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

“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

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

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.

TWiN 53 - European Union Supports Nuclear Energy Expansion

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