Episode 27

Listen to the Podcast Here

1. Australia's 4th Uranium Mine to open in 2008
2. India's Tarapur-3 Reactor Goes On Line
3. Vietnam is Concerned about Nuclear Workforce
4. Contracts Awarded for New Units in S. Korea
5. Big Rock Point Returned to "green field" condition.
6. The Arak D2O Plant
7. Iran Ignores UNSC Deadline
8. TXU to Build More Nuclear Plants
9. Fluor Offers to Buy British Nuclear Group

Episode 26

Listen to The PodCast Here

1. Debunking the Green Party - It's Just too easy!
2. Bruse Power May Add Two Units in Ontario
3. Amarillo Power Talking about Two ABWRs
4. US Study on Hydrogen Production
5. Southern Company Files for Early Site Permit
6. Iran's Continuing Delay Tactics
7. Trituim - Drink it for Year with No ill Affects!
8. USA Public Support for Nuclear Keeps Rising
9. Browns Ferry 1 On Schedule for May '07 Start-up
10. Switzerland May Get New Reactors
11. Russia and France Team Up for Bulgarian Reactor
12. Taiwan to Resume Lungmen Construction

Episode 25

Listen to the PodCast Here

Welcome to the show – we have a lot of news this week. I'll also joined by David Bradish a data analyst and mathematician with the Nuclear Energy Institute.

First the news…

US local government lures nuclear plant.
Calvert County, Maryland has offered Constellation Energy several million dollars in tax incentives if they build a new nuclear reactor at the two-unit Calvert Cliffs nuclear station. The economic incentive package is designed to entice the project which would add 400 permanent jobs and 3200 construction jobs over five years. Constellation currently pays $15.5 million per year in taxes and the county is offering a 50% tax break for 15 years - a pretty sweet deal! Last week I told you about how Constellation has begun ordering large forgings for a new US EPR reactor, but they've not announced the location of that new plant.

Reactor vendors order major components.
And it turns out that Constellation is not he only company that has begun to order heavy forgings. General Electric has also begun that process. And it appears that US suppliers are getting into the game. BWX Technologies of Virginia signed an agreement with Areva to manufacture nuclear forgings at their manufacturing facility in Southern Indiana. The BWX facility is located in Mount Vernon, Indiana and is in a great location because it's right n the Ohio river which gives them access to barge transportation for large components.

Iran threatens to use Oil as a Weapon

This week Iran warned Britain and the US that they would force a new oil crisis if the United Nations Security Council imposes sanctions over their illegal nuclear enrichment activities.

Speaking in Tehran, Ali Larijani, the country's chief nuclear negotiator said Iran would cut its oil exports. He's quoted as saying "We do not want to use the oil weapon, but we will react in a way that would be painful for them ... Do not force us to do something that will make people shiver in the cold."

So much for their prior promises NOT to use oil as a weapon!

The USA is Moving Ahead with GNEP plans.
The US Department of Energy is offering $20 million for siting studies for used fuel reprocessing facilities which will be built under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Encouraged by the response to GNEP, the DOE is now proposing a two phase development for fuel recycling. In the near term it will deploy Areva's Coex process on a commercial scale, and after further R&D, the Urex+ process. Wastes from the latter process would be made up of only fission products, and thus be shorter-lived and easier to accommodate in a repository.

The countries identified by the DOE as likely participants, besides the USA, are France, Russia and Japan.

China and Pakistan Negotiating Nuclear Deal
Pakistan and China are close to finalizing a deal that would supply Pakistan with six 300 MW reactors over the next 10 years. The deal is likely to be signed during a visit to Islamabad by China's President Hu Jintao in November. Pakistan also wants to buy a 600 MW unit from China, but the Chinese have just started building the first of that design, so it will not be available for export for several years. The deal is part of Pakistan’s plan to increase their nuclear capacity to over 8,000 megawatts by 2025,

Special Guest
As I mentioned earlier, In a few minutes David Bradish of the Nuclear Energy Institute will join us to discuss the economics of nuclear energy. David is an expert a analyzing data to get to the facts that are sometimes hidden below the surface.

