. This includes wind, nuclear, solar, hydro, and other renewables. By far the largest source of low carbon energy is nuclear. In fact, nuclear energy accounts for more than 70% of the USA’s emission free electricity generation.

So now we have discussed the differences between “clean energy”, “renewable energy” and “emission-free energy.” If the goal is reducing green-house gasses, then the focus should be on “emissions free” energy. If congress really wants to reduce CO2 emissions then they should create a financial and regulatory framework that taxes CO2 emissions and rewards emissions free producers, then stand back and let the market decide which technologies can do it most quickly and cheaply. Playing favorites with any one or two technologies is a sure way to fail.

“Hey Nuclear, Don’t Bother to Apply”

On a level playing field nuclear energy would continue as the emissions-free leader because it is a proven technology and the lowest cost provider of reliable carbon-free electricity. Unfortunately, it is not a level playing field. Harry Reid is calling the shots and he is doing everything he can to block the expansion of nuclear energy. He did exactly that during the final hours of negotiation on the stimulus bill when he removed a provision that would have allowed companies to access government loan guarantees for new nuclear construction projects. The original text of the stimulus bill stated “renewable and clean” energy projects were eligible for the guarantees, but Harry made sure the final version said only “renewable energy” could apply.

A Focus on Solar and Wind Means More Fossil Fuel Burning, Not Less

Because wind and solar are intermittent, for every MW of wind or solar capacity that is built, another MW of natural gas powered generation must be located nearby. Since the wind only blows about 32% of the time, and solar panels operate at only about 19%, those gas turbines will be running (and emitting CO2) between 68% and 81% of the time. This is why investing in solar and wind will only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels. Every year that we waste trying to supply our energy grid with wind and solar power is another year fossil fuels will continue dominating the energy supply. On the other hand, every new nuclear plant that is built steals market share from coal and gas plants. A current example is the two reactors that Progress Energy plans to build in Florida. The company has already stated publically they plan to shut down a large coal plant when the new nuclear plant comes on line. I’m sure the coal industry didn’t like hearing that story!

Harry Reid is promoting wind and solar projects that will end up in desert states like his home state of Nevada. What he is really doing is grabbing a lion’s share of government funds for Nevada while limiting the competition for those funds. The wind and solar projects he is pouring money into are not in the nation’s best interests because they are hugely expensive and will not provide reliable energy. All the money and government mandates in the world can not change the laws of nature. They can not turn an intermittent power source into a stable one. The state of California tried to do exactly that when they created renewal portfolio standards and they wound up in a horrible mess. Remember the California energy crises? Their electricity prices went through the roof, blackouts became routine, and they nearly bankrupt every utility in the state.

Pay Attention and Hold Your Elected Officials Accountable

In the coming week and months please listen to the news about climate change legislation. The USA is going to end up with some variation of either a national renewable portfolio standard or some form of carbon tax or cap-and-trade program. For all the reasons I’ve mentioned in this show, we should oppose a renewable portfolio standard and support a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program. Pay attention and let your congressmen and senators know how you feel. There is no question the price of electricity is going to go up to pay for mitigating climate change. If that is destined to happen then we need to make sure we get something for the money we spend. The best way to make that happen is to support the construction of new nuclear plants.

Peace!

John Wheeler

Printable Version

Nuclear Energy and the Obama Administration

2009-01-30T19:24:00.009-05:00

Episode 62 of This Week in Nuclear

Listen to the podcast here

It’s hard to get into any kind of discussion about energy these days without someone asking, “What will happen under the new administration?” or “Do you think we’ll start building new nuclear plants with President Obama in power?” Those are tough questions to answer. Probably the best way to predict the future under the Obama administration and congress is to look at the recent statements and past actions of the people who are in positions of authority or influence in the new government. You cannot focus just on President Obama and his White House team; you also have to look at congress and at the various committees that will create new energy and climate legislation. In this episode, I’ll try to provide my views on a few of the leaders who will guide the creation of new laws and policies that will influence the near term, and perhaps the long term future of nuclear energy in the USA.

I’ll start with the obvious. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is a long time opponent of any legislation that might benefit the nuclear industry. His opposition goes well beyond a practical and fact-driven position to the verge of fanatical. Yucca Mountain, the designated long term geological storage facility, is in his state and he will do anything and everything to block or slow its progress. In fact, he’s already doing that with the power that congress has over the budget. He’s slashed the Yucca Mountain budget to the lowest amount in years which has the same effect as killing the project all together. The nuclear industry will get no help from Harry Reid.

Representative Nancy Polosi of California, the Speaker of the House, was once strongly anti-nuclear. Fortunately she has become more supportive of nuclear energy over the last two years or so because she realizes that any credible strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has to include expanding nuclear energy. While she’s saying some of the right things, she has yet to demonstrate leadership through real action to support new nuclear construction, so the jury is still out on Nancy Polosi.

Rep. Henry Waxman, also from California, and the new Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is a strong advocate for raising automobile mileage standards, reducing energy consumption through efficiency, and expanding wind and solar energy. Rep. Waxman is influential because new energy and climate legislation will originate in his committee. While I was unable to find a single instance in which Mr. Waxman demonstrated support for nuclear energy, in a reasonable and logical world his strong opinions on climate change would translate into support for new nuclear plants. Unfortunately Washington is not always reasonable or logical. Case in point: Mr. Waxman has appointed Rep. Edward Markey (MA) to draft his committee’s climate change laws. Markey is rabidly anti-nuclear and entrenched with people who hold the irrational fear that nuclear plants are bombs waiting to happen. He’s active in the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, an anti-nuclear advocacy group. Edward Markey will never sponsor legislation that would put nuclear energy on level playing field with other energy options.

Steven Chu, the new Secretary of Energy, comes across as philosophically neutral on nuclear power. On a number of occasions he has stated that nuclear energy has the “potential” to contribute to energy security and climate change, but he is concerned about costs and about nuclear waste storage. On the other hand, Sec. Chu is vocally supportive of efficiency efforts, wind and solar energy, and biofuels. I continue to believe that any fair and logical person, when presented with the facts on safety, cost, and performance will recognize the need to give nuclear energy a priority in our energy policy. I am cautiously optimistic that Sec. Chu will work in favor an objective and fact-driven assessment of the nation’s energy options, and if that is the case Nuclear Energy will get the support needed.

Carol Browner, the new White House Coordinator for Climate and Energy Policy is President Obama’s primary adviser on how to integrate our nation’s actions to meet the goals of energy security and greenhouse gas reduction. She has been around Washington for years. As the EPA Administrator under Bill Clinton, Browner revised water quality standards for Yucca Mountain in a way that many experts feel was unreasonable and was, in reality, a tactic to delay the project. She has also stated reservations about nuclear energy because of what she termed “the waste issue.” Carol Browner is comes from the Al Gore school of climate change, and Al Gore has consistently avoided acknowledging nuclear energy’s advantages as our largest source of CO2-free energy, Browner will probably do the same.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently stated that energy security and supply is a mater of national security, and I could not agree more. In the past she has been a tough critic of nuclear power. She has been particularly opposed to Indian Point nuclear plant that is located only a few miles from her home in New York. In fact, she sponsored an addition to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that singled out the plant for new emergency warning system requirements. I would not oppose new nuclear regulation if I believed it would have a positive impact on safety that was commensurate with the costs, but in this case the result was millions of dollars of added costs with virtually no increase in safety. Like Nancy Polici, Mrs. Clinton’s position on nuclear energy has moderated in the last two years, so I am optimistic that she will weigh the pros and cons with objectivity and will thus support nuclear energy’s expansion as a means to increase energy security and reduce reliance on imported oil.

During the campaign President Obama was repeatedly asked about his position on nuclear energy. His consistent response was nuclear should be “on the table” while he emphasized his concerns over cost and safe storage of used fuel. There’s a common theme here; except for Edward Markey who is an anti-nuclear extremist, the two main concerns shared by leaders in the new government nuclear power are the long term storage of used nuclear fuel and the cost of new construction. If you listened to episode 60 of This Week in Nuclear you’ll know that building wind capacity is at least 2.5 times more expensive than nuclear, and new solar plants would cost 14 times more than nuclear plants for the same amount of energy generated. As for the waste issue, it is a political one, not a technical one.

It remains to be seen if the new government will be able to look beyond the panacea of cheap, abundant wind and solar energy and instead make policy based on science, fact, and engineering realities. If they are able to be objective, they will reach logical conclusions that nuclear energy can create a secure, constant, emissions-free, and cost effective energy supply we need.

On the other hand, if congress and the new administration stick to their out-dated perceptions and bias, then we’ll embark on a different course. In that case, the USA will spend the next several years and hundreds of billions of dollars promoting wind and solar energy. That scenario will NOT provide the quantity of constant, clean energy we need. Just look at Germany; their experiment into wind energy has failed – their grid in unreliable, they are growing ever more dependent on Russian natural gas, and they are importing more coal than ever. In fact, the United States exports coal to Germany! A focus on wind and solar is equivalent to the status quo: burning coal and gas at ever increasing rates. The winners under that scenario will be manufacturers of wind turbines and solar panels, and of course the coal, oil and gas suppliers.

