Episode 45

Listen to the Podcast Here

This is John Wheeler and you're listening to episode 45 of "This Week in Nuclear."

In my last show I mentioned the new informational video designed to inform young people about careers in nuclear science, engineering and technology. In this show I'm going to do something a little different - we're going to listen to the sound track of the video, then I have a panel of experts from he target audience who will critique the video ad share their thoughts on it.

You're listening to an audio podcast, but I'm also posting the video on my web site as a video podcast - it will show up as episode 46 of the show. I'll also imbed the video in my show notes so you can view it from there. You'll have to come back to the podcast to hear the critique by a panel of young people.

So, without further delay…lights..cameras..action!

Watch the Video Here




That was the audio from the new nuclear careers video.

Now we'll get on with the critique. I had a chance to play the video for Tiffany, Ally, Jack, Raya, and Charlie who are between 15 and 19 years old - the target audience of the video. Tune in to the podcast and hear what they had to say!

Happy Mother's Day!

John

Episode 44

Listen to the Podcast Here
Direct Download of MP3 File

1. Australia will change nuclear laws to allow plants
2. Queensland law bans nuclear plants
3. Iran’s former nuclear negotiator arrested
4. Engineer Accused of Taking Codes to Iran
5. US and Japan sign nuclear power pact
6. India/US Deal to be approved soon
7. Governor Spitzer Flip-Flops on Indian Point
8. Vermont Wants to Renege on Tax Deal with Vermont Yankee
9. Areva & Constellation Announce New Nuclear Plant Location
10. NJ Sues over Oyster Creek Decision
11. US Supreme Court Closes Coal Emissions Loophole

Nuclear Debate Continues in Australia

The nuclear energy debate continues to churn in Australia. This past week, Prime Minister John Howard told a Liberal Party conference that the 1999 law which bans nuclear power stations in Australia and limits uranium mining is no longer compatible with the need to act on climate change. He said that Australia would need progressively to wind down its reliance on traditional coal-fired power stations and adopt nuclear power generation. I’ve mentioned before that Australia has about one-third of the world’s known easily recoverable uranium, but they don’t refine any of it. The mine the ore and ship it to other countries to refine into usable fuel. And they have only one reactor – one at Lucas Heights that is used for research and for medical isotope production. You might wonder why a nation with such a valuable resource would be missing out on this fabulous opportunity – well the answer is very simple, and all you need to do is follow the money and the political power. Australia also has abundant coal and they generate almost all of their electricity from coal. The coal industry in AU is huge, with giant financial resources, and even greater political clout. The coal industry views nuclear energy as a direct challenge to their monopoly, and their cash flow. So it’s no surprise that the biggest opposition to John Howard’s plans to refine uranium into fuel, build nuclear plants is coming from regions with heavy ties to the coal industry. For example, last year Queensland Premier Peter Beattie supported the passage of a state law called the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act of 2006. It’s just what it sounds like – it prevents nuclear plants or uranium enrichment facilities from being built in Queensland, even if the AU federal government removes legal obstacles. Queensland just happens to be one of the two largest coal producing states in Australia. You might recall an earlier story I discussed in which the mayor of Townsville complained that nuclear plants are not welcome there because it would hurt the tourist industry. Well, Townsville is right on the edge of the largest coal mining regions in the state, and much of their income, and political contributions no doubt, are derived from the coal industry.

The anti-nuclear Queensland laws went into affect this week, and Queensland Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson celebrated the occasion, and was quoted as saying "The Act bans nuclear facilities in Queensland in order to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of each and every one of us," He also said "There is no need for Queensland to go down the path of nuclear power plants when we don't need to." "Here in Queensland we have access to abundant, long-term supplies of coal and gas," and "We're confident that clean coal technology will provide a similar level of greenhouse abatement to that of nuclear generation and in a shorter timeframe." I wonder which clean coal technology he’s talking about. There’s still no economical way to remove CO2 from coal plant exhaust, and IF carbon sequestration is ever viable on a large scale, it certainly won’t be for many years.

So the stage is set for a showdown between the Australian states and the federal government over the future of their energy supply. On one side you have a national policy of reducing reliance on coal, on improving air quality, and on limiting CO2 gas emissions, and on the other you have interests in protecting the coal industry. This will be interesting to watch it play out!

Iran’s Position Remains Unchanged

I haven’t talked about Iran in quite some time. There’s been a lot of political haggling and media attention, but in reality there’s been almost no change in the political standoff between Iran and the rest of the world over their renegade uranium enrichment program. More than a year has passed since the dispute first made it to the United Nations Security Council, and the two positions are virtually unchanged. Iran’s president Ahmadinejad continues to proclaim their right to enrich uranium for energy production. The IAEA continues to ask for transparency, and for Iran to stop enriching Uranium because of fears they are developing weapons. Iran continues to install more centrifuges in violation of the UN’s orders. While Iran has allowed some limited IAEA inspections, but they refuse stop the enrichment process. The UN imposed sanctions that really don’t amount to much.