With many environmental leaders coming out in favor of nuclear energy, and nuclear plants operating more reliably and safely than ever, the antinuclear faction in the mainstream media is stepping up their attempts to paint nuclear power as too expensive to compete in the global energy market.

Today we're going to spend some time taking a close look at one such recent attempt by KAI RYSSDAL of American Public Radio and his guest MARK HERTSGAARD who took a shot at the economics of nuclear energy.

Back in 1983 Mark Hertsgaard wrote a book on nuclear energy called “Nuclear, Inc.: The Men and Money Behind Nuclear Energy" which is out of print. If you take a look on line you'll find a good deal of recent writing by Mr Hertsgaard that is critical of nuclear energy because, he claims, it's way too expensive, and our limited funds should be spent on conservation and not on more generation capacity, particularly nuclear.

I'm going to play a clip from the American Public Radio broadcast, and then David will join me to provide a counterpoint. Before I play it, though, I want to be totally above the board here and tell you that I am only playing a portion of the American Public Radio show. If you want to hear the entire interview then you can find it at Marketplace.org.

Listen to Audio 1

Mark Hertsgaard has been vocal that nuclear energy is too expensive for greenhouse gas reductions, and that nuclear is seven times more costly than conservation. That's a perplexing bit of logic, and doesn't pass the reality test. Every source of energy production is far more expensive than conservation! In order for that argument to make since you have to believe the human race will be able to reduce energy consumption below current levels, but that's not going to happen! If you've listened to my show before you'll know that I'm not advocating a disregard for conservation - on the contrary, I’m passionate that we need to find every way possible to reduce our energy consumption, and to transfer our energy foot print away from fossil fuels to clean sources. But the energy hungry world needs electricity. Access to electricity is the single most important factor in increasing the standard of living and quality of life in a society, and the developing nations of the world are NOT going to reduce their energy consumption.

If you accept that as a fact of life, and it is, then you come to the next step - deciding which forms of energy production you're going to spend your limited capitol on. It comes down to cost, and where David Bradish can help put this in perspective. Here’s David!

Listen to my discussion with David

One thing we didn't have a chance to discuss was Mark Hertsgaard's assertion that nuclear energy can't survive without subsidies, and David has a lot of information on that topic. He's agreed to join us again on a future show to discuss that.

Be Well!

John Wheeler

"This Week in Nuclear" Episode #25

Episode 24

Listen to the PodCast Here

Iran Scolded at UN Security Council

Finally speaking with a unified voice, the UN security council on Monday adopted a resolution that demands Iran suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing work. Iran has 31 days, until to end of August to comply with the resolution.

This 31 day clock was the result of China and Russia's reluctance to agree to sanctions from the start. Instead the council will have to reconvene to determine punitive actions that could include economic, travel and communication sanctions. There is no allowance in the resolution for the use of military force.

The vote was 14 to 1, with Qatar, the Arab representative on the council, dissenting. No surprise there!

On the positive side, this is the first resolution by the council on the Iranian nuclear program that is legally binding and carries the threat of sanctions. But it was immediately clear that Iran will have no part of it.

Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador, speaking after the vote, rejected it, saying that the council was acting illegally. He chastised the council for its inability to act forcefully in the current war in Lebanon, saying, "You be the judge of how much credibility this leaves for the Security Council. Millions of people around the world have already passed their judgment."

The resolution demands the "full and sustained suspension" of nuclear activities, including research and development, by Aug. 31, to be verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog. It also bans any other nations from providing Iran with any materials that could be used in its enrichment or ballistic missile programs.

