New Web Site

I’m pleased to announce a completely renovated web site. In a few weeks this blog will go inactive and my blog and podcast transcripts will be contained entirely at http://thisweekinnuclear.com.

Features include:

For Podcasts – a web based audio player, show transcripts, an archive of all prior shows, and the ability to search the shows by key word.

For News – there’s a new feature that automatically compiles recent nuclear related blog posts and news from around the Internet into a single, easy to read page. The update is dynamic; new articles and blog posts are automatically added as they are published.

My last several blog posts and show notes are right on the home page, so it is easy to locate my most updates.

I’ve added nuclear related videos to the site, including a page that automatically pulls in new videos from YouTube. Like the news feed, this page is dynamic and new videos arrive as they are created anywhere in the world. I’ve also posted some of my favorite videos, and will add more in the future.

I included a calendar of events that I will be attending. If you are going to be at one of these events please look me up.

I’ve integrated social networking tools to make it easier for us to stay in touch and up to date. There’s a live Twitter feed, a link to the Facebook Fan Page for “This Week in Nuclear”, and a link to my LinkedIn profile ( John Wheeler’s LinkedIn profile).

Finally, there’s an updated shopping page. When you shop at Amazon.com you can support the show by starting your search at my site. You’ll get the same low prices and I’ll get a small percentage of sales to offset the costs of producing and hosting the show.

I am really pleased with the new web site and I hope you will be too! Please post your comments below!

Please update your browser bookmarks, links, and blog rolls.

If you subscribe to this blog via its RSS feed, the new feed is: http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?feed=rss2

Anti-Nuclear Edward Rep. Markey Releases Draft Climate Change Legislation.

It has not received any attention in the media, but on March 31, 2009 House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Environment released their plan to fight global warming. As I predicted back in Episode 62 of This Week in Nuclear , they are promoting a federal mandate on wind and solar power funded by huge increases in energy costs.

Although nuclear energy produces 70% of the CO2-emission free energy in the USA today, in the entire 648 page bill the word "nuclear" is mentioned only twice (once is to provide an editorial change to a prior bill).

Full Text of the Draft Legislation

House Press Release

Key parts of their plan:

• Create a national renewable portfolio standard to force utilities to generate (or purchase) at least 25% of the electricity they sell from "renewable sources" and pass the cost to rate payers (see page 15 of the bill)
• Establish a green house gas trading system (see page 358)
• And yes, federal government regulation over personal hot tubs (see page 223)

The Markey/Waxman bill would force California-style energy rules on the entire USA. We all know how that turned out! The Senate will have their hands full in creating a more balanced, logical approach to fight climate change that is based on sound science and good economics.

Nuclear Expansion Grows Near & Oyster Creek Gets another 20 years

Listen to Episode 64 of “This Week in Nuclear” Here

President Obama Promotes International Nuclear Fuel Bank

At a speech delivered in Prague, Czech Republic this week President Obama advocated establishing an international nuclear fuel bank. The idea is this: countries who pledge not to develop nuclear weapons programs and who do not enrich uranium would have the assurance of a stable fuel supply for their peaceful nuclear energy programs. Countries who posses the ability to enrich uranium under the International Non-Proliferation Treaty would provide the service for the international community. Much of the initial fuel in the bank would come from diluting weapons grade uranium, essentially continuing efforts begun by Russia and the USA to reduce weapons stockpiles.

President Obama also indicated support for the fuel bank to be located in Kazakhstan, a proposal that was endorsed by the European Union in March. The EU has already pledged $33 Million for set-up expenses, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have the lead to set up standards and policies and overseeing operations of the bank.

An international fuel bank would eliminate at least one of the obstacles that nations perceive in setting up new civilian nuclear energy programs. If they have no uranium or thorium resources of their own, or no ability to enrich the fuel, they will have to rely on other nations for their fuel supply. As with any commodity with a small number of suppliers, the potential for collusion and political leverage are high. In principle a fuel bank would provide greater assurance that if nations invest to build nuclear power plants they will be able to acquire fuel to run them.