A couple of months ago there was an interesting development when Russia refused to deliver fuel to Iran for the first core load at the Bushehr nuclear plant because Iran had failed to make payments owed Russia. That little squabble poured some cold water on an otherwise very cozy relationship between the two nations. It was interesting to watch Moscow’s posture with Iran toughen when the dispute was in full swing. I heard that the contract required payment in US dollars, but Iran tried to pay in another form of currency and the Russians refused. There’s some speculation that Iran is mishandling it’s cash flow and didn’t have the dollars to pay.

Ahmadinejad has Political Opponent’s Nuclear Expert Arrested

In a sign of the continued internal political dissatisfaction over Ahmadinejad’s policies, last week police arrested Hossein Mousavian, the country’s former nuclear negotiator. He was hauled him off to prison for interrogation, and Iranian newspapers report that Mousavian could face an espionage charge. Mousavian is an ally of former Iranian president Rafsanjani who remains a political adversary Ahmadinejad’s. Rafsanjani has maintained a more moderate stance toward the international community over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Mousavian was a member of the Iranian nuclear negotiating team until 2005. When Ahmadinejad defeated Rafsanjani, he replaced the entire nuclear negotiating team, including Mousavian. There’s some speculation that Ahmadinejad is attempting to eliminate anyone within Iran who might question his hard line positions, and Mousavian is someone with the knowledge and experience to speak intelligently about Iran’s nuclear position in international relations.

Engineer Arrested in US for Iran Trade ban Violation

In another but seemingly unrelated story, an Iranian born Engineer who worked at Palo Verde Nuclear Plant in Arizona for 16 years was arrested by US federal agents last week as he got off an airplane just having returned from Iran. Mohammad Alavi, who is a US citizen, has been charged with violating the trade embargo that prohibits Americans from exporting goods and services to Iran. If convicted, he would face up to 21 months in prison. While there are not many details of exactly what Mr Alavi did, it involved taking nuclear plant training software and computer access codes with him to Iran. In October, authorities alleged, the software was used to download training materials from Tehran, using Palo Verde user credentials.

The FBI said there's no indication the training software had any terrorist connections, and there is no evidence to suggest the software access was linked to the Iranian government. According to court records, the software is used only for training plant employees, but allowed users access to details on the Palo Verde control rooms and the plant layout. Officials of Arizona Public Service Co., the Phoenix-based utility company that operates the Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station, said the software does not pose a security risk because it doesn't control any of the nuclear plant's operating systems.

That makes perfect since to me because designs for nuclear plants like Palo Verde are not secret. The security systems and procedures would be safeguarded, and would not be available using that sort of software. None the less, the utility said it has changed software procedures.

India/USA Cooperation Bill Close to Approval

The India/USA Nuclear Cooperation Deal is close to being approved. The two sides have been negotiating for the last several months, and reports indicate most issues have been resolved. Later this month Nicholas Burns, the US Undersecretary for Political Affairs will travel to New Delhi to finalize the deal and sign the agreement. There is recognition in both the USA and in India that with the US presidential elections nearing, they need to get this resolved and on the books soon. The deal is set to go into effect in 2008 and will open the door for cooperation between the two nations in developing nuclear power plants and civilian nuclear energy related industries.

Japan and USA form GNEP Partnership

Japan and the USA have formed the first international agreement under the GNEP or Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The two nations will work jointly on reactor designes and new types of fuel for Generation-4 reactors that may be built around the world. Assistant Energy Secretary Dennis Spurgeon said 222 reactors are planned for construction under the GNEP program. Interestingly enough, some elected officials in the new Democratically controlled Congress are of the opinion that GNEP was kicked off without sufficient congressional oversight. For example, Jeff Bingaman, the new chairman of the Senate Energy Committee stated he is looking forward to having the energy committee review the program. Bingaman took the reigns of the committee from Senator Pete Dominici, who is a strong supporter of nuclear energy. So here’s a classic example of how a change in the political party in power, and the subsequent change in committee leadership can cause previously approved programs to be drug back into the legislative process. It gives the new party in power the opportunity to weigh in on the policy and to attach their pork barrels to the programs. This is also an example of how shifting political winds create the environment of legislative uncertainty that makes investors second guess making long term investments. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will reduce the amount of used nuclear fuel that has to be stored in the USA because the used fuel would be reprocessed and reburned in the modern reactors. The new designed will be proliferation resistant, so concerns over diversion of reactor fuel for weapons are addressed. Critics say that the program is being invented as it moves along, but isn’t that always the way when you’re dealing with cutting edge technologies? You rarely have all the questions answered when you start. If engineers and technicians used the same logic when building and growing the Internet, we’d still be using 28K dial up modems!

