TWiN 57 - Media Myths About Nuclear Energy

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 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