Oyster Creek License Renewed for 20 Years

This week the Nuclear Regulatory commission granted at 20 year license extension to the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in New Jersey. The license renewal followed almost four years of safety and environmental analysis and deliberation by the Atomic Safety Licensing Board. Anti-nuclear groups waged a vigorous fight against the plant’s life extension, but in the end they were, according to the board, unable to provide any scientific analysis or evidence to support their claims that the plant is unsafe.

The NRC called the Oyster Creek review the “most extensive license renewal review to date.” In addition to the analysis done by the NRC staff and the ASLB, the license extension request was reviewed by the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. In the end the NRC commissioners approved the extension on a 3 to 1 vote, the lone dissenting commissioner was Gregory Jaczko.

The Changing Face of the NRC

Commissioner Jaczko, who holds a PhD in Physics, is considered by many to oppose the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful uses. He formerly worked for Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass), one of the most vocal anti-nuclear politicians in Washington, and he was appointed to his position on the commission as part of a political deal between Harry Reid and former President Bush. Harry Reid wanted his man on the commission so he could exert greater influence the outcome of the Yucca Mountain license application. The commission normally has five voting members, one of whom serves as the chairman. They all have equal voting power. At present there is one vacancy, and another vacancy will be created when Commissioner Peter Lyons’ term expires in June of this year. It is widely speculated that President Obama will name Jaczko to lead the commission when the current Chairman Dale Klein’s term expires in 2011, or sooner if Chairman Klein were to retire early. Kristine Svinicki, the final commissioner, has a term that will expire in June of 2012. All this means President Obama will have at least two seats on the NRC to fill this year, a chairman to appoint in 2011, and another commissioner to appoint during his last year in office. Commissioner Jaczko’s term does not expire until 2013. It will be interesting to see how the tone and direction of the NRC will change as the new commissioners come on board, and as the chairmanship changes. I’ll be monitoring this in the coming months and will be reporting on it here at “This Week in Nuclear.”

Southern Nuclear Moves Forward with New Nuclear

There is some great news out of Georgia! Executives from Southern Nuclear reportedly gave Westinghouse and Shaw a “thumbs up” to move forward with preparations to build two new nuclear units at their Vogtle station in Georgia. Shaw and Westinghouse have already signed contract with Southern for two new AP-1000 reactors at that location. Last week Southern stated they plan to break ground this summer, but plan to delay the first safety related concrete pour until after they receive their construction and operating license from the NRC.

UAE Nuclear Program Steams Ahead

The United Arab Emirates could be the first nation in the Middle East to have a fully functioning nuclear energy industry. During his last week in office President Bush signed an agreement allowing American companies to share commercial nuclear technology, equipment, and services with the UAE. President Obama is following that lead and has even called the UAE approach “A model for the world.”

Scores of nuclear executives, engineers, and business development people from around the world have visited the Emirates in the last several weeks to seek their shares of what is expected to become a booming business. The UAE states they plan to have their first commercial reactor up and running by 2017, and they are being very open out their willingness to conduct everything with full oversight by the IAEA. They also have no plans to develop fuel enrichment capabilities and they plan to buy their nuclear fuel on the international market.

At the last ANS meeting I had an opportunity to speak with an industry executive who told me the UAE had adopted a very bottom up, systematic approach: first they are creating a regulatory framework and oversight body, then they will select principle partners and a technology or reactor type, and finally they will begin construction. In parallel they are ramping up their education and training infrastructure so they can develop internal nuclear talent and a local workforce.

New “This Week in Nuclear” Website

I’m pleased to announce the roll out of a completely renovated web site at http://thisweekinnuclear.com. My goal with the new site is to create a portal for nuclear energy news and information extending well beyond my podcast.

Features include:

• For Podcasts – a web based audio player, show transcripts, an archive of all prior shows, and the ability to search the shows for key word.

• For News – there’s a new feature that automatically compiles recent nuclear related blog posts and news from around the Internet into a single, easy to read page. The update is dynamic; new news articles and blog posts are added as they are written.

• My blog posts and show notes are right on the home page, so it is easy to locate my most recent podcasts or blog posts.