NY Governor Spitzer Flip-flops on Indian Point

The new governor of NY State Elliot Spitzer is flip-flopping his position on Indian Point Nuclear plant. When he campaigned for Governor Spitzer promised to shut down Indian Point. I guess reality has set in; he knows that without Indian Point NY State can’t avoid skyrocketing electricity prices, can’t meet greenhouse gas reduction goals, and can’t prevent summer blackouts. So now he says Indian Point will have to stay on line until replacement power is built. That doesn’t mean he’s going to completely forget his promise to the anti-nuclear radicals who supported his election; this past week he joined Senator Hillary Clinton in calling for an independent safety assessment of Indian Point. He stated there were two reasons that the Independent Safety Assessment is needed; because IP was late installing emergency sirens with battery backup power, and because of ground water leaks from the spent fuel storage pool at the site. Let me explain why Spitzer’s logic is flawed: first of all, neither of the issues he cited has any safety significance at all. I’ve talked about the fuel storage pool leak before, and it has zero safety significance. Radiation can be measured at extremely low levels. Let me give you an example – the average person in the USA gets about 350 mrem per year from natural background radiation. According to the NRC web site, if your house was on the edge of the Indian Point site, and the plant was releasing radiation at the legal limit, which they are not, you’d get 6 more mrem per year. The minute amount of leakage from Indian Point is far less than the legal limit, so in reality you’d get less. By comparison, one dental x-ray gives about 3 mrem, and you would not think twice about getting two or three x-rays if you had a tooth ache!

On the issue of the battery backup for Indian Point’s emergency sirens – you might remember some discussion I had about this on a prior show. No other plant in the USA is required to have battery backups. Hillary Clinton managed to get this added to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to appease her anti-nuclear supporters. Having a battery backup to emergency sirens may make them less likely to fail in some low probability off-the-wall situations, but it does not add appreciably to public safety. If they did, then it would be a part of federal law and would be required of all nuclear plant in the USA, and it is not. Indian Point was just fined $130,000 for being late implementing this new requirement; even though there is no safety value added, and even though they began the installation project voluntarily well before Hillary succeeded in making it a legal requirement. So back to the original issue, Hillary and Spitzer both know that the state of NY can not survive without Indian Point, but they are going to do everything they can to increase the cost of power they generate, and they’ll use the plant as a favorite target when they want to show how much they care about the voters.

Vermont Lawmakers Trying to Squeeze Vermont Yankee for More Taxes

Since I’m talking about politicians making “special” rules for nuclear plants, I need to mention what’s going on in Vermont. This past Tuesday the VT senate approved a bill that will levy a special $37 million tax on Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant to fund a state-wide energy efficiency program. That might not seem like a lot, but just last year Vermont Yankee agreed to contribute $25 million to a clean energy fund in exchange for state approval for a 20% power uprate. Some VT lawmakers are taking the position that because the plant is making good profits the state should take a larger share. Do you think they’d be making the same argument if it was a computer factory, a dairy farm, or a sawmill? Doesn’t it seem against the whole concept of a free market and capitalism to ask for more taxes just because a company does a good job and makes a greater return on their investment? Vermont Yankee will already pay more in income tax if they make higher revenues, so this is a tax on a tax. Come to think of it, it sounds a bit like socialism! Vermont Yankee is fighting the proposed tax increase because the State is reneging on the deal they made just a year ago. Vermont enjoys some of the lowest electricity rates in the nation, and has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any state for one reason and one reason one only – Vermont Yankee. It’s ironic that the same politicians who claim to be interested in preventing climate change, and protecting the ratepayers are the same ones who are trying to tax their nuclear plant out of business.

UniStar Picks Calvert Cliffs Site for New Nuclear Plant

On a brighter note, this week Unistar, the joint venture between Constellation and Areva, announced they’ve selected the Calvert Cliffs site in Maryland as the location of their new nuclear plant, an EPR. They notified the NRC that they will be applying for a construction and operating license for a new unit that will be the third reactor at the site. Unistar has also discussed the possibility of adding another new unit at their Nine Mile site in New York, but with Elliott Spitzer at the helm that’s unlikely.