In the discussions that preceded the vote, several council members noted Iran's failure to respond to a robust set economic and technological incentives offered to them Iran on June 6 by Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. It appears that the US strategy paid off in this respect. At the time Iran was demanding direct negotiations with the US, something prior US policy prohibited. In a surprise move, the USA shifted policy and agreed to direct negotiations. This essentially called Amadenajad's bluff and put the ball back in the Iranian's court. At that point the Iranians added other conditions saying they would not even temporarily suspend their enrichment while negotiating - something the other nations insisted upon as a goodwill measure on the part of Tehran.

US report on recycling used fuel.
A new report by the Boston Consulting Group for Areva Inc and based on proprietary Areva information shows that recycling used fuel in the USA using the Coex aqueous process would be economically competitive with direct disposal of used fuel. The Coex process has been developed by Areva from that used today in the four operating reprocessing plants in France, UK, Russia and Japan. A $12 billion, 2500 t/yr US plant was considered, with total capital expenditure of $16 billion for all related aspects. This would comfortably be covered by accumulated funds from electricity users, and would also have the benefit of greatly reducing demand on space at the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, and would extend its life considerably.

US utility to complete reactor?
With power demand growing 2% per year in their ser4vice territory, the Tennessee Valley Authority has begun a comprehensive evaluation about the feasibility of completing the partially built Watts Bar nuclear plant. Construction of the 1167 MWe plant was stopped in 1985 and it is about 50% complete. If TVA decided to undertake the project it could be online by about 2013. Watts Bar unit one started up in 1996.

Russia Boosts Nuclear Spending
The Russian government has approved spending up to US $25 billion between now and 2015 to build ten 1000 MWe units, then to begin building an additional ten units after that. Rosatom says that the balance of total $52 billion required for the program by 2015. In 2007 Russia will begin building a VVER designed plant, and by 2008 they will add two more units per year. Some these will be 1200 MWe versions.

In an interesting twist, Russia's President Putin made it clear that he was taking the BN-800 fast neutron reactor project under his personal control to make sure it is finished on time by 2012. I'm not quite sure what to make of that comment by president Putin. I'd be interested in hearing from some of my friends in Europe - drop me a line and let me know what you think!

New Russia-Kazakh agreements.
Russia and Kazakhstan have signed three nuclear joint venture agreements totaling US$10 billion for new nuclear reactors, uranium production and enrichment. The first Kaxakhstan unit will be a 300 MWe unit of the VBER-300 design. This will be followed by a uranium enrichment facility that is expected to start production in 2008 and will produce as much as 1000 metric tones of Uranium per year by 2012.

More New Nuclear Plants in China
China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group , China Power Investment Corporation and Guangxi Investment Group this week signed an agreement to build the first the first two 1000 MWe units at the Bailong nuclear power plant in southern China. The companies will invest US $3.1 billion for the first two of six units that will be built at the site. The first two units are expected to begin construction before 2010.

US House of Representatives Approves India agreement.
As I predicted, the US House of Representatives this week approved by a large majority the agreement with India to allow the exchange of technology and materials for nuclear energy production. However, Congress retains some oversight of the deal, and details remain to be worked out. The Senate is expected to vote on it in the next few weeks.

Nigeria to Build Its First Nuclear Plant
President Obasanjo of Nigeria said this week that his nation is set to join the race to build nuclear power plants. Speaking at the inauguration of the board of the Energy Commission of Nigeria, Obasanjo said they will use nuclear energy for electricity generation and improved agriculture. I'm not sure what he means by improved agriculture, but I presume he means electric-powered water pumping stations for irrigation.

The president stated they plant to have their first nuclear plant running in 10 to 12 years. Several analysts said existing electrical distributions systems will have to be upgraded before Nigeria could make use of a large generating station such as a nuclear plant. Apparently Nigeria's electrical grid is not well developed, and does not reach into the areas where it would be of most use in agriculture.

Constellation Has Begun Buying Long Lead-time Components for a New Nuclear PlantThe nuclear renaissance in the USA reached a new milestone on Thursday when Constellation Energy, in a bold sprint to the head of the pack became the first company to begin the process of procuring long lead-time components. Constellation, in their Unistar alliance with Areva, signed a deal to being manufacturing 44 heavy forgings needed to build a US EPR.