• I’ve added nuclear related videos to the site, including a page that automatically pulls in new videos from YouTube. Like the news feed, this page is dynamic and new videos arrive as they are created anywhere in the world. I also have some of my favorite videos, and will add more in the future.

• I included a calendar of events that I will be attending. If you are going to be at one of these events please look me up.

• I’ve integrated social networking tools to make it easier for us to stay in touch and up to date. There’s a live Twitter feed, a link to the Facebook Fan Page for “This Week in Nuclear”, and a link to my LinkedIn profile( John Wheeler’s LinkedIn profile).

• Finally, there’s an updated shopping page. When you shop at Amazon.com you can support the show by starting your search at my site. You’ll get the same low prices and I’ll get a small percentage of sales to offset the costs of producing and hosting the show.

I am really pleased with the new web site and I hope you will be too! Please send me a note with comments and suggestions.

I have a favor to ask of my fellow bloggers and web site owners. Please take a few minutes to update any links back to my site to point to http://thisweekinnuclear.com . I know many of you point to my Blogger where I post show notes, or to my podomatic site where the podcasts are hosted. In a few weeks I will stop updating both of those sites since my new site has the capability handling everything in one place. As a web developer, one of my goals with this update was to consolidate my three sites (web site, blog site and podcast hosting site) into one, and to use technologies that will make it easier and less time consuming to make updates. I’ve accomplished that, and after a reasonable transition period those other sites will go dormant because I will stop updating them.

I would like to give a special “thanks” to those of you who have donated to the show via the Paypal link on the web site. It means a lot to me to know that you value the show enough to contribute financially. Every little bit helps, and your financial support and encouragement keep me going.

Have a great week!

John Wheeler

More Wind = More Gas and More CO2

I have been saying for months that despite what T. Boone Pickens and Greenpeace would like us to believe, increasing wind generation will INCREASE burning of fossil fuels and raise CO2 emissions. Apparently major European electricity producers agree with me.

"The deployment of high levels of intermittent renewables for electricity generation will require the construction of additional carbon-emitting plant as back-up for when renewables are not available to meet demand," EDF argued. "This is likely to be predominantly gas-fired and will therefore undermine efforts to reduce dependence on non-domestic fuel sources."

Anti-nuclear activists are fighting back, claiming the nuclear industry is trying to “steal” the renewable energy market and undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"We should be maximising renewables and harnessing as much of that clean, safe energy as we possibly can – not propping up the French nuclear industry."

Funny…last time I looked EDF was awash with cash from selling their clean, cheap nuclear-generated electricity to the rest of Europe where expensive gas and wind are draining national bank accounts.

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

“CLEAN is in the Eye of the Beholder” or

“The Laws of Nature Can’t be Legislated”

Listen to the Podcast here

This week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid let it be known that congress plans to tackle climate change by imposing federal standards that will require utilities to generate a percentage of their electricity from “renewable” energy sources. On the surface this may sound like a good idea, but Reid’s careful selection of words betrays his intent. He emphasized he would push “renewable” energy, not “low-carbon” or “clean” energy standards. This distinction makes all the difference in the world. It’s curious, too, because if they are in fact trying to reduce CO2 emissions as Reid states, then why wouldn’t he be promoting CO2-free energy? In truth, Harry Reid has another agenda in mind and is using the climate change soapbox to further his cause.

This week I’ll share the true intent of Harry Reid’s plan, and I’ll demonstrate that “renewable” energy standards will do little to reduce CO2 emissions. On the other hand, a regulatory framework that penalizes CO2 emissions and rewards low carbon generation would have an immediate and dramatic effect on reducing global warming gasses.

First, let’s discuss the difference between the phrases “clean energy” , “renewable energy” , and “low-carbon energy.”

“Renewable” Energy

The government has defined “renewable” energy as solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, waste to energy, and biofuels. Even though uranium and thorium supplies will last for hundreds or thousands of years, nuclear energy is not considered “renewable.” The phrase “renewable portfolio standards” or RPS refers to government mandates that require utilities to purchase a certain percentage of energy from renewable sources, regardless of price. This equates to a hidden tax and renewable energy subsidy because it forces the electricity rate payers to buy energy that could otherwise not compete in the market place. An RPS subsidizes renewable energy providers using inflated energy bills. About 25 states have some sort of RPS, and the Obama administration has started talking about implementing renewable portfolio standards on a national level. This would be a very bad idea but more on that later.