Clean, cost-effective, carbon-free nuclear energy – that’s the CHANGE we need!

John Wheeler

This Week in Nuclear Website

Printable Version

Investors Recognize the Value in US Nuclear Plants

2009-01-29T21:11:00.006-05:00

Listen to the podcast here

There have been a number of recent developments in the US nuclear industry that amount to a shaking out of the various technologies, vendors, and utilities who are likely to emerge as leaders in the race to build the first new nuclear plants in the USA. A good analogy is the multi-stage bicycle race, the Tour de France. Each stage of the race has a winner, but the winner of any one stage will not necessarily win the race. I’d say we’re still not quite at the half way point of the race, but each month it’s becoming more and more clear which projects are in the lead pack, which are trailing, and which are in the race simply because they think it’s cool to wear the colored jerseys.

GE ESBWR Reactor Dropped by Exelon, Entergy and Dominion

There are growing indications that one new design is not progressing at the pace needed to support new construction anytime soon. Work on the General Electric Environmental Safe Boiling Water Reactor (or ESBWR) has yet to reach the level of detail that would enable GE to make firm costs estimates. As a result, three large customers, Exelon, Entergy, and Dominion Resources, have all announced they are no longer considering the ESBWR for their new plant projects. This is unfortunate for a number of reasons; the ESBWR is, in my opinion, a move in the right direction. It is a simplified design with fewer components and passive safety features. It should end up costing less than other reactors of similar capacity because it would have fewer expensive pumps and valves. It’s also a setback for the companies that were supporting that design - Exelon’s Texas project, Entergy’s plans for new reactors in LA and MS, and Dominion’s plans in VA will all experience delays as they regroup to select a new reactor type and negotiate with new vendors. At this point, the only remaining project for an ESBWR is from DTE Energy for their Michigan Unit 3 project. I have to wonder about General Electric’s commitment to the effort, particularly when their potential reactor business is but a small fraction of their projected wind and gas turbine revenues. Their leadership may be making resource decisions that acknowledge one new nuclear plant could prevent the construction of several gas large turbines and hundreds of wind turbines.

Toshiba and Westinghouse Sign Contracts for New Reactors in the USA

A few projects appear to be moving full speed ahead. This past week newspapers began to report that Toshiba had signed a contract to supply NRG Energy with two 1400 MW Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs). The deal, reportedly worth about $8.8 Billion, is for two new units at the South Texas Project where there are already two Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs). If this comes to pass, it will be the first time a Japanese nuclear reactor company has built a reactor outside of Japan. Interestingly enough, while Toshiba builds boiling water reactors in Japan, they also own the AP-1000 pressurized water reactor technology because of their 2006 purchase of Westinghouse.

Early this month Progress Energy signed a deal with Westinghouse for two new Advanced Passive 1000 (AP-1000) reactors for their Levy project in Florida. That contract is for $7.65 Billion. On a side note, last week Toshiba announced they have formed a partnership with Indian heavy equipment manufacturer Larsen & Toubro to build components for AP-1000 reactors they plan to sell in India. The Indian government has stated they need to build 60,000 MW of new electricity generation by 2030, and a large share is expected to be nuclear.

The AP-1000 design seems to betting the most “takers”; Progress Energy, Southern Company, Duke, South Carolina Electric & Gas, and TVA have all filed applications with the NRC for a total of 12 AP-1000 reactors. Other companies including FPL have stated their intent to do the same. Areva’s Evolutionary Pressurized Reactor (or US-EPR) is in second place with four units on the drawing board for Constellation Energy, PPL, AmerenUE, and Unistar. Areva is the international business company for EDF, the French Electric company that operates their 59 nuclear reactors.

French Utility EDF Buys 50% of Constellation Energy’s Five Nuclear Plants

Those of you inside the nuclear industry have certainly been watching the fascinating high stakes financial dealing that has been going on between Constellation Energy, Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican Energy Holdings, and EDF. If anyone was questioning the value of existing nuclear plants in the USA, after they hear this story any doubts they had will be a thing of the past. Last fall, about the time the world’s financial markets took their downturn, it became apparent that Constellation Energy was in trouble. Their cash reserves were depleted, and their stock price had reached an unreasonably low level when compared to their assets and balance sheet. In September Warren Buffett came to the rescue with a $4.7 Billion cash offer to buy the company. Areva, the international business arm of the EDF, recognized an opportunity and in December they countered Warren Buffett’s offer. The EDF offer was $4.5 Billion for a 49.9 percent share in Constellation’s nuclear units. The Constellation Energy board of directors accepted EDF’s offer.

Constellation has five nuclear units located on three sites; two Calvert Cliffs units in Maryland, two Nine Mile units in New York, and the Ginna unit, also in New York. EDF’s deal included $1 Billion in cash which shored up Constellation’s balance sheet and provided much needed operating cash. EDF and Areva have been eager to get their foot in the door of the lucrative US nuclear market, and this deal provides that opportunity.

So, even with the current chaos in the world’s financial markets, EDF’s deal means the full market value of Constellation’s nuclear units is $9 Billion. I think EDF got a pretty good deal; it would cost upwards of $20 Billion to build 5,400 MW of new capacity, and several of those plants are big money makers because they are located in deregulated electricity markets where nuclear is the cheapest form of generation and the cost of expensive natural gas prices sets daily market prices.

Entergy is Waiting for the Right Time to Execute Nuclear Spin-off

The turmoil in the financial markets have definitely had an impact on some utility plans for expansion and growth. Entergy, for example, announced they are delaying the proposed spin-off of their six deregulated nuclear plants. They’ve made it clear the deal is still on, and they are waiting for the right time to make it happen. Here’s an interesting comparison: the plants Entergy plans to spin off into a new company called Enexus will have more capacity and more revenue opportunity than the Constellation units that the market tells us are worth at least $9 Billion. This indicates to me that once the spin off happens Enexus should have a market value of between $10 Billion and $12 Billion. It will be interesting to see how the Enexus stock performs as the only 100% nuclear generator in an American deregulated electricity market.

Exelon Attempts Hostile Take-over of NRG Energy

The final example of the value investors are seeing in existing nuclear plants is a deal that is still in the works. In October, Exelon made an unsolicited bid to purchase NRG energy for $ 6.2 Billion. When the NRG board of directors refused the deal, Exelon began an attempt at a hostile takeover. Exelon offered NRG shareholders a stock exchange deal of just under ½ a share of Exelon for each share of NRG. As of this week they claim to have received contracts for 46% of NRG. The offer will continue until late February.

My belief is that Exelon understands the huge value that emissions free generation will have in Texas under any kind of carbon cap and trade program. Texans has the highest per capita electricity consumption in the USA, and the highest per capita CO2 emissions. This is because they use mostly coal and natural gas to generate electricity. In a carbon constrained economy, emission free electricity will be very valuable (and very profitable). Exelon already has plans to expand into Texas, and they see the NRG acquisition as a way to accelerate the process.

Despite the financial turmoil and the tightening of the world’s credit markets, the future remains bright for the nuclear industry. Realization is growing across the country and particularly in the investment community, that nuclear energy is the only cost effective source of base load carbon-free electricity. Nuclear generation is the only source of electricity that can be expanded quickly enough and to the scale needed to meet CO2 reduction goals.

Wind and solar power need to be a part of the energy mix, in that we need to continue research and development to help them someday become competitively priced and scalable. Until then building new nuclear plants is the only realistic option. Conservation has a role to play, too. Unfortunately, I question how much conservation the USA can achieve without a massive relocation of population from rural areas to large cities and huge government spending to pay for retrofitting old homes, businesses, and factories. Perhaps that is something the new administration has in mind.

John Wheeler

Printable Version

This Week in Nuclear Website

Energy Bailout Showdown: Solar vs. Wind vs. Nuclear

2009-01-18T14:25:00.011-05:00

Listen to the podcast here

A hundred billion dollars here and a hundred billion there, and before long you're taking about some real money! The US Congress approved the $700 Billion bailout just a few months ago, and within days they doled out half the money. Now it seems congress has virtually no idea what the banks did with $350 Billion of taxpayer money. To make matters worse, they declared a financial emergency to justify these drastic measures, yet the stock market crashed anyway, leaving working class retirement funds and 401K accounts with half their pre-crash values.

All this made me wonder, "What would be the impact of spending that same $350 Billion on creating a secure, emissions free energy grid?" and "How much clean energy generation would $350 Billion buy?"

To answer these questions I started with a little Internet research. The four primary means of generating emissions free electricity are solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear. I decided to concentrate on those four. First off, experts agree that hydro-electric capacity in the USA is pretty much tapped out, so even if we had the money to spend we could not buy more hydro. Scratch hydro-electric off the list.