This is a brilliant move on the part of Constellation because it assures them of being at the head of the line for new parts. It's also capitalizing on lessons learned from Areva's recent experience in Finland where delays in getting parts to the construction site has contributed to a one year schedule push.

This also affirms Constellation's commitment to build a new nuclear plant. While the EPR is behind other designs in the US government approval process, this will give Constellation a huge advantage when it comes to actually building a new plant. It will do no good for other companies to have approved designs if they can't get the critical components to the construction sites in time to meet the projected 50 month schedules. Remember: delays = $Millions in additional interest!

I've spoken to several people in the industry about the supply chain - all the pieces of getting the materials to the parts manufacturers, and then the finished part to the construction sites - and there's a good deal of concern about whether or not there is sufficient manufacturing capacity around the world to meet the demand for new nuclear plants. For example, there's only one place in the world that has a foundry big enough to cast a reactor vessel and it's in Japan. If you want to build a nuclear plant then you have to buy it from them. And it takes a long time to forge a reactor vessel! IF more than a dozen utilities are going to build 18 to 20 new plants can you image the backlog at that foundry!

Hats off to Constellation for a gutsy tactical move that may well put them at the front of the line for the incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005!

Listen to the Show Here

Episode 23

Listen to the PodCast Here

Olkiluoto Schedule Slips Now at One Year

Construction delays at the Olkiluoto EPR being built in Finland by Areva have now stretched to one year. The primary cause of the delay is problems with sub-contractors getting components to the site on time, and in getting sub-contracted work done per the schedule. The 1600 MWe plant is now expected to begin commercial operation in mid 2010. Areva is bearing the cost of the delay which will add to the 3 Billion EURO price tag.

Areva downplayed the delays saying they are common for first-of-a-kind new plants, but that’s not acceptable in my book. First of all, the EPR is not all that different than the last PWRs built around the world in France and the UK, so that’s a lame excuse. But worst of all, the quickest way the industry can loose credibility with investors is if we have huge delays with the first round of new construction plants! Every month of delays cost missions of dollars in interest that drives up the total cost of the plant. In the 1980’s in the USA, the cost of interest more than doubled the eventual price of some plants! The bankers and the lawyers get rich while the investors, utilities, and customers all suffer! Areva making light of the delays puts the whole industry at risk by telling the investment community “we expect delays and you’re just going to have to live with it.” We’re going to get one chance to do this right, and if we screw this chance up we may not get second try. The first few new construction nuclear plant in the US and Canada have to be on schedule and on budget, or there may not be a second round of construction! The investment community will find somewhere else to put their money!

Every plant built in Asia in the last 10 years has been delivered on or ahead of schedule and on budget. Maybe the Fins should have hired Toshiba, Mitsubishi, or Hitachi to build their plant instead of Areva!

Texas Utilities Building 11 Polluting Coal Plants

A little closer to home in Texas, it seems that not every utility believes that nuclear energy is the way to go. This week the WSJ carried a story about Texas Utilities, the owners of Comanche Peak nuclear station in Texas. TXU is building 11 new cola-fired power plants that will more than double their CO2 emissions from 55 million tines per year to 133 million tones by 2011.

The Wall Street Journal theorized that TXU may be building the plants now so they can take advantage of future restrictions on CO2 emissions. If they get the plants built before the restrictions go into place TXU could earn "allowances" based on their new higher levels of CO2 - the higher the emissions, the larger the pollution allowances. This in effect would reward them for producing higher emissions before the carbon tax goes into effect.

What a contrast to this makes to the story we talked about last week where Entergy Corporation, another utility in the US South that has implemented voluntary CO2 reductions with some very impressive results. Entergy’s service territory includes part of Texas, and is along side the territory of TXU. Wayne Leonard, Entergy’s CEO was vocally critical of TXU’s plans and was quoted as saying “the science behind global warming is persuasive and carbon-dioxide regulation is inevitable and necessary.” Mr. Leonard called it "unacceptable" for power companies to build lots of new plants heedless of the environmental effect of carbon dioxide.”