“Clean” Energy

“Clean Energy” is perhaps the most misused phrase in the energy business. Everyone claims to be clean! We’ve all heard industry trade association claims about “clean coal” and “clean natural gas.” There’s even a company out there called Clean Energy that is in the business of promoting natural gas as a transportation fuel. Clean Coal refers to coal power plants with mechanisms to remove a large percentage of the chemicals and particulate from the exhaust, but “clean coal” still has all the CO2 of “dirty coal.” Clean or not, burning coal releases about 2 pounds of CO2 for every kW-hr of electricity generated. A typical 1000 MW “clean” coal plant releases an astronomical 2 MILLION pounds of CO2 per hour! Natural gas burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels with fewer chemicals and particulates in its exhaust. However, burning natural gas still dumps huge qualities of CO2 into the atmosphere. For every one kW-hr of electricity generated, natural gas produces 1.3 pounds of CO2, only about 1.3 MILLION pounds of CO2 per hour for a 1000 MW plant!

Biofuels claim to be clean, but their production is resulting in the deforestation of the Amazon jungle in Brazil, and farm equipment uses diesel fuel which emits CO2 and other pollutants. Hydro power is certainly clean unless you are concerned with the thousands of square miles flooded and natural habitats lost. Solar energy is a huge consumer of land; about 35 square miles for the same output as a large coal plant but without the reliability. At their end of life used solar panels are hazardous waste. The environmental web site “TreeHugger.com” reports that solar panels contain “extremely toxic materials with unknown health and environmental risks.” Interestingly, unlike used nuclear fuels these toxins never decay, yet the people opposed to nuclear energy don’t see the irony in their bias.

Wind has its own dirty problems. No one is talking about who will pay to decommission and remove old wind turbines when they break down and their owners go out of business. Thousands of broken down and abandoned windmills scattered around the country could hardly be called “clean.” Many environmentalists are concerned about the thousands of migratory birds and bats that are killed by wind turbine blades every year. Its not just animals that are at risk; I read a report this week that says 41 workers and 16 members of the public have been killed in the last several years from wind turbine accidents , blade failures, and other related hazards. Again, the irony escapes those who call nuclear plants unsafe – not a single worker or member of the public has ever been killed from radiation at a US nuclear plant. Once again, “clean” is in the eye of the beholder.

Nuclear energy has "clean" issues, too. The industry needs to maintain control of its used fuel until reprocessing begins in a few years. Once that happens the long term used fuel issue will be virtually eliminated because the remaining material will be even smaller. On the positive side, the current amount of material that needs to be controlled is miniscule and can very easily and safely stored. Nuclear energy is the only energy source that is 100% accountable for the physical plant and all by-products for the life of the plant and though decommissioning. Other power plants do not have to set money aside to pay for returning the plant site to a green field.

By contrast, coal plants are free to release their gaseous waste into the air and dump their solid waste into ponds and landfills. One such coal waste pond at a power plant in Tennessee failed on December 23^rd and flooded 400 acres with 12 feet of toxic muck containing lead, arsenic, and uranium. Fifteen homes were damaged or destroyed.

[This paragraph edited on 3/26/09] Another bit of irony is this: that coal slurry spill in Kingston, Tennessee released about 20,000 curies of radioactive uranium that was naturally present in the original coal, but concentrated in the coal ash. The enormous volume of the coal sludge means the event was most likely the largest “spill” of radioactive material in history, yet we didn’t hear a sound from the anti-nuclear establishment! The same groups that go ballistic at when nuclear plants release minute quantities of tritium had absolutely nothing to say! By the way, tritium is a mildly radioactive form of hydrogen that decays relatively quickly. The Union of Concerned Scientists and Nuclear Policy Research Institute were strangely silent on this single largest uncontrolled release of radioactive waste in the history of the USA.