New Jersey Appeals NRC Ruling on Oyster Creek

There’s a legal battle being waged between the State of New Jersey and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant license extension. The outcome could have ramifications for the entire US industry. Oyster Creek is applying for a 20 year license extension, something that 48 other nuclear plants have already been granted in the USA. Recently the state argued that the NRC should consider the possible impact of a terrorist attack on the plant prior to granting the extension. The NRC considered the state’s request, and after a thorough review concluded that New Jersey’s concerns are speculative and theoretical, and potential terrorist attacks are already addressed in day to day oversight of the facilities. Needless to say, the state didn’t like the Commission’s ruling. Last Wednesday NJ State Attorney General Stuart Rabner filed a petition in the Federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the ruling.

This is yet another example of how anti-nuclear groups use the legal system in an attempt to block nuclear plants from operating, or at a minimum it can raise costs by imposing more requirements, more evaluations, and more legal fees.

This is a similar approach to the case earlier this year in California where anti-nuclear groups succeeded in forcing the NRC to consider terrorist attacks in Diablo Canyon’s application for a license for dry cask fuel storage.

If NJ wins the appeal, then the same case could be made in more than 30 other license renewals that are either already underway or expected in the next few years. That does not mean that the license extensions would be blocked, though. It means that the license extensions would have to consider the potential impact of terrorist attacks which might make the reviews lengthier, and more costly. As you would expect, the Sierra Club celebrated New Jersey’s decision to appeal.

US Supreme Court Closes Loophole on Coal Pollution

And finally, last Monday the US Supreme Court acted to uphold Environmental Protection Agency rules that require aging coal powered electricity plants in the USA to install pollution controls when they do extensive upgrades. I’m probably overly simplifying, but the issue is this; the Clean Air Act requires new coal plants to include pollution control systems in their design. The law also required old plants to install similar equipment if the owners decide to do major upgrades to existing plants. This aspect of the law is designed to prevent owners of older dirtier plants from choosing to indefinitely upgrade and refurbish them to keep them running in lieu of building newer cleaner plants.

There’s also a provision from 2003 called the New Source Rule that allowed some older plants to be upgraded without installing pollution controls. Going back more than 10 years there are cases being argued between utilities and the EPA over whether or not plant upgrades or modifications should have included pollution controls.

In a nutshell, the ruling this week stated the New Source Rule was so lenient that it violated the Clean Air Act. Because of the new ruling, it will be much more difficult in the future for old coal plants to continue running indefinitely without installing pollution controls. That’s was the whole intent of the Clean Air Act, so it seems that the Supreme Court got us back on track. By closing this loophole in the EPA rules, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for older coal plants to keep running. That means new power plants will have to be built to replace them. It also provides more incentive for emissions free electricity sources such as nuclear energy.

New Nuclear Energy Video

I’ve talked a lot about the demand for new talent in the nuclear industry, and how nuclear technology and engineering offers fantastic careers and high paying jobs. The Department of Energy is working to generate interest in nuclear careers and they released an informational video that targets young people. If you go to my web site at this week in nuclear.com you can view a copy of the video, or see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWF8HxuWIBI . I’ll cover it in more detail in the next show.

Go Green! Go Nuclear!

John Wheeler

Episode 43

Hi y'all! It's been a long time - way too long! A very busy time is behind me and I hope to resume regular podcasts. Thank you to all of you who sent letters of support!

This is episode #43.

Listen Here

1. Great Barrier Reef in Trouble - Coal Plants to Blame?
2. Resource for Pebble Bed Reactor Info
3. Financing Looks Better for New Nuclear in USA
4. Two Early Site Permits Approved
5. China added 100 GW in 2006
6. Nuclear sets worldwide records in 2006.
7. Alternate Energy Holdings signs land deal.
8. There is no Uranium shortage
9. New Fermi Reactor?

Links:
1. This Week in Nuclear Home Page
2. Show Transcript and Blog
3. Center for Energy Workforce Development
4. Pebble Bed Reactor Blog

One of the things that makes podcasts such an incredible media form is the ability to reach out to people around the world. In the last few weeks I’d like to welcome new listeners from Singapore, Italy, and Venezuela. I also want to talk about some email from listeners; first there’s Bob Hargrave - he has a fantastic blog at http://pebblebedreactor.blogspot.com where you can learn everything you’d care to know about the pebble beds reactor. I remember years ago when I first heard about the PBR in the 1980’s I couldn’t help but admire the elegant simplicity of the design. The other thing that’s amazing about the PBMR is its inherent safety features that make it almost impossible to melt down. Anyway, please visit pebblebedreactor.blogspot.com and check it out, it’s a great source of information.

Also, there was a post on my show notes blog from a listener – Harry S. - who set me straight on something I discussed in my last show: You might recall is discussed Strontium samples in the Hudson river many miles upstream of the Indian Point Nuclear plant, and speculated on some of the possible sources which do NOT include that nuclear facility. Harry correctly pointed out that there is no evidence at all of strontium from Indian Point going into the Hudson River. After I got Harry’s note, I went back and listened to what I said, and I realize that I did in fact imply otherwise. Thanks Harry for giving me a peer check, and let me say it again - there is absolutely no data that suggests that Strontium from Indian Point has entered the Hudson.

