Friday, April 24, 2009

House Climate Change Bill & A Bit of Nuclear History - Episode 65

Listen to the Podcast Here

800px-taskforce_one1

The Markey / Waxman Climate Change Bill

Momentum is building towards greenhouse gas regulation in the United States. Two weeks ago the house of representatives released draft climate change legislation sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey. On Friday the US Environmental Protection Agency turned up the heat when they declared CO2 and other greenhouse gasses “hazards to public health” and labeled CO2 a pollutant. This action gives the EPA authority to regulate CO2 emissions even if congress does not pass legislation focused on curbing greenhouse gas releases.

The Waxman/Markey draft legislation would evoke a national renewable energy portfolio standard that will force electric utilities to get a large percentage of the energy they sell from renewable sources. The legislation defines renewable energy as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, and wave energy. The required percentages would phase in starting at 6% in 2012, increasing to to 25% by 2039.

Calendar year Required annual percentage

2012 ..................................................................... 6.0

2013 ..................................................................... 6.0

2014 ..................................................................... 8.5

2015 ..................................................................... 8.5

2016 .................................................................... 11.0

2017 .................................................................... 11.0

2018 .................................................................... 14.0

2019 .................................................................... 14.0

2020 .................................................................... 17.5

2021 ..................................................................... 17.5

2022 ..................................................................... 21.0

2023 ..................................................................... 21.0

2024 ..................................................................... 23.0

2025 through 2039 ............................................ 25.0

Utilities who are unable to meet the mandated standards would be fined $50 per megawatt hour of every megawatt they sell that exceed the renewable limits. That penalty could very quickly bankrupt companies that fail to comply. For example, a single 1000 megawatt coal fired power plant would be fined $1.2 million per day.

This is a nearly impossible mandate to meet. If this provision becomes law several things will happen:

There is already a huge amount of capitol flowing into wind and solar energy because of the lucrative subsidies that pay much of the installation costs, plus tax credits that some states and the federal government have put into place to encourage investment into these politically favored but uneconomic energy sources. Taxpayers are already footing a lion’s share of the expense of installing most wind and solar power plants.

A national renewable portfolio standard will cause even more demand for these intermittent power sources. Unfortunately there is no way the supply can keep up with demand. Utilities in areas of the country with plentiful hydo power will initially be able to meet the standards, but most of the USA has little hydro power. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2007 the combined total for wind, solar, wood and other biomass, and geothermal accounted for only about 2.2% of electricity generated in the USA. This means that within three years utilities in much of the country would need to triple the amount of renewable energy they sell. Electricity rates will sky rocket, and that increase will follow through to the entire economy. The cost of energy is embedded in the price of every product and service produced, and rising energy costs will cause inflationary pressures across the economy. The Cambridge Energy Research Associates, an energy consulting company, estimates renewable energy standards will cause prices to increase by 15%. They state that even with massive subsidies wind energy costs 30% more than natural gas, the most expensive form of traditional energy. Solar is even more costly.

Renewable energy portfolio standards will cause inflation across the board and will make goods and services produced more expensive and less competitive than the same products produced in parts of the world where energy costs are lower. Any modest increase in the number of jobs from an expansion in wind and solar will be short lived and will be more than offset by the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector.

All this makes you wonder – if the fundamental goal of this legislation is greenhouse gas reduction, then why wouldn’t Waxman and Markey take advantage of the lowest cost, most scalable form of CO2-free energy, nuclear power? Consider this, a hypothetical utility with 100% nuclear power would emit zero carbon dioxide or other air pollution yet would fail to meet the energy mix mandated by the Markey/Waxman bill. This is simply outrageous!

Renewable energy portfolio standards represent terrible policy – it’s a manifestation of politicians trying to act as engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs, a strategy doomed to fail. If the goal is CO2 reduction, then a straight forward approach will have far better results. It’s really quite simple; the government should set an across the board price on CO2 emissions then get out of the way and let the market figure out the most cost effective way to generate CO2-free energy. An appropriate price on CO2 would spawn research and development into wind, solar, coal with carbon capture, biomass, tidal, and nuclear energy. The technologies that offer the most CO2 reduction for the price will be rewarded with further investment and growth. Innovations would create jobs and new products that would become exports to other countries that also want to reduce CO2 emissions.

All this is so obvious I have to question the underlying motivations of the politicians who advocate a RPS. Are they really interested in reducing climate change, or are they using the climate change soap box as an opportunity for personal gain? Outside of their political life are they personally invested in the same technologies they are trying to mandate? We already know this is true in some instances. Al Gore, for example, lobbies Congress on one day and returns to his seat at the head of Generation Management Investment, a company that makes millions in profits from carbon offsets and from investments in renewable energy. He even buys his much touted “carbon offsets” from the company he owns – he essentially pays himself for his high-carbon lifestyle.

