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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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