In my last show I talked about a news story in Australia in which some uninformed elected officials expressed concern that nuclear plants might harm the coral reefs. Well, timing couldn’t have been better - last month the National Geographic Society released a report that states the Great Barrier Reef is, in fact, in trouble, and the source of the problem is climate change. It turns out the average temperature of the sea water in that part of the world has risen, and that is creating stress for the fragile coral ecosystem. There’s a lot of concern that if ocean temperatures continue to rise the Great Barrier Reef could become a dead reef. I’m a marine engineer and a recreational diver, and I find this is incredibly disturbing. I’ll share some personal experience – about 15 years ago I worked as a control room operator at the Turkey Point Nuclear plant on the edge of the Florida Keys. A few of my buddies and I used to scuba dive in the FL keys regularly and I became pretty familiar with the reefs off the northern keys. This past summer I retuned there with my daughter after being away for 15 years and I was shocked – the reefs are nothing like they were, and most are virtually dead. There are a lot of factors affecting the health of reefs – agricultural runoff, changes in ocean currents, recreational traffic, and pollution are a few. Marine biologists are beginning to realize that water temperature is playing a key role in stressing the reefs, and many believe greenhouse gases are a key contributor. Turkey Point, by the way, has a closed cooling system and does not discharge warm water to Biscayne Bay, so the plant is not contributing to the problem in any way.

So back to Australia, it’s ironic that politicians there would suggest that nuclear power plants could damage the coral reefs when the opposite is true. If you’re someone who believes that manmade CO2 emissions are contributing to climate change, then consider this: Australia’s reliance on coal as the primary source of electricity, and the resultant CO2 emissions is stressing the Great Barrier Reef. In contrast, operating nuclear plants emit zero CO2! Australia can choose to be a part of the problem, or a part of the solution because they have about 1/3 of the Earth’s known uranium reserves.

A great new resource for information about careers in Nuclear Energy: the Center for Workforce Development. They’ve developed a great web site called Get Into Energy at www.getintoenergy.com . The web site provides things like searchable listings of colleges and technical schools that offer programs of study related to various energy industry careers, etc.

The financial community is staring to talk up building new nuclear plants in the USA. In the last couple of weeks I’ve seen multiple of articles in the mainstream media predicting new construction will begin soon. One such article – linked in the show notes – states nuclear energy produces electricity at an average of 1.7 cents/KW-HR in the USA, compared to 2.21 cents for coal, 7.5 cents for gas, and 8.09 cents for oil. Because of this price advantage, and because of price stability compared to other sources, nuclear energy is gaining popularity in the investment community. This analyst predicted that owners of large nuclear fleets will see their stock prices continue to rise, and their earning will outpace generators who rely on coal, oil and gas for electricity generation. The article pointed out that energy demand in the USA is expected to rise by 50% in the next 25 years, and even more quickly in the rest of the world.

In another report, the world’s nuclear plants set an all-time production record in 2006 by generating 2.8 billion megawatt hours of electricity! This beat the old record of 2.7 billion megawatt hours set in 2005. The most notable production gains were in Canada and Russia, while the USA, South Korea and France maintained good capacity factors. US plants had the highest average capacity factors at 90% and St Lucie Unit 1 and Vermont Yankee led the pack were the highest, both coming in at slightly over 102%. Overall, nuclear plants generated 16% of the world’s electricity.

That brings me to another story – this week China announced they had added about 100 Gigawatts of new electricity generation in 2006. How much of that do you think was nuclear? I’ll give you a few seconds to consider your answer because I’ve talked so much about the expansion of nuclear energy in China……… the answer is a disappointing 1%! Only 1% of the new electricity capacity that entered service last in China was nuclear! The vast majority of the remainder was coal-fired. To put that in perspective, that’s about 100 new large base load coal plants, and one large nuclear plant. There are also stories floating around that Areva is wheeling and dealing with China to get the contract for two of the four plants Westinghouse is supposed to build. That’s an interesting thought because earlier reports suggested that Areva was unwilling to share their nuclear technology with China, and that was a deal breaker for the Chinese.

The new development, if its true, would suggest that Areva has changed their tune in order to get into that lucrative market.

Speaking of Areva, last week they announced further construction delays at the Okoluto 3 site in Finland. While I accept that any “first of a kind” plant could be expected to encounter such delays, I’m taking a different position here. I’ve spoken to people in the US industry who are talking about building new plants, and the ability to meet the construction schedule is extremely important. Delays mean increases in costs from both labor, and from finance charges. These increases in construction costs can have a significant impact on the price of electricity produced over the life of the plant.