Next I researched current examples of each technology to obtain cost estimates. For solar energy I used the Clark County Nevada 18 MW project, the largest solar PV installation in the world, and data from the Energy Information Administration. For wind energy I used two projects; Cape Wind in MA and the London Array in the UK. For nuclear energy I used the proposed two-unit plant that Progress Energy is building in Florida. Here are the published cost estimates:

Solar: $117 Million for 18 MW of rated capacity
Wind: $1.2 Billion for 420 MW of rated capacity
Nuclear: $14 Billion for 2210 MW of rated capacity

Next, I researched the capacity factors for each energy type because as we know, the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine all the time. A MW of "rated capacity" does not equal a MW of true power output. Nuclear plants don't run all the time either and must be shutdown periodically to replace fuel or for maintenance. For wind and solar I used best available estimates because both technologies are improving. For nuclear energy I used actual performance data. Here are the capacity factor results:

Solar – 19%: Solar energy suppliers say capacity factors vary depending on location from 12% in the US upper Midwest to 19% in Arizona. I'll assume we use the best location for our investment and capacity factor will be 19%.
Wind – 32% : Cape Wind project planners say today's CFs are 28%, but I used 32% because they promise performance will increase over time. I realize this is unproven, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Nuclear – 90%: for the last several years the capacity factor for US nuclear plants have averaged about 90%. While new plants will likely have a "shake down" period with lower capacity factors, it's reasonable to assume over their entire lifetimes the new plants will perform at least as well as existing plants.

Finally, since I'm considering energy produced over the life of our investment, we need to consider how long each power facility will last.

Solar – 20 years: I recently attended a Power Engineering workshop in which a representative from the Solar Energy Consortium (TSEC) spoke about the economics of solar installations. According to TSEC, solar panels last 18 to 20 years. For this calculation I'll use 20 years as the life expectancy.
Wind – 30 years: According to Alliant Energy, one of the largest wind producers in the USA, wind turbines last for 20 to 30 years. I'll use 30 years for this calculation.
Nuclear – 60 years: Today's nuclear plants are licensed for 40 years, and about half have received extensions to allow them to run for 60 years. It is reasonable to assume that new plants will also operate for 60 years.

Now it's time to crunch the numbers. I'll do this step by step. Remember, the goal of this exercise is to determine how much energy we can buy with an initial capital investment of $350 Billion. The final results will be expressed in Gigawatt-hours (thousands of Megawatt hours).

Step one: determine rated output for a $350 Billion investment.

Solar: if $117 Million buys 18 MW, then $350 Billion will buy 53,846 MW (rated).
Wind: if $1.2 Billion buys 420 MW, then $350 Billion will buy 122,500 MW (rated).
Nuclear: if $14 Billion buys 2210 MW, then $350 Billion will buy 55,250 MW (rated)

Step two: determine average power produced considering the predicted capacity factors.

Solar: 53,846 X 19% = 10,231 MW (average)
Wind: 122,500 X 32% = 39,200 MW (average)
Nuclear: 55,250 X 90% = 49,725 MW (average)

Step three: determine power produced over the expected life of the plant (there are 8,766 hours in a year and divide by 1000 to convert from Megawatts to Gigawatts).

Solar: (10,231 MW X 8,766 hours/yr X 20 years ) / 1000 = 1,793,699 GW-hours
Wind: (39,200 MW X 8,766 hours/yr X 30 years) / 1000 = 10,308,816 GW-hours
Nuclear: (49,725 MW X 8,766 hours/yr X 60 years)/1000 = 26,153,361 GW-hours

Results

An investment of $350 Billion in nuclear energy would provide 2.5 times more energy than the same investment in wind energy, and 14.6 times more energy than an investment in solar. Another way of looking at the value of the various investments is this: $350 Billion invested in solar energy will provide the same amount of energy as $23 Billion invested in nuclear energy. Also, as a nation we could choose to invest $350 Billion in wind energy, or we could get the same benefit from just $140 Billion invested in nuclear energy. In these troubled economic times, where should we be investing our finite resources?

Just a few months ago I sat in the audience at a workshop and listened to someone in the solar energy business tell us "…and with 50% government subsidies the return on investment is 18 to 20 years." I could hardly believe my ears! Who do they think pays for those subsidies? I'll also point out solar modules last only 20 years. Even with the taxpayer footing half of the bill, the return on investment happens just as the solar panels wear out!

The story for wind is a little better, but it still does not make sense for large scale investment. We need an energy source that is reliable and steady, not one that is intermittent and unpredictable. The economic barriers are still significant for wind.

By the way, in this analysis I neglected to add the cost of rapid-start power plants that would need to be in place to pick up the load to keep the grid stable when the wind stops blowing. That would add significantly to the cost of wind energy. I did include the cost of used nuclear fuel disposal because those costs were included in the Progress Energy cost estimate.

In summary, I don't believe the average American family is willing to pay 2.5 times to 14 times more for their electricity just to support the wind and solar industries? For the millions of people struggling to keep homes warm and food on the table in these tough economic times that simply would not be a responsible choice for us to make. That does not mean we should stop investing in research and development that may someday make wind and solar energy more cost effective. That is important, but we should not confuse R&D with large scale economically viable energy production.

In the coming months we are going to hear a lot about how the new administration will use our tax dollars to stimulate the economy, improve energy security, and address climate change. I hope you'll keep this analysis in mind when you listen to proponents of the various industries try to make their case.

John Wheeler

printer friendly version

Pickens Plan - Wind + Nuclear = Success

2008-10-12T20:47:00.004-04:00

Listen to the podcast here.

There is an awful lot going on in the world today that will have a big impact on all of our lives and those of future generations for decades to come. The growing financial turmoil around the globe, increasing use of fossil fuels to power the economies of the world, unrest in regions with vast petroleum and gas reserves, and of course climate change.

Tight Credit Markets May Delay Nuclear Build

The current tight-fisted grip on financing by investors and the world’s banks may have an impact on plans to build large infrastructure projects around the world, and nuclear plants certainly fall into that category. Nuclear plants can generate very competitively priced electricity because the price of fuel is but a small fraction of the overall cost. A larger percentage of the cost of nuclear generated electricity is in the costs associated with building the plant and financing the construction. Large coal plants are in the same situation, and with uncertainly around the impacts of probable greenhouse gas regulations virtually no one in the USA is building new coal plants. So what will happen if utilities can’t build new nuclear or coal plants? How will they keep ahead of electricity demand?

Natural gas is the big winner here; there is already an excess capacity of gas-fired plants on the US grid. They are normally only run as “peaking units.” But we’ll see them running more and more if new coal and nuclear plants experience long delays in coming online. It’s a sad situation for consumers and business, though, because gas is a very costly form of electricity and those cost will be passed on to all of us as higher rates for electricity and higher prices for goods and services. In the global economy, goods manufactured in regions of the world with low energy costs will have an increasing price advantage. THAT may result in loss of manufacturing jobs in the US, Canada, and Europe.

What about wind energy? I’ll cover about that later.

Myth Busting – Nuclear Plants Take Too Long to Build

There’s a commonly held myth that nuclear plants take too long to build. This myth perpetuated by the anti-nuclear crowd in an attempt to diminish the role nuclear energy will have in meeting the world’s energy demands and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. People like Helen Caldicot, Paul Gunter, Greenpeace, and the Rocky Mountain Institute – all want the public and our policy makers to believe a “trifecta” of myths – that nuclear energy is too dangerous, too expensive, and too time-consuming to build.

Their argument something goes like this: “It takes 10 or 20 years to build a nuclear plant, and we need to stop greenhouse gas emissions NOW! If we wait 20 years to reduce global warming it will be too late!”

To put the facts in perspective, I researched data available on line from the US Energy Information Administration. Here’s what I discovered:

14 of the currently operating US reactors were build in five years or less, and a total of 28 nuclear plants were built in under six years.

All these plants were built without modern construction techniques, computer-aided design and scheduling, and the global supply chains that exist today. It’s not hard to imagine shaving one or two years off those times when you take these advances into consideration.

Here’s another fact: There are 104 nuclear plants in the USA. 102 of those reactors were built between 1965 and 1990; a 25 year period.

The USA has done it before – we built 102 nuclear plants in 25 years! With today’s modular construction techniques, mechanized welding, and simpler plant designs there is absolutely no reason to doubt we could do it again. In fact, I’ll argue that with modern construction techniques we could build double that number if we put our mind to it!

All this data is consistent with the 48 to 52 month construction schedules that have been talked about recently, and modern nuclear plants in Asia have already been built in about four years.

The positive impact of that kind of nuclear expansion would be huge. Today’s new plants have greater power outputs on average than the existing ones, so if we built 102 new reactors in the next 25 years we could add 168 GW to the grid. At a 90% capacity factor, that amount of new energy on the grid would be equal to about one-third of the USA’s current electricity consumption. Think about all we could do with that amount of reasonably priced, clean, emission-free energy! If we chose to use that new energy capacity to reduce the amount of coal being burned, we could cut GHG emissions from electricity production by more than 40% of today’s values. On the other hand, if we chose to use that capacity to power electric vehicles we could significantly reduce the amount of petroleum we import.