Wayne Leonard Named Chairman of the Board at Entergy

Wayne Leonard is turning out to be a refreshing voice, a little bit of a maverick, and a heck of a visionary, and he’s being rewarded for it. This week Entergy’s board of directors named him as their new chairman of the board when the current chairman Robert Luft retires on August 1. Wall Street apparently liked the news because Entergy’s stock price was up more than 3% this past week.

NY Times “Atomic Balm” Story

On July 16^th the NY Times published an amazing piece by Jon Gertner advocating the renaissance of nuclear energy. I almost fell out of my chair when I read it! It is one of the most technically accurate history of the fall and reemergence of the US nuclear industry that I have ever read, and it’s even more amazing when you consider the source is the NY Times. I’m putting a link to it in the show notes. You’ll have to register for a free account to access the story on the NY Times server, but it is worth it. I even printed out a copy and saved it for future reference.The NY Times Story

Nuclear Energy’s Role Emphasized at G8

The G8 leaders meeting in Russia singled out nuclear energy as an important component of Global Energy Security, with the acquiescence of Germany, which has continuing policy paralysis on the question. Here is part of the statement made by the G8 leaders about the peaceful use of nuclear energy:

"Those of us who have or are considering plans relating to the use and/or development of safe and secure nuclear energy believe that its development will contribute to global energy security, while simultaneously reducing harmful air pollution and addressing the climate change challenge. The development of innovative nuclear power systems is considered an important element for efficient and safe nuclear energy development. In this respect, we acknowledge the efforts made in the complementary frameworks of the INPRO project and the Generation IV International Forum (GIF).

That’s quite a mouthful, but it does say a lot about the world leaders’ belief that nuclear energy will play a pivotal role in creating a secure future for our children and generations to come.

Russia and China join advanced reactor project.

The 11-member Generation IV International Forum (GIF) unanimously voted to admit Russia and China to the group, which is developing 4th generation reactor technology for deployment after 2020. Russia has more experience than any other country with one of the six designs already short-listed; the lead-cooled fast reactor, and is well experienced with another; the sodium-cooled fast reactor. China is a leader in high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, another of the six GIF designs. Formal membership will be confirmed later this year, opening the way for significant international collaboration.

Nuclear performs in US heat wave.

All but one of the 103 US nuclear power reactors were on line coping with record demand across much of the country during a heat wave on July 17. The nuclear units contributed about 98,000 MWe net. Real-time power prices across the country topped $300/MWh (30c/kWh) and hit $399 in California.

Long-Awaited UK Energy Review

The government published its much-anticipated Energy Review in which they stated nuclear power is a source of low carbon generation which contributes to the diversity of our energy supplies. Under likely scenarios for gas and carbon prices, new nuclear power stations would yield economic benefits in terms of carbon reduction and security of supply’.

In a House of Commons statement on the Energy Review, Trade & Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said that the government ‘has concluded that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals’.

There’s much more than I can cover here, but I’ll put a link to the full report in my show notes for you to review for yourself. UK Energy Review Full Text

Washington Group International to Build National Enrichment Facility

In our last show we covered the granting of a construction and operating license to Louisiana Energy Services to build a new enrichment facility in New Mexico. Well it seems that Washington Group International has been awarded a contract by LES to provide construction management services for the new facility. I also mentioned that the Washington Group was one of several companies advertising for new talent in the latest edition of Nuclear News Magazine. See how it all fits together?!

Energy and War

I try to stay out of international politics unless it’s directly related to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, but this is a case when I just can’t stay quiet. And the facts are – so much of what is happening in the Middle East today is a direct result of Iran’s façade – their claims of their peaceful intent for nuclear enrichment when every one of their actions demonstrates aggression and their desire to develop and use military might.