Do you think the coal industry will be forced to spend billions of dollars to install redundant safety systems at all their coal sludge ponds? Now, honestly, that amount of radioactive material poses absolutely no threat to anyone, but this serves to illustrate the bias that exists in the media and in our energy policies.

The bottom line is this: the definition of “clean energy” depends on who you are hearing it from. If the goal is reducing CO2 emissions, then the term “clean energy” when used by the coal and natural gas industries is completely meaningless. The only exception might be research and development into carbon capture and sequestration technologies, but that is still completely unproven and has many serious safety and cost hurdles to overcome. It will be many, many years before we see carbon capture from coal or gas plants on an industrial scale.

“Emissions-Free” Energy

The terms “Low-Carbon” or “emissions free” energy are pretty straight forward. They refer to sources of energy that have very low CO2 emissions. This includes wind, nuclear, solar, hydro, and other renewables. By far the largest source of low carbon energy is nuclear. In fact, nuclear energy accounts for more than 70% of the USA’s emission free electricity generation.

So now we have discussed the differences between “clean energy”, “renewable energy” and “emission-free energy.” If the goal is reducing green-house gasses, then the focus should be on “emissions free” energy. If congress really wants to reduce CO2 emissions then they should create a financial and regulatory framework that taxes CO2 emissions and rewards emissions free producers, then stand back and let the market decide which technologies can do it most quickly and cheaply. Playing favorites with any one or two technologies is a sure way to fail.

“Hey Nuclear, Don’t Bother to Apply”

On a level playing field nuclear energy would continue as the emissions-free leader because it is a proven technology and the lowest cost provider of reliable carbon-free electricity. Unfortunately, it is not a level playing field. Harry Reid is calling the shots and he is doing everything he can to block the expansion of nuclear energy. He did exactly that during the final hours of negotiation on the stimulus bill when he removed a provision that would have allowed companies to access government loan guarantees for new nuclear construction projects. The original text of the stimulus bill stated “renewable and clean” energy projects were eligible for the guarantees, but Harry made sure the final version said only “renewable energy” could apply.

A Focus on Solar and Wind Means More Fossil Fuel Burning, Not Less

Because wind and solar are intermittent, for every MW of wind or solar capacity that is built, another MW of natural gas powered generation must be located nearby. Since the wind only blows about 32% of the time, and solar panels operate at only about 19%, those gas turbines will be running (and emitting CO2) between 68% and 81% of the time. This is why investing in solar and wind will only prolong our dependence on fossil fuels. Every year that we waste trying to supply our energy grid with wind and solar power is another year fossil fuels will continue dominating the energy supply. On the other hand, every new nuclear plant that is built steals market share from coal and gas plants. A current example is the two reactors that Progress Energy plans to build in Florida. The company has already stated publically they plan to shut down a large coal plant when the new nuclear plant comes on line. I’m sure the coal industry didn’t like hearing that story!

Harry Reid is promoting wind and solar projects that will end up in desert states like his home state of Nevada. What he is really doing is grabbing a lion’s share of government funds for Nevada while limiting the competition for those funds. The wind and solar projects he is pouring money into are not in the nation’s best interests because they are hugely expensive and will not provide reliable energy. All the money and government mandates in the world can not change the laws of nature. They can not turn an intermittent power source into a stable one. The state of California tried to do exactly that when they created renewal portfolio standards and they wound up in a horrible mess. Remember the California energy crises? Their electricity prices went through the roof, blackouts became routine, and they nearly bankrupt every utility in the state.

Pay Attention and Hold Your Elected Officials Accountable

In the coming week and months please listen to the news about climate change legislation. The USA is going to end up with some variation of either a national renewable portfolio standard or some form of carbon tax or cap-and-trade program. For all the reasons I’ve mentioned in this show, we should oppose a renewable portfolio standard and support a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program. Pay attention and let your congressmen and senators know how you feel. There is no question the price of electricity is going to go up to pay for mitigating climate change. If that is destined to happen then we need to make sure we get something for the money we spend. The best way to make that happen is to support the construction of new nuclear plants.

Peace!

John Wheeler

Printable Version