There IS one area that still takes far too long – the nuclear plant licensing and approval process. It takes the NRC three to four years to review and approve a construction and operating license, and that is for plants for which there is already a certified design and at sites that have already have “early site permits”! That is just insane, and it adds to unnecessary costs! Being fair to the NRC, this is a new process and they have a lot of new people involved. In the future the American people and congress need to hold them accountable to make sure that they improve their performance quickly as they gain experience. It’s important to note, though, that wind and coal plant projects are taking just as long or longer to get approved through their respective approval processes. Plus, because of supply shortages, the waiting period for new wind turbines is about two years. If you add it all up, nuclear energy could make a greater impact in a shorter time than any other power source.

(Pickens Plan – Wind) + Nuclear = Success

There’s been a lot of talk recently about using natural gas as an energy source. If you live in the United States, you’ve probably heard of the “Pickens Plan” for energy independence. In summary, Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens is advocating a gigantic expansion of wind power for electricity generation across the central US. His plan is to use increased wind generation to replace natural gas use for electricity production, then he proposes diverting that gas to replace petroleum as a transportation fuel.

First of all: I am very impressed with the genius of the Pickens public relations engine. His team, financed by a $58 million advertising budget, is doing an incredible job of getting their message out! It is a well thought out and executed PR campaign that will definitely get people talking about alternatives to burning oil. The nuclear industry would do well by following his lead on creating an effective message and in reaching out to the audience using multiple avenues. The Pickens Plan is on television, the Internet, radio, and in the traditional print media. T. Boone has been appearing on talk shows, and is traveling around the USA doing “town hall” meetings. They are even using Internet-based social networks like Linked In, Facebook, and Twitter.

There’s one aspect of the “Pickens Plan” that I agree completely with: Regardless of your national reference point, every nation should strive to become as energy independent as possible. Keeping energy production at home creates jobs and keeps investment in the communities rather than sending money out of the country. This also reduces the political leverage that other nations have on your foreign policies. In the USA this means reducing oil imports.

As much as I respect the goals of the Pickens Plan, there are some very real technical issues that will challenge success. T. Boone refers to the technical challenges as “details that need to be worked out.” Unfortunately, some of these are pretty significant, and are virtually “show-stoppers.”

For example:

The wind corridor where the Pickens wind turbines would be built are in the middle of the continent in predominately lightly populated desert and plains regions thousands of miles from concentrated electrical energy demand. Every mile that electricity travels over power lines results in a measurable power loss, and by the time the electricity travels several hundred miles there would be little left for the customer. Why do you think large power plants tend to be built within about 100 miles of cities? The cost of transmitting electricity over these great distances is astronomical and makes the proposal impractical.

The cost of building thousands of miles of roads to build and maintain the turbines, and new power lines to connect the wind turbines to the load centers would more than double the already high cost of the project.

Wind energy is intermittent and unreliable. Europe has discovered that as you increase the percentage of wind generation you also have to increase the amount of fast starting back-up generation. If you don’t, the electricity grid becomes highly unstable when the wind suddenly stops or starts. Europe has experienced blackouts caused by sudden changes in the wind that exceeded the ability of the other power plants to react to the changes. In today’s world this means you need to increase the amount of natural gas powered plants. In a nutshell, increasing the amount of wind generation would INCREASE the amount of gas generation, not reduce it!

There are a few other facts in the Pickens Plan that I believe are misrepresented.

Pickens says electric cars are “a joke.” That is not the case. Automakers are ramping up production of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicles, and consumers have proven they are ready to buy them. In the next ten years these technologies will fundamentally change how we power our transportation system. An improvement in US fleet mileage by just 1/3 achieved by these technologies we can reduce oil imports by ~ 3 million barrels per day (1/3 of 8.9 MB/d for light vehicle petr. use per EIA). That’s almost a quarter of the oil currently imported into the USA!

Pickens also says nuclear plants can’t be built in time. We’ll I’ve just put that myth to rest. In my earlier analysis, those same 102 new reactors that we could build in the next 25 years could completely eliminate the need to burn natural gas for electricity production. In addition, few changes in the transmission system would be needed because nuclear plants would take advantage of the system already in place.

Finally, natural gas is already so expensive that utilities use it for electricity generation only as a last resort. The price has risen more than 400% in the last few years, and there is no sign that it will decline. If we start burning natural gas for transportation, the price will go even higher. That will really hurt the millions of people who use gas for heating their homes in the winter.

Wind energy is not “free” to operate as the proponents would lead you to believe. According to wind energy publications, each ten turbines require two full time operator mechanics to keep them running. If each turbine is 1.8 MW and operates at 28% capacity factor, each 5 MW of generation will require two people. That scales to 600 people for 1500 MW of true capacity. By the way, that is DOUBLE the number of technicians required to operate and maintain a nuclear plant of comparable size. Then, each two-person crew needs a truck and maintenance equipment – that means 300 specialized vehicles, plus fuel and vehicle maintenance costs. There will also be electricians to maintain the thousands of miles of power cables, transformers, and circuit breakers that connect the turbines to the grid. Then there is the management, administrative, and support organization associated with any such organization. The list goes on and on and I’ve not even begun to consider the cost of spare parts! This is great for the communities because of the number of jobs that would be created, but this adds to the high construction costs. All of a sudden you begin to get a realistic picture of what it will cost to build and operate large wind energy projects. If the wind is off-shore then it gets even more interesting. You need special maintenance service vessels, crews for the boats, and even more fuel.

Texas overbuilt natural gas electricity production when gas was cheap. Now that prices have risen Texans are paying the price. This is one reason that Texas is such an attractive market for companies considering new nuclear plants; the alternative is expensive natural gas. There are six or eight new reactors being considered for Texas, and two of them at South Texas Project are a virtual certainty.

I have an alternative for Mr. Pickens to consider: Nuclear energy would be a far better choice than wind as a method of reducing natural gas usage. As I mentioned before, when the wind is not blowing you’d be burning gas, and that pretty much defeats the purpose, doesn’t it?

T. Boone says his plan to expand wind is a stop-gap measure, a “bridge technology” to use until something better comes along. I would argue that we already have a proven solution that can be deployed faster and more cheaply than thousands of wind turbines scattered over many thousands of square miles.

I am not opposed to wind energy, but I believe that we need to use our limited financial resources as wisely as possible. Nuclear energy is simply a better investment than wind or gas generation. You get more energy per dollar spent, it is more reliable, has less impact on the environment, and the costs are lower and more certain.

That’s it for this show. As a reminder, you can find “This Week in Nuclear” at the iTunes Music Store – it is a free download. You can also listen to the show on Internet at thisweekinnuclear.com. At the web site you can listen to prior episodes and you can read show notes and transcripts.

“Go Green, Go Nuke”!

John Wheeler

TWiN 58 - New Nuclear Gains Construction Cost Advantage Over Wind and Coal as Steel Prices Rise

2008-05-26T22:24:00.003-04:00

There's been a lot of discussion lately about the impact of rising steel prices on new power plant costs. I decided to do some research on the topic and the results may surprise you. Here's a link to my analysis:

Nuclear Gains Cost Advantage Over Wind and Coal as Steel Prices Rise

Listen to the podcast for my discussion.

The bottom line is this: the cost of raw materials used in the construction of wind, coal and nuclear power plants is rising rapidly. Because nuclear plants use fewer of these natural resources than either wind or coal power plants, as costs rise nuclear plants gain an increasing construction cost advantage.

It looks like another myth held sacred by the anti-nuclear establishment is beginning to crumble; the myth that nuclear plants are too expensive to build.

Peace!

John Wheeler

TWiN 57 - Media Myths About Nuclear Energy

2008-05-02T23:20:00.002-04:00

Listen Here

Direct Download MP3

Shell Pulls Out of Wind Project

The UK is going along with the EU in an attempt to build enough “renewable energy” electric capacity to provide 20% of their electricity needs by 2020. Their current definition of “renewable” by the way does NOT include nuclear plants. The UK is counting on 33 GW of off-shore wind generation as a key component of that renewable generation package. That would mean a monumental wind energy construction program never before attempted. I’ve spoken about the financial and performance limitations of wind generation before, and now those limitation are becoming realities and are causing the UK government and investors to reconsider.

Here’s the latest example: Royal Dutch Shell has decided to pull out of a huge off-shore wind energy project known as the London Array because of skyrocketing costs. The London Array is a proposed 1000 MegaWatt, or 1 GW wind farm that is slated to be built off the southeast coast of the UK. It’s a giant project composed of 341 wind turbines. Original cost estimates to build the farm were about 1 Billion BSP, but although construction has not begun the price has more than doubled. Even with massive subsidies from the British government that project could never compete with nuclear power plants. Here’s why;

· Let’s assume the cost for the 1GW London Array is $2B BSP – we know it is more, but let’s use that round number. That’s about $4 Billion.

· Wind has a best case capacity factor of less than 30%, but let’s give this project the benefit of the doubt and assume the London Array will achieve a 30% CF.

· That means the usable electric energy will be 300 MW.