Alternate Energy Holdings has been in the news again. You’ll recall from my interview with their president, Don Gillespie, that they were considering some different properties in the Bruneau, ID area for a new nuclear plant. In the last couple of weeks they entered into a contract with a rancher to purchase 4,000 acres of land for $20 million. They are also in talks with Areva in an effort to firm up their selection of reactor design. These guys appear to be making steady progress towards getting a new reactor built, and they just might be the first new next-generation reactor built on a virgin site in the USA.

You’d never guess there are some nay-sayers in the Pacific Northwest – at a recent meeting in Portland, Oregon of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council a consultant, Jim Harding, spoke of challenges to building a new nuclear plant. As you can imagine the group had some pretty negative opinions about the role that nuclear energy might play in the region’s future electricity supply. The consultant made one point that I have to correct – he said that the supply of uranium could prevent plants from being built and stated “It will take heroic efforts to find the uranium needed for a major expansion.” A long term shortage of uranium is one of those myths that the anti-nuclear groups would like the public to believe. Uranium is very abundant, and with reprocessing of our existing supply of slightly used reactor fuel we have more than enough for the short term, and as the price rises then economic incentive increases to invest in the capitol required to get mines up and running and reprocessing plants running. There have even been studies that show uranium can be extracted from seawater for about $200 per pound, about three times today’s price.

Speaking of the uranium market, the spot market price stands at $70 per pound, up sharply from $40 per pound a year ago. Even at this higher market price, the impact of the cost of raw uranium on the price of electricity is miniscule.

It seems the National Association of Manufacturers does not share the same opinion as the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Last week the National Association of Manufactures issued a statement in support of building more nuclear plants in the USA as a way to provide low cost energy, and long term price stability. The next day DTE Energy, the parent company of Detroit Edison and the owner of the Fermi nuclear plant announced they are considering building a new nuclear plant in Michigan and will invest $30 million to prepare a license application for the new unit.

Go Green, Go Nuclear, and have a great day!

John Wheeler

Episode 42

Listen to my Nuclear Podcast Here

1. Tactics by Australia's Anti-Nuclear Groups
2. No Hudson River Strontium from Indian Point
3. Water Purification via Nuclear Energy in Pakistan
4. More Energy Concerns in Eastern Europe
5. US Supreme Court Refuses to Hear PG&E Appeal

Anti-Nuclear Silliness in Australia

The people in Australia who would like to perpetuate that nation’s reliance on coal as the only large-scale energy source started out the new year attacking PM John Howard’s pro-nuclear position on several fronts.

A government study concluded late last year concluded the nuclear energy is const-competitive with coal in Australia, and if some kind of carbon trading system is put in place nuclear is even cheaper than coal. Well, anti-nuclear groups and the coal lobby didn’t like those conclusions, so they brought in a hand-picked panel of so-called experts to find holes in the report. The panel included former US NRC commissioner Peter Bradford. The most significant difference of opinion raised by the external panel was the timeframe in which nuclear plants could be built – the report states plants could be on line in 10 to 15 years, and the external panel said that was unlikely.

Now tell me this, if nuclear plants can be built around the world in 40 to 50 months, why wouldn’t Australia be able to do it in 10 years? Heck, China is building close to 40 plant in the next 25 years! There certainly are no technical barriers, only political ones. You can rest assured that the coal industry, the labor party, and the anti-nuclear groups will do everything in their power to stretch it out for as long as they can. It somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophesy: the anti-nuclear groups claim nuclear plants take to long to build, then they do everything in their power to slow down the process through political and legal fights. Then they gain the right to say “I told you so!” I hope that when Australia embarks on building nuclear plants that they put in place some controls to prevent that from happening.

Another angle of attack is to spread irrational fear of negative economic consequences in regions where nuclear plants might be built. For example, Tourism Queensland CEO Daniel Gschwind says nuclear plants and tourism are not compatible and predicted dire economic impact to coastal towns like Townsville that rely heavily on tourism as the primary source of income. I have to say this is the silliest argument I’ve heard yet! There are nuclear plants all over the world near key tourist destinations and I’ve never heard of any adverse impact. Some that I’m personally familiar with in the USA include Turkey Point near Miami and the Florida Keys, Oyster Creek on the South Jersey Shore, and San Onofre on the California Pacific coast. If you think about it for just a minute you’ll agree – would you alter your vacation plans if you knew there was a nuclear plant somewhere near by? Of course not! Tourists know that in the unlikely event that there’s a problem at a nuclear plant they can pack up and go home. The same article said they were afraid that a nuclear plant would cause accelerated destruction of the coral reefs. That’s an incredible argument when you consider the tons of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and arsenic that are dumped into Australia’s air every day by coal plants. All of those make their way in to creeks and rivers that discharge into the sea. Nuclear plants emit none of those deadly contaminates!