Iran has hijacked the Palestinian cause as a tool to strengthen their influence in the region.

In the year 2000, Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon as a peaceful gesture. Again, in August of 2005, Israel left Gaza as a peaceful act – an offer of good will. But less than one year later its clear Israel’s peaceful offerings were viewed by the terrorists as signs of weakness.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad has publicly threatened that Israel would be wiped off the map. He’s not just spouting rhetoric – he clearly means to do it, and Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon have begun the first wave of the assault - joint attacks on Israel.

On June 25 Hamas terrorists tunneled into Israel and killed two Israeli soldiers and captured one, then two week later Hezbollah terrorists crossed into Israel from Lebanon and killed eight more Israeli soldiers and captured another two. Don’t think for a moment that the terrorist leaders in both camps underestimated what Israel’s response would be – they were intentionally provoking Israel into what some political leaders are calling the beginning of world war three!

What a surprise that we find Hezbollah has several thousand missiles now being launched at Israel’s cities, every one stamped “made in Iran” And they made their way to Lebanon through Syria. Do you Dictator Asad in Syria is so weak that such a transit of armaments would go un-noticed? Heck no! He’s in on it too!

Syria and Iran are fighting a war with Israel and they’re laughing all the way to the bank because they don’t even have to do it with their own troops or on their own soil! Hezbollah and Hamas are doing it for them in Lebanon and Gaza.

And what great timing for Iran! They’ve continued to drag their heels with the international community and refuse any meaningful negotiations over their illegal uranium enrichment, and are about to be brought before the UN Security Council for the second time this year. The first time they were told to stop enriching uranium because it violated international law and there is evidence they’re making weapons-grade material. Since then they’ve not only ignored the UN order but they increased their output. Even their old pals China and Russia are losing patience with Ahmadinejad and we may actually even get some sanctions this time.

This little war they’ve started is a great distraction, don’t you think?

But I’m a bit of a pessimist here – it won’t really matter because they’re going to get nuclear weapons whether we like it or not. If they can’t make nukes for themselves, then they’ll buy them from their new best friends in North Korea.

This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Thousands of innocent people are going to die, maybe even millions, and I doubt I’ll see the dust settle on this in my lifetime.

This is all the more reason for is to move ahead at full speed in any direction that can rid us the plague of reliance on that part of the world for anything, particularly something as important as energy.

It is becoming not only an economic issue, but a moral one as well. We each have a responsibility to reduce our energy consumption through every way possible:

Telecommute when you can

Use mass transit, car pool, walk or ride a bike to work

When your current vehicle is worn out replace it with a more efficient hybrid or E85 compatible vehicle. Plug in hybrids will be available soon, too

Recycle

Turn off your computer, modem, and router when they are not in use

Turn your thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter, and

Use energy efficient florescent light bulbs

You can think of 100’s of little ways to reduce gasoline and electricity consumption. Believe me; it is going to be forced on us by economics, politics, and war. The time to change is when times are good and you can do it by choice, in a thoughtful and planned out way. The time to change is not when there’s an emergency and change is forced upon you. So my challenge to you is reduce to figure out how you can reduce both your gasoline consumption and electricity use by 10% within the next two months. I’ll bet you can even do more than that, but 10% is a good starting point.

Let me know how you do it – what energy saving techniques you use. Send me an note via email, record an audio file and email it to me, or post a message in the show notes and I’ll share what you send with the rest of the audience on a future show.

If you’re a regular listener a donation via pay pal would be greatly appreciated. You’ll notice I don’t have any adds on my web site to generate income. The cost for web space, bandwidth, occasional hardware and software etc. all come out of my pocket. There’s no real income from the show, only a few dollars here and there from some generous listeners. I’m doing the show because I believe in the benefits of nuclear energy and feel the message needs to get out. So if you like the show and want to contribute you can do so via PayPal. The PayPal button on the web site will allow you to use a credit card, too in case you don’t have a PayPal account.

John Wheeler
"This Week in Nuclear"