· $4 Billion for 300 MW? No one in their right mind would spend $4B for 300 MW! By comparison, a single EPR reactor would cost about the same, and would generate five times as much electricity! That means the capitol cost of electricity from wind would cost five times that of nuclear.

I know this is a bit of a simplification. I’ve used round number and back-of-the-napkin math, but it’s certainly not that far off. I used optimistic cost and capacity factor values for wind, and still wind is five times more expensive than nuclear generated electricity. The anti-nuclear crowd has been very successful in creating a perception that nuclear plants are very expensive to build. However, when you compare the cost of new nuclear plants with other forms of non-GHG emitting sources, it is the lowest cost and most reliable option available. I learned something else about the UK’s wind energy program. There is a two year waiting list for the turbines, so even if you wanted to begin installing them today you wouldn’t be able to have the plant in full production for 3 to 4 years from now. All of a sudden the 48 to 50 months that it takes to build a new nuclear plant does not sound so long!

If the UK is loosing support for the first 1 GW of off-shore wind, how in the world will they be able to install 33 GW in the next 14 years. That 33 GW would cost well over $120 Billion. It simply is not going to happen. On the other hand, when corrected for capacity factor, it would only take 6 or 7 new nuclear plants to generate the same amount of electricity as all those hypothetical wind turbines. That is certainly achievable by 2020. And it could be done for about one-fifth of the cost.

Oh yea, and you’d have electricity when the wind isn’t blowing!

My last thought on this story is this: when are we going to change the definition of “green renewable energy” to include nuclear power?

US Government Perpetuates Myth

The mainstream media has done a good job of associating images of large parabolic cooling towers with nuclear power plants. It's an inaccurate association because cooling towers are used in many large fossil fueled power plants, and many nuclear plants do not use cooling towers. Some examples in the USA include Turkey Point in Florida, Indian Point in New York, and Seabrook in New Hampshire. As a rule, plants that access to ocean water or large rivers do not have cooling towers because there is an ample supply of cooling water. The media also has taught the public to associate the clouds rising from cooling towers with nuclear radiation emissions, when in reality those clouds are only water vapor. Parabolic cooling towers are not smoke stacks or reactor buildings. They are simply heat exchangers that use natural convection to create air flow rather than using large fans.

It's an example of anti-nuclear misinformation aimed at creating negative images and negative branding. Unfortunately the US government has fallen into the trap and is perpetuating this misinformation on a global scale. This week North Korea agreed to blow up the cooling tower at their Yongbyon nuclear facility within 24 hours of being removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. The US government is seeking to create a media image of the demise of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. In reality, they are doing a huge disservice to truth, and to those of us who seek to promote positive images of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

The truth is the loss of a cooling tower might limit the power level to which the reactor could operate, but it would not prevent reactor operation. Even without the cooling tower the North Koreans could operate the reactor at low power levels.

But worse, the US government is perpetuating another false perception; the dangerous myth that commercial nuclear power plants make nuclear weapons. By using images of a cooling tower implosion as a symbol of the dismantling of NK's weapons program the US government is reinforcing the negative and false association between weapons and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. I have to wonder who is making decisions like this. I am sure the nuclear weapons experts in the IAEA, and the US Department of Energy can see through the façade. I can only surmise that the media relations people are influencing decision making without regard to the truth or to the potential damage this imagery does to all of us who are working so hard to bust myths and share facts about the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Davis Besse engineer gets probation for hiding damage

Davis Geisen, an engineer who worked at the Davis Besse nuclear plant was sentenced to three years probation, four months house arrest, and a $7,500 fine for misleading the NRC about the status of the plant's reactor head in the fall of 2001. He was convicted in October of 2007 by a jury that deliberated for 26 hours, and faced up to $250,000 in fines and five years in prison. In 2006 the NRC banned Mr. Geisen from working in the nuclear industry for five years because he had willfully provided false information to NRC inspectors. FirstEnergy, the owner of the plant, has paid a record $33.5 million in fines for its role in the event in which severe corrosion was found on the reactor vessel head.

TWiN 56 - Shumlin's Melt-down

2008-04-27T22:12:00.004-04:00

Listen to the Podcast Here

Entergy's Bold Move

I don't usually spend so much time on one story, but this one is unique, and it's the type of story that warrants a good deal of discussion. There is a financial development underway in the US nuclear industry that has yet to gain much attention, but could be one of the boldest and most innovative moves by any company to date. Entergy is planning to spin off ownership of more than half it's reactors into a new nuclear-only energy company. This will be the first free-market nuclear energy company in the United States.

Before I go into the details of this story, I need to make clear that all of the information I discuss on This Week in Nuclear is already in the public domain in one form or another. I don't do investigative reporting other than researching news that's already been reported. Hopefully I'm able to provide some insights, analysis, and context that listeners find informative and entertaining. Also, the opinions expressed here are mine and those of my occasional guests, and not the opinions of the companies that employ us. I've mentioned this before, but feel it's important to do so again now because this plan by Entergy's to spin off nuclear assets is still under way and involves publicly trades stocks. I don't want to give anyone the slightest impression that I'm discussing proprietary or insider information.

To understand the deal and the motivations behind it, it's helpful first to have an overall picture of Entergy's current business. Entergy is a big company, but in reality it is made up of two very different businesses:

In the southern US, Entergy is a traditional regulated utility with power plants, transmission & distribution lines, and customers. If you live in many parts of LA, MS, AR, and TX then Entergy is the company that provides your electricity. This part of the business is called "regulated" because the rates the company charges for it's electricity is regulated by public service commissions and other government entities. The electricity markets in the territories Entergy serves in the south have not "deregulated" as they have in many parts of the USA. Five of Entergy's nuclear plants are in the regulated business; Waterford 3, ANO Units 1 and 2, Grand Gulf, and River Bend. Entergy also has a number of fossil generating plants in their regulated business. Profits for any regulated utility come from guaranteed rates of return on moneys invested and spent. It's a low-risk business model with a lower but secure rate of return for investors.
The other part of Entergy's business is owning and operating six nuclear plants in "deregulated" markets in the northeast and midwest. These free-market nuclear plants sell their power to utilities and large customers, and they make their profits the way most other businesses do; profits are equal to revenues minus costs. The price these deregulated nuclear plants get for the energy they produce is based negotiated wholesale power contracts, and on the competitive market prices for electricity. Entergy's deregulated nuclear plants are Indian Point 2 and 3, Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, James Fitzpatrick, and Palisades. The deregulated business also includes a contract that Entergy has with Nebraska Public Power District to manage the operation of the Cooper Nuclear Station, and a group that markets the power that the plants produce. This deregulated part of Entergy's business is very lucrative, and is fundamentally very different from the traditional utility business. From an investor and financial perspective, this part of their business could be viewed as having greater risk, with a greater potential return on investment. For example, according to Entergy's latest annual report, in 2007 the deregulated nuclear plants make up 21% of the company's assets while they generated 48% of the company's income on just 18% of their total revenues. So in round numbers, about one-fifth of the assets generated about one-half of the income.

So Entergy is in two very different businesses, one low risk, steady return, traditional utility, and the other a higher risk, higher potential return free-market energy generation company.

There is one additional factor affecting the decision to spin off the six deregulated nuclear units; Entergy's leadership believes those plants are worth more from an investment point of view than is being reflected in the current value of Entergy's stock. According to Wayne Leonard, Entergy's CEO, "..the full value of the business has not and is unlikely to be realized or recognized embedded in a regulated utility." In summary, they believe the new separate companies will have a total worth greater than the currently undivided company.

So here's Entergy's plan: after the spin off later this year there will be three companies instead of one.

The six deregulated nuclear plants with about 5,000 MW of electricity generating capacity will be owned by a new nuclear energy company called Enexus. This company will be an investor owned, publicly traded company. While the terms of the split have not been announced, anyone who owns Entergy stock on the day of the spin-off will be granted shares in the new company.
A new nuclear services company will be formed to operate all the nuclear plants owned by Enexus, plus all the nuclear plants owned by Entergy. This new nuclear operating and services company will be called Equagen. Equagen will be a 50/50 joint venture between Entergy and Enexus.
What's left of the old Entergy, basically the traditional regulated utility will continue to be called Entergy.

Financing for the deal is fairly complicated, but in a nutshell Enexus will borrow $4.5 billion to buy the six nuclear plants from Entergy. That's a lot of money, but when you consider what it would cost to build 5,000 MW of base load generation capacity it is a great price. Those six nuclear plants are probably worth two or three times that amount. From what I can tell, Enexus will pay Entergy $4 B for the plants. I'm not sure where the other $500 million will go, but presumably it will be used for initial operating costs. Entergy will use the $4 B it receives in the deal to pay off $1.5 B in debt and, and $2.5 B will be used to buy back stock. In theory, Entergy's stock price should drop on day one of the spin-off, then should increase later as the company uses that $4 B in cash to reduce debt and buy back stock.