No Strontium in Hudson River from Indian Point

That remind me of another interesting story I read this week. Technicians at Indian Point in New York are doing additional sampling along the Hudson River to determine if there is any measurable Strontium-90 coming from the plant. They didn’t find ANY strontium from the plant, but you’ll never guess what they DID find … while ALL the samples were barely detectable, the samples taken more than 20 miles upstream of the plant had higher levels of Strontium than those taken around the plant and downstream. What does that tell you? Well it could be one of several things – the levels measured were so low there could be statistical variations affecting the samples, or there could be other sources of strontium upstream that are far greater sources than Indian Point’s miniscule leak. In fact, there’s a lake a few miles from the Hudson River in Dutchess County, NY called Nuclear Lake where years ago the US Government did some kind of nuclear weapons research and production. That’s a possible but unlikely source. There are also DOD experimental and test reactors near Albany, NY on the Mohawk River, a tributary to the Hudson. If the samples turn out to be valid, then I would look to those places as possible sources. There’s also the possibility that the samples reflect run-off from decades old weapons testing fall-out. Again, the amounts were talking about are incredibly small, and pose absolutely zero risk to aquatic life or the environment in general.

Australian Media Focuses on Nuclear “Non-Story”

In another story from Australia, police near Sidney arrested a group of “home-grown terrorists” who had a rocket propelled grenade and launcher. The police said the group was planning to attack several targets in Sidney including the research and medical isotope reactor at Lucas Heights. Why a terrorist group would seek to target a research reactor is beyond me. These are not high powered explosives, and would be unlikely to cause any real damage. Case in point, the RPG fired at the US Embassy in Athens last week hit the wall of a parking garage and did almost no damage. I find it interesting that the Newspaper headlines the fact that the reactor was a target, but doesn’t mention any other softer buildings were also on the hit list. Any of the other targets would have had a much higher chance of hurting someone than to shoot at a hardened industrial facility. Media bias against nuclear energy is found in many forms, and this is an example of newspapers sensationalizing stories associated with nuclear reactors, and choosing to ignore the real issues of concern.

More Energy Trouble in Eastern Europe

There’s an interesting feud taking shape in Eastern Europe between Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland. Last year the four nations agreed to form a joint venture to finance and build a new nuclear plant at the Ignalina site in Lithuania. Apparently the original discussions were about a four-way even spilt of the cost and the power that will be generated by the plant. Now Lithuania is arguing for a greater share of the energy. That’s a tough position to take because the plant will come on line in 2015, just as forecasts predict a serious energy shortage in the region. Lithuania suffered the same fate as Bulgaria - they were forced by out-of-date agreements to shut down older reactors to gain entry into the European Union, and now they need to replace those nuclear plants. The entire region is subservient on Russia for natural gas, and nuclear energy offers the best hope of ridding themselves of that dominance. Even Sweden and the Czech Republic have expressed interest in getting involved with the project – they need more energy, too! There is a relative easy solution to the problem; build more nuclear plants!

That way each nation can get the share of the energy they need to keep their economies growing and the standard of living rising.

Bulgaria Fights Back for Nuclear Energy

Since I’m talking about Eastern Europe, I have to spend some time talking about what’s going on in Bulgaria. In the past I’ve talked about the injustice done to Bulgaria by the European Union who demanded the closure of Kozloduy units 3 and 4. On December 31, 2006, at about 10:00 PM, two hours before the deadline, operators shut down the units and in doing so turned Bulgaria into a net importer of energy when, with the two nuclear units running, they were an energy exporter. In fact, they exported 7.8 billion KW-hours of electricity in 2006, and filled 80% of the electricity deficit in the region.

This is ironic in light of the EU’s report on climate change and energy that was released on January 10, 2007. In the report the EU acknowledges that it will be almost impossible to meet CO2 emissions targets while simultaneously shutting down nuclear plants (full report is here). This may be a hard pill to swallow in places like Germany where years ago the Green party pushed through a program to phase out nuclear altogether.

Bulgaria is not taking the shutdown of Kozloduy sitting down. They’re fighting it every way they can. In fact, now that they are officially EU members, they are using that status to lodge a petition before the EU Executive Body. The EU has offered Bulgaria 570 million Euros in compensation for shutting down the units. One report states Bulgaria will seek to increase that amount to one billion Euros if the plants can’t restart.