It is no surprise they are lukewarm on nuclear energy: nuclear power is a threat to their business because it is far more effective at reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other air pollution, at a much lower price, in much larger scales, and it is a stable, reliable energy source.


Operation Sea Orbit – 1964

Last week the world watched the story unfold about the pirate attack on the merchant ship Maersk Alabama. I felt compassion for and a connection with for the ship’s crew because of time I spent in the merchant marine early in my career. I have plied the very same waters where the pirate attack took place, and I couldn’t help but wonder if any of my former shipmates were among those affected. When the USS Bainbridge steamed to the rescue I was even more engaged because I have friends and relatives in the navy, and because I recognized the famous name of the Bainbridge. After a little Internet research I connected the dots on some interesting historical facts.

The present day USS Bainbridge is a guides missile destroyer commissioned in 2005. The ship is named after Commodore William Bainbridge, who was the commander of the famous frigate USS Constitution during the War of 1812. The current ship is the fifth ship to bear the name. I was familiar with the forth USS Bainbridge. That ship was the first nuclear powered destroyer. In the mid to late 1980’s I worked at Knolls Atomic Power laboratory. One of the nuclear plants on the site was called “D1G”, and was the prototype for reactor and steam plant of the nuclear powered USS Bainbridge. The nuclear USS Bainbridge was commissioned in 1962. In 1964 the USS Bainbidge joined the USS Long Beach, the first nuclear cruiser, and the USS Enterprise, the first nuclear aircraft carrier to form the first all-nuclear carrier battle group. This offered a huge advantage for naval tactics and logistics because the battle group could for the first time travel thousands of miles without the need for refueling. In 1964 the Navy decided to showcase this new capability and created Operation Sea Orbit in which the three ship carrier battle group cruised around the world in 62 days, traveling 30,565 miles without refuleing. The photo on my web site for this podcast episode is one taken of the three ships during their cruise around the world.

The story does not end there. Operations Sea Orbit was the idea of Adm. John S. McCain, Jr., the father of Senator John McCain. Adm. McCain was not a navy nuclear officer, but he recognized the advantages offered by nuclear energy. He used Operation Sea Orbit to demonstrate to the world that nuclear power was safe, reliable, and full of potential. With this exposure to the technology it should be no surprise that his son, Senator John McCain, became a staunch supporter of nuclear energy. I am sure you all heard Senator McCain’s promises during the last presidential campaign to expand the number of nuclear power plants in the USA as a way to increase energy independence, create jobs, and reduce air pollution. From a personal perspective it is hard for me to fathom that Operation Sea Orbit took place when I was just three years old. It’s even more amazing to realize that the USS Enterprise, the lead ship in Operation Sea Orbit and the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, is still a commisioned vessel in active service in the US Navy. That ship is 45 years old and is not scheduled for retirement for another 5 or 6 years! The USS Enterprise is a testament to the durability, safety and reliability of nuclear power plants. The ship has eight Westinghouse pressurized water reactors that provide all the energy required for the equivalent of a small city generating electricity, launching aircraft, distilling water, and driving that massive ship through the water at speeds in excess of 30 knotts. The reactors have operated day in and day out for almost fifty years with five thousand sailors living and working within a few hundred feet of the reactors all the time.

The nuclear industry enjoys the benefits of a fantastic amount of accumulated knowledge and wisdom about how to design, build, and operate nuclear plants safely and reliably. In fact, we’re now in the third and forth generation of nuclear power scientists, engineers, operators, and technicians who are benefiting from thousands of reactor-years of operating experience all the way back to long before Operation Sea Orbit. Anti-nuclear activists attempt to block license renewals with an argument that nuclear reactors are worn out and dangerous after 40 years, yet here we have a perfect example of the same basic technology going strong well past 50 years – safely, reliably, and without contributing to air pollution. Commodore Bainbridge would be proud!

This Week in Nuclear Web Site Reminders

This web site has a number of new features:

· There is a podcast player and show transcripts.

· In addition to the podcast I frequently post news stories on my blog.

· Because I can not possibly cover all the interesting nuclear news out there, I have a “News” page that pulls in recent stories from several of my favorite blogs and news sources.

· There are also nuclear related videos, including a page of YouTube videos related to nuclear energy that is updated daily. Some are serious, and some are funny, but it’ always informative and entertaining!

Be sure to follow me on Twitter where my user name is TheJohnWheeler. When I publish a new podcast or blog article I always send out a message using Twitter to let everyone know. There is a link to my Twitter feed on the web site.

Finally, there’s a link to the Facebook Fan page for This Week in Nuclear. If you use FB please join the fan page and let your friends know about the show.

Peace!

John

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

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.

Friday, April 10, 2009

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

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

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.