So is this a good idea? Well, I guess that depends on whether or not you believe that a 100% nuclear generating company in the Northeast USA is a good business idea. If you use recent financial performance as a measure, the new company will have assets worth about $10 B (or more), debts of about $4.5 B, and annual revenues of about $2 B. Remember those plants generated about one-half of Entergy's earnings last year (about $500 Million), so theoretically in the future they should be able to generate about $500 million in profits on $2 Billion in revenues. If the price of electricity goes up, then they stand to make more. If any kind of carbon legislation gets passed, then you could expect the market price of electricity to go up, and these plants would benefit.

On the down side, if you believe there is any risk that license renewals for Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, or Indian Point will not get approved, then Enexus's assets would be worth considerably less.

From my opinion, I think it's a great idea. You've heard me talk before about how difficult it is for new power plants of any type to be built in the northeast, and I believe that the price of electricity will continue to go up as fuel prices rise for oil, gas, and coal. I think some kind of carbon tax or cap and trade program is inevitable, and that will provide advantages to nuclear plants that emit zero greenhouse gasses or other forms of air pollution. I also believe that while the political battles over license renewals will be hard fought, in the end all the plants who seek license renewals will be granted them. In my opinion the risk is pretty low. But PLEASE don't take this as financial advice! If you have any interest in investing in any of the companies I've mentioned, please talk to a financial professional.

Vermont State Senate Leader Peter Shumlin's Poor Behavior Forces Governor to Apologize

Vermont's Governor Jim Douglas was doing damage control this week after State Senator Peter Shumlin publicly insulted business leader John O'Kane. O'Kane is a representative for IBM, one of the state's largest employers. In essence, Peter Shumlin called O'Kane a liar during a press conference called by business leaders who oppose Shumlin's latest legislative attack on Vermont Yankee.

For years Shumlin has been at the center of opposition to Vermont Yankee. This latest proposal would force Vermont Yankee to make $400 million in additional payments into the decommissioning trust fund that they say is under-funded. The plant's contention is that there is plenty in the account to cover the eventual cost of decommissioning when interest earning is factored in. Business leaders, including John O'Kane voiced their opinion that the legislation is unnecessary and that there are many financial means other than cash deposits into the fund that would provide added assurance to the state. The business leaders are concerned that the legislation would result in rate increases and higher costs for businesses and the people of Vermont.

During the press conference O'Kane made the analogy of a 30 year mortgage in which the bank suddenly demanded full repayment of the loan. Here's a transcript:

O'Kane "Money has time value, and you're changing the time.

Shumlin: "We are not asking for the money. You're lying about that. We are not asking for the money. The bill says..."

O'Kane: "Peter, that's it. You just called me a liar."

Shumlin: "I said you're not telling the truth about that, John."

After Shumlin's freak-out, Vermont Governor Jim Douglas called IBM to apologize for Peter Shumlin's inappropriate comments and his behavior "disgraceful."

Under Shumlin's leadership the state legislature has proposed a long series of laws to extort moneys from Vermont's nuclear plant, including:

$28 Million for a "clean energy fund" to promote wind, solar, and methane projects,
$7.8 Million to clean up algae in Lake Champlaign (BTW, the plant is not even located on the lake).
$2.1 Million to subsidize low-income home heating
An "excess revenues" tax that would only apply to the plant.
A tax on stored fuel rods.

Fortunately most of these bills were defeated and never became law, but that does not slow him down. Shumlin has another piece of anti-nuclear legislation going though the process now; a bill that would require Vermont Yankee to undergo a costly and subjective "comprehensive vertical audit and reliability assessment."

All this to oppose a plant that keeps Vermont's carbon footprint the lowest in the nation, and the electricity rates at about one-half of what is paid in surrounding states.

TWiN 55 - Will Russia Benefit from the Ignalina-2 Shutdown?

2008-04-20T20:31:00.001-04:00

Listen to the This Week in Nuclear Podcast Here

British Investment in Nuclear Energy Pays Off Big - Again!

Back in 2003 British Energy was in trouble and the UK government stepped in to bail them out with a 1.5 billion BSP aid package. The utility's troubles were compounded by financial deregulation of the electric energy market and low gas prices. British Energy's nuclear plants were having a tough time competing on the market with gas burning power plants.

But what a difference five years makes. The UK government is considering the sale of its 35% stake in the company, and bidding is expected to go as high as 11 billion BSP, about seven times their original investment, a 730% return on investment in 4.5 years! Share prices of their stock have risen similarly from under 20 pence per share to over 700 pence over the same period.

There are at least 6 companies in the bidding: EDF and Suez of France, EoN and RWE of Germany, Vattenfall of Sweden, Iberdrola of Spain; and Britain’s Centrica.

Why the interest? The sale includes properties where existing nuclear plant are located, and those are prime locations for new nuclear plants that will built under the UK's plan to expand nuclear energy's role in meeting energy demands and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Owners like EDF will have an advantage in getting their respective reactor technologies built.

Nuclear Plants Continue to Operate Safely Through 5.2 Magnitude Earthquake

On April 18^th an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.2 on the Richter scale rocked the Midwestern USA . While the quake was centered in southern IL, it was easily felt by people as far away as Indianapolis and Detroit. Nuclear plant in the area entered their respective emergency plans as a precaution and conducted the necessary inspections. Not a single plant encountered any difficulty whatsoever. While a few units were shutdown for refueling, most were running at the time and continued to run after the event.

This earthquake was considerable less intense than the one that struck Japan last year. The Richter scale is a logarithmic scale, so each increase in one number means ten times the ground acceleration. The earthquake that struck Japan's Kashiwasaka nuclear plant last year measured 6.8 .

Will New Jersey Get In the Game?

It seems like every week we hear of another utility announcing they are exploring the possibility of building new nuclear units, even in states where the political climate is decidedly anti-nuclear. New Jersey is the latest; on one hand they are opposing a license extension for the Oyster Creek pant, and on the other Governor Corzine released a draft energy policy that includes a new look at nuclear plant licensing, siting, and financing. It's all part of an initiative to meet the state's booming energy demands while complying to commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Governor wrote in the plan, "A business as usual energy policy risks enormous economic and environmental consequences. In contrast, an energy policy that focuses on producing and using energy as wisely as possible greatly reduces these consequences and positions us to be a strong competitor in the global economy."

PSE&G, the owner of the Salem Hope Creek nuclear plant in southern New Jersey, said they are reviewing the possibility of adding a new nuclear unit at that three-unit site.

Anti-nuclear environmentalists criticized the plan because they said it does not place enough emphasis on wind and solar energy.

Russia to Power Lithuania When Ignalina-2 Shuts Down

This week Russia announced plans to build a 2.3 GW nuclear plant in Kaliningrad, and offered 49% percent of the plant's output to foreign investors.

This is an interesting decision because Kaliningrad is a Russian enclave on the Baltic sea that is geographically 200 miles separate from the rest of Russia. There were fewer than half a million inhabitants there, and typically 500,000 customers would use only a little more than half a gigawatt. This means Rosatom plans to use about 1/4 of the plant's output locally, market 1/4 of the output themselves, and share 1/2 the output with co-owners of the plant. The most likely customers would be Poland and Lithuania which surround Kaliningrad on three sides. The forth side is the Baltic sea.

Poland is very dependent on Russian gas for energy, and have been in talks with other countries to partner in the construction of a nuclear plant. Lithuania has one nuclear reactor, Ignalina-2, that produces 70% of their electricity. However, this plant is being forced to shut down in 2009 by an agreement with the EU. This will put Lithuania at the mercy of Russia for gas and oil. Ignalina-2 is the only RBMK reactor still operating outside of Russia.

So it seems Russia is strategically placing this new unit where its output can be used when Ignalina-2 shuts down.

Independent Report: "Don't Shutdown Indian Point!"

2008-02-10T19:06:00.000-05:00

An independent report commissioned by four business groups predicts dire economic consequences for southern New York State if Indian Point Nuclear Plant is shutdown. The analysis was conducted by an energy consultant on behalf of

the Business Council of Westchester
the Construction Industry Council/Construction Advancement Institute of Westchester and Hudson Valley
the County Board of Realtors, and
the Building and Realty Institute

If Indian Point is closed, the report concludes the following would occur:

the average annual residential electric bill in Westchester would jump to $2,500 from $1,000.
11,000 full- and part-time jobs could be lost in Westchester County
the region would suffer $2.1 billion in lost wages and nearly $5.5 billion in lost economic output
The hardest-hit jobs would be in health care, real estate, government, education and the retail sectors
Conservation and development of renewable energy sources such as windmills will not be sufficient to offset the loss of Indian Point
The likelihood of rolling brownouts and blackouts would be high

The report also busts another anti-nuclear myth. Anti's try to convince local residents that their property prices will rise when nuclear plants are shut down. The new report dispels that myth.

Riverkeeper and Andy Spano's office called foul and claimed Entergy influenced the report. In response to the those allegations, Marsha Gordon, president and chief executive of the Business Council, said in an e-mail message on Monday: “Entergy had absolutely no role in the development of this report. While Entergy is one of more than 1,200 members of the Business Council, they are not affiliated with the other three sponsoring organizations.”