Here’s an interesting development: Pakistan announced this week that they’re working with the IAEA to couple seawater desalination equipment to the 125 MWe Kanupp Nuclear plant near Karachi. The desalination skid will produce 1600 cubic meters of potable water per day. I’m impressed by the quantity of drinking water that will be produced by this relatively small nuclear plant – 1600 cubic meters per day! They are calling the project the “Nuclear Desalination Demonstration Plant (NDDP) and stated engineering work is complete and construction is underway. Kanupp is a CANDU reactor, and the desalination system will use extraction steam diverted from the unit’s feedwater heaters.

US Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Appeal by Nuclear Utility

The US Supreme Court decided on Tuesday NOT to consider an appeal by Pacific Gas & Electric in a legal battle between the utility and anti-nuclear groups who argued that the NRC should have considered the threat of terrorist attacks in their environmental impact review of dry cask storage at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant. Here’s a summary of the case: Diablo Canyon, like so many other nuclear plants in the USA, applied to the NRC for a license to build a dry cask storage facility.for used nuclear fuel. During the process anti-nuclear groups argued that the NRC should consider the potential impact of a large scale terrorist attack such as a bomb or 911-style airline attack. The NRC denied the petition because of the remote possibility of such an attack, and because this kind of attack is outside the design basis. The NRC also ruled that the terrorist threat should be addressed by the Atomic Energy Act, and not by the National Energy Policy Act as the anti-nuclear groups claimed. The NRC issued the license and the utility began construction of the storage facility. The anti-nuclear groups didn’t like that answer and filed a lawsuit in the California Appellate Court. The California Appellate Court ruled in favor of the anti-nuclear groups and stated the NRC violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it did not include the possibility of a terrorist attack in the environmental impact report for the storage facility.

The utility appealed the appelalate court’s ruling to the US Supreme Court, and this past week the supreme court decided not to hear the case. This means the appellate court’s ruling will stand. The ball is back in the NRC’s court – they have to decide how they will consider the NEPA in environmental impact analysis of licensing applications.

It’s unsure how this will affect future licensing actions, but it could have far reaching affects. The same argument could be applied in other similar cases, and might be expanded to include applications for operating license extensions, and for new nuclear plants. The NRC is reportedly considering how to respond to this recent development, so the industry is in a “wait and see” situation. This is an important case for a coupld of reasons; the most obvious one is the potential impact to future licensing actions. The more subtile but potentially far reaching impact is this could be viewed by investors as a test of the NRC and the new licensing process. There’s a lot of concern that regulatory uncertainty will discourage investors from backing new nuclear plants in the USA, and the threat or even the perception of continuously evolving licensing standards could have a significant impact on new construction plans.

Peace!

John Wheeler

Coal and Oil vs Nuclear

There's alively discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear energy and Indian Point going on here and here.

Being an engineer, I tend to focus on facts. Here are some facts provided by organizations that are not "pro-nuclear".

• World electricity demand will grow by 70% by 2030. This will cause oil prices to rise and countries who export oil and gas will have increased political and economic influence over energy importers.
• Even with the most optimistic projections, solar and wind will only account for a few percent of our energy needs in the next 25 years.
• Nuclear energy is the lowest cost producer of base load electrical generation, even without considering a possible carbon tax.

It is not a choice of wind, solar, and hydro instead of coal, oil, and nuclear. Renewables just won't cut it, no matter how much anti-nuclear folks wish it were true. The real choice is deciding how much coal and oil we want to off-set by nuclear. Here are some more facts (not even considering the global warming arguments):

• Air pollution from burning coal in the USA causes 24,000 deaths per year, including 2,800 from lung cancer. The number is much higher in nations with lower emissions standards.
• Over the last 10 years, coal mining deaths have averaged 33 deaths per year in the USA, and more than 6,000 per year in China.
• In the entire history of the nuclear industry the total number of fatalities, even with highly inflated Chernobyl death estimates, is ~16,000 deaths.
• Tons of uranium released to the atmosphere by coal plants in the USA: >800 tons per year.
• Tons of uranium released to the atmosphere from nuclear plants in the USA: 0 tons per year.

Coal plants release 100's of times more radiation to the atmosphere than do nuclear plants. The coal and oil energy cycles claims thousands of times more lives per year than the nuclear fuel cycle.

Last week "hundreds" of people were burned alive when an oil pipeline caught fire. More than 1000 people have died there in the past year from similar pipeline fires. Outside of Nigeria (where it occurred) no one seems to care. It was but a blip on the media's radar screen. However, if a trashcan catches fire in a nuclear plant, it's an international event, even if no one is injured!

To me the answer is a "no brainer." That's why I choose to work in the nuclear industry. If I didn't believe in it I would take my engineering degree and 25 years of experience elsewhere.

Peace!

John