This report reached similar conclusions to two prior reports, one by the Nuclear Energy Institute, and another by the National Academy of Science.

I hope the people of Westchester County pay attention. Andrew Spano needs a wake up call from the voters!

Greenpeace forced the UK nuclear review, but now they don't like the conclusion!

2008-01-01T23:25:00.000-05:00

It looks like 2008 will start out with a new round of delay tactics by Greenpeace to slow the inevitable deployment of new reactors in the UK.

"Given the circumstances we will be facing, it is inconceivable that we should prevent nuclear from being part of our energy mix."

The Prime Minister indicated in his New Year message to the country that the Government was prepared to take the "difficult decision" of upgrading nuclear power plants.

Following months of delays over a legal challenge, John Hutton, the Business Secretary, is expected to tell MPs that a new era of nuclear power can begin. Greenpeace forced the Government to launch a further study of the plans earlier this year after judges ruled that the initial decision-making process was flawed. Greenpeace is likely to try to halt the plans again.

Senior sources in the Department for Business and Enterprise insisted: "Dozens of individuals and organisations have contributed to the consultation and we have taken account of everything they said."

Intelligent, educated leaders with political fortitude, when faced with the uncertainty of oil and gas supplies from politically unstable regions, growing concern for climate change, and skyrocketing fuel prices will virtually always reach the same conclusion: nuclear energy's role must grow.

TWiN 54 - Happy Nuke Year from John Wheeler, Rod Adams, and Kelly Taylor

2007-12-31T11:24:00.002-05:00

Listen to the Podcast Here

Here's a special edition of "This Week in Nuclear" . Rod Adams of "The Atomic Show" Podcast, along with co-Nuke Kelly Taylor and I decided to bring in 2008 with as a group.

You'll also find our discussion on "The Atomic Show" (link below).

Links:
1. This Week in Nuclear Home Page
2. Show Transcript and Blog
3. The Atomic Show

TWiN 53 - European Union Supports Nuclear Energy Expansion

2007-12-22T20:24:00.001-05:00

Listen to the Podcast Here

News this Week:

Bruce Power Enters Deal with Energy Alberta
The European Union Endorses Nuclear Energy
Canada Joins GNEP
Russia and USA are Resolving Uranium Trade Dispute
Russia delivers fuel to Bushehr Plant in Iran
India / USA Nuclear Deal Struggles
USA New Nuclear Developments
Rock Legend & Humanitarian Bob Geldof Endorses Nuclear Energy

Bruce Power Enters Deal with Energy Alberta

Bruce Power has reached an agreement to purchase assets of Energy Alberta, including exclusive rights to deploy the Advanced Candu Reactor (ACR-1000) design in Alberta. This is significant because Energy Alberta has already begun the process to obtain a permit to build two new ACR-1000 units at the Peace River site. Now Bruce Energy will take over that project, and will have the rights for other future new nuclear plants in the province. The proposed two unit plant would provide energy to the tar sands oil extraction projects in the area. Alberta is expected to need about 5000 MWe of new electricity production by the year 2016.

Bruce Power owns and operates the Bruce nuclear plant in Ontario – that site consists of two “four-packs” as they’re referred to in Canada – two four-unit CANDU reactors. Six of the eight units are in operation, and the other two are undergoing an extensive upgrade and will restart in the future. I spent a few weeks at the Bruce B station several years ago and was impressed by the technology.

It’s hard for those of us who are accustomed to operating single unit or two-unit nuclear plants to envision a common control room for four reactor plants. The control room is huge – about ½ the size of a basketball court. If I recall correctly it’s a six sided room – one side for each reactor, and one side for the common systems, and the back side is the shift manager’s office. There’s also a center island for the refueling station. CANDU reactors have a unique ability to refuel on line, and the center island refuel station is where that process is controlled.

Bruce Power will now begin the process of conducting a full environmental assessment of the Peace River site for the potential new nuclear units. The company also intends to work with the Canadian Hydrogen Association to study the potential of converting electricity generated by nuclear reactors during off-peak hours into hydrogen. A similar study is being conducted at the Bruce nuclear power plant.

The European Union Endorses Nuclear Energy

The European Union has finally come to its senses and endorsed the expansion of nuclear energy as one of the strategies that will help them protect the environment, minimize greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy security. There’s recognition that at present Europe is highly dependent on Russian gas for heat and electricity, something that gives Russia an unhealthy about of political leverage in the region, so anything they can do to reduce their reliance on gas is a good idea for political autonomy as well.

The report predicted that on current trends, the EU will import 65% of its energy by 2030. Yet, gas and oil supplies are plagued by uncertainty due to growing worldwide demand and geopolitical instability in supplier states.
European energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs said that "It will be difficult... to achieve our climate change goals without the use of nuclear energy." The endorsement was contained in a report titled, Conventional Energy Sources and Energy Technology, which was adopted with 509 votes in favor, 153 against and 30 abstentions.

The endorsement acknowledging that nuclear energy is a key component of the energy supply in most EU member states and provides one third of the EU's electricity. The report also states nuclear energy is "indispensable if basic energy needs are to be met in Europe in the medium term." Given that "nuclear energy is currently the largest low-carbon dioxide energy source in Europe," they added, "the renunciation of nuclear power will make it impossible to achieve the objectives set regarding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the combating of climate change".

I wonder what the green party has to say about that?

Canada Joins GNEP

Canada announced they intend to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, an important step in securing future uranium supplies for GNEP members.
The GNEP vision is to have a consortium of nuclear supplier countries providing standardized reactors to client states along with assured supplies of nuclear fuel. After use, GNEP reactor used fuel would be returned to a supplier state for reprocessing, recycling of recovered materials, the destruction of some wastes in advanced power reactors and final disposal.

Membership already includes Australia, Bulgaria, China, France, Ghana, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Ukraine and the United States. Canada’s buy-in was important because they are a leading supplier of the world’s uranium.

Russia and USA are Resolving Uranium Trade Dispute

You may recall a story I covered some time ago about accusations by the US Depart of Commerce that Russia was “dumping” uranium onto the market in an effort to undercut US supplier USEC, drive prices down and acquire market share. It seems that the two nations are on the verge of reaching at least an interim agreement on how much enriched uranium may be imported from Russia into the USA.

At the center of the dispute is the desire by USEC to protect its investment in enrichment capability, and the USA’s need to develop nuclear fuel production capacity to meet future demands. Much of the fuel that USEC currently sells is under the terms of the 'Megatons to Megawatts' program. This uranium blended down Russian highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and not enriched in the USA. However, with the agreement due to end in 2013, and the possible relaxation of current stringent limits on imports of Russian-enriched uranium into the USA, USEC will inevitably face increased competition from overseas. USEC said last month that US utilities' use of very cheap Russian enrichment capacity would be a "significant threat to the ability of the US enrichment industry to deploy new production capacity." USEC itself is currently working hard to do just that, as it constructs the Lead Cascade of its American Centrifuge facility, while others build new US enrichment capacity based on proven Urenco centrifuge technology.

At the heart of the new agreement is an October ruling by the US Court of International Trade (CIT) that declared that uranium enrichment is a “service” and not a “product.” That decision forced the DOC to re-examine its case for import duties placed on uranium enrichment carried out in Russia. Any future trade barriers will not be allowed to rely on uranium enrichment. At present, import duties are imposed on low-enriched uranium imported from Russia and the former Soviet states of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

The proposed amendment will allow Russia to recommence exporting uranium products to the USA. The amounts allowed will ramp up from16.5K kgU in 2011 to 41.3K kgU in 2013 when the 'Megatons to Megawatts' program is due to expire. Quantities will rise after 2013, increasing from 485K kgU in 2014 to 514.7K kgU in 2020. The amendment exempts Russian uranium imported for US initial cores (the first fuel loaded into a new reactor) from the annual export limits. Under the 'Megatons to Megawatts' program, ex-military enriched uranium from Russia is diluted to reactor grade, sold to USEC and used by US nuclear utilities.

Many people don't realize that for the last several years 1/2 of the fuel used in generating 20% of the USA's electricity has come from "burning" uranium from former nuclear warheads! That means 10% of the nation's electricity has come from getting rid of old weapons. That continues to amaze me!

Russia Begins Fuel Delivery to Bushehr Plant in Iran

This week Russia delivered the first shipment of fuel to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant. This is a commercial nuclear plant that has been under construction for more than a decade. I’ve talked about that project a few times in the show, going back to Episode 33. This is a nuclear power plant designed to produce electricity, not weapons. The most recent delay was due to a payment dispute between the two nations. Iran reports the plant should be ready to begin commercial operation in about one year.

India / USA Nuclear Deal Struggles

Political disagreements inside India continue to plague the treaty between India and the USA that will open the door to commercial nuclear cooperation between the two nations. The main opposition is coming from the communist party in India who claim they are trying to protect Indian’s poor from ruthless foreign influence from the United States.

The supporters of the deal have a different opinion; they claim the communist party is engaging in political obstructionism to prevent closer ties with the US at the expense of the same underclass they claim to represent. They also claim that the communist party is afraid the deal will strengthen economic ties with the US which, in turn, will weaken China’s influence in India.

The communist party in India has enough seats in the Parliament to block the deal, so unless a compromise can be reached the deal will die.

I really hope the politicians on both continents can work together to make this deal come to fruition. India badly needs energy to feed their billions, grow their economy, and raise the standard of living of their underclass. They will get the energy somewhere, and it is in everyone’s best interests to make that energy source clean, low cost, and safe. Russia, China and other nations are wasting no time establishing relationships to build nuclear plants in India, and to supply them with fuel. India already has an impressive home-grown nuclear industry, but it is not big enough to build the number of plants they need quickly enough.

New Nuclear Developments

This week there have been a number of developments in plans for new nuclear power plants in the United States:

MidAmerica Energy Holdings announced they are exploring the possibility of building a new nuclear plant in Idaho. MidAmerica is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, the investment company led by investor Warren Buffet. The new plant would be located on the western Idaho border near Oregon. This is the second company actively considering a new nuclear plant in the region; I’ve spoken in the past about the Alternate Energy Holdings project to build a nuclear plant near Burneau, ID.

PPL, or Pennsylvania Power & Light notified the NRC they plan to file for a construction and operating license for a new nuclear unit that will be located at their Susquehanna site in Berwick, PA where they already have two reactors. PPL also announced they have signed a deal with Unistar to provide an EPR reactor for that project.

And Exelon announced they have selected a site near Victoria, TX for a new nuclear plant. That site is about 130 miles SW of Houston.

Rock Legend & Humanitarian Bob Geldof Endorses Nuclear Energy

The anti-nukes have Alex Baldwin and John Hall, but the tide may turning in the entertainment industry as actors, and musicians become more vocal in their support of nuclear energy. A few months ago I reported on positive remarks made by actor Paul Neumann after his tour of the Indian Point Nuclear Plant in New York. Now Rock Legend and Nobel Peace Honoree Sir Bob Geldof is speaking out in favor of expanding nuclear energy’s role in powering the United Kingdom.

Sir Bob wrote in a blog last week that “…to really help the planet we have to go nuclear, fast.” When referring to the potential of new nuclear plants being built in the UK to meet energy demand he added, “I don’t care what anyone says: we’re going to go with it, big time!”

Sir Bob Geldof, formerly of the rock group “The Boomtown Rats” became famous for his humanitarian efforts to bring aid to millions of famine victims in Ethiopia and the 1984 Live Aid concert. In 2005 he was voted a Nobel Man of Peace by all living Nobel Prize recipients.

I know I’m dating myself, but there was a time when I was a big fan of the “Boomtown Rats.” I have no idea where my old “Rats” CDs are, so this news inspired me to me go out and buy an albums on Amazon.com. You can do the same: here's a link to the Best of the Boomtown Rats album!

Ways to listen to “This Week in Nuclear” - instruction on the web site:

On the web
By eMail
Download
iPod or other MP3 player
TiVO
Telephone

Be sure to stop by the web site at thisweekinnuclear.com . I’ve had a few days off this week and took the opportunity to update the web site and fix a few broken links. At the site you can listen to any prior podcast episodes, read show transcripts, search old shows by key word, and do some last minute holiday shopping.

In just a few days I’ll be celebrating the beginning of my third year producing “This Week in Nuclear”. I know there are a few of you listeners out there who have been supporting the show since the beginning, and I owe you all immense appreciation and a huge “thanks” for your support, encouragement, and participation in the on-line dialog that makes the show fun and interesting.

To those of you celebrating this time of year, I wish you and your families a safe and HAPPY HOLIDAY!

Peace!

John Wheeler

TWiN 52 - Anti-Nuclear Union of Concerned Scientists Releases Flawed Report

2007-12-17T17:56:00.001-05:00

Listen to the Podcast Here

In recent weeks as several companies and nations around the world have announced plans for new nuclear plants. This is causing a flurry of anti-nuclear propaganda as the opposition attempts to counter the positive momentum that's being created. I'm always reminded that there are an awful lot of people out there who make a living opposing nuclear plants, and these career anti-nukes must be having a fit right about now!

Then again, maybe they prefer it this way because it gives them another soapbox to stand on. And as long as the mainstream media gives them the opportunity, they'll keep taking it. One such group, the Union on Concerned Scientists is having a good week because they got loads of free publicity from a front page article on the USA Today news paper on Wednesday.

The headline was “A new era of nuclear power is beginning. How risky is it?” The article attempts to lead the leaders to the conclusion that nuclear plants are indeed too risky by including quote after quote from the UCS and other established anti-nuclear groups and politicians, while hardly mentioning the nuclear industry's impressive safety record, and low costs. There's also zero comparison to the safety and costs associated with other forms of base-load electricity.

The article was blantantly anti-nuclear, and one thing that struck me was the lack of homework the reporter did . There were so many factual errors in the report that it's obvious they got most of the material for the story straight from the UCS. Let me give you some examples:

The very first sentence of the story was outright incorrect. The story starts out with:

Nearly two years ago, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave the operator of the Indian Point nuclear plant a year to add backup power supplies to the plant's emergency warning sirens . . . but still hasn't done the work at the plant 24 miles north of New York City.

This is completely false. The work is done and has been for months. In fact, the plant was ready to close the book on the modification when the federal government (FEMA) decided they needed more time to review the work. Although the government is still doing their review, the system is in place and is functioning as designed.

And the second sentence is misleading and inflammatory:

“At the Peach Bottom nuclear plant south of Harrisburg, Pa., security guards often took 15-minute "power naps," ...

The reporter wants you to believe that guards were sleeping while on patrol at a nuclear plant, but that's not he case. The guards in question were napping, and that was against company policy, but were doing so while on breaks in their break room. There was no safety concern.

And just a few lines down, yet another myth is perpetuated:

“Power companies are beginning to file applications to build up to 32 nuclear plants over the next 20 years, the first since the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania halted plans for new reactors...”

Economics caused the slowdown in new nuclear plant construction, not the TMI accident. In fact, more COAL plants were canceled than nuclear plants during the same period.

The report also says that even though security at nuclear plants was increased after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, reactors still aren't sufficiently protected against terrorist threats such as hijacked jets, and new reactors aren't being designed to be significantly safer than existing ones.

Both statements are false. While not specifically designed with a 9/11 style attack in mind, the robustness and reinforced structure and components in a nuclear plant can easily withstand the crash of a commercial jetliner into the containment without danger to the public of a reactor accident. Also, new designs that rely on passive safety systems instead of “active” systems are more than 10 times safer than current designs.

Here's another factual error...the article states that AT LEAST 4000 deaths will occur among Chernobyl survivors due to their exposure to radiation.

Paul Davidson got that wrong again. According to the World Health Organization, the number is “UP TO 4000” people. Again, the anti-nuclear bias shows through here.

In fact, although the WHO says that studies indicate those deaths are POSSIBLE, they also acknowledge that in the more than 20 years since the accident there have been:

No evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found.
No evidence of increases in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation exposure.
Most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas received relatively low whole body radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels.
No negative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas.
No widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health.
No increase in radiation-induced cancer and leukemia deaths among emergency workers.

The WHO says fewer than 50 people died as a direct result of the accident – mostly plants workers and fire fighters. In addition there were nine people who died from untreated thyroid cancer they acquired from being exposed to the radioactive iodine gas that was released during the event. These deaths are tragic and regrettable, and are the result of an irresponsible social and political system that built a nuclear reactor without a containment, operated the reactor outside it's design envelope, caused it to catch on fire, then failed to notify people who were in the path of the smoke for several days. This can not and would not happen anywhere in the world today, and certainly could not happen in the USA. Let's get real! The deaths from the single worst nuclear disaster pale in comparison to the people who die EVERY YEAR from activity that supports other forms of electricity generation!

Every human endeavor imparts some amount of risk, including the generation of electricity and other forms of energy. The deaths from the coal fuel cycle, the source of 50% of our electricity, are staggering – more than 5000 coal miners die around the world each year, and more than 24,000 premature deaths from air pollution in the USA alone each year. If the climate change people are right, the cost in human life could be an order of magnitude higher.
Articles like the one in the USA Today newspaper do us a great disservice. The news media has a responsibility to INFORM the public, but when the information presented is wrong, biased, or leaves out important facts they are violating the trust placed in them.

Here are some facts ignored by USA TODAY:

Electricity from Nuclear Energy ...

is much safer than coal (just look at the coal cycle death toll)
has carbon footprint about equal to wind energy
is far less costly than gas, oil, wind, or solar
helps reduce reliance on imported oil

Nuclear Power Plants . . .

do not cause particulate or chemical air pollution
do not contribute to acid rain
do not cause mercury in drinking water

Don't take my word for it, do some reading yourself. I recommend a great new book called “Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy” by Gwyneth Cravens. She's a former nuclear plant protester who shares her experience learning about nuclear energy.

Peace!

John Wheeler