2012: The Year After the Year

2012 may fade away and 2013 arrive with undo chipperness, but It’s all a continuum. Last year’s narratives will continue into the new year, a few cameo players from 2012 will gain additional prominence in 2013 – I’m thinking small reactors here – and, to paraphrase the tagline of an old horror comic, always expect the unexpected.

So let’s not fill up a top ten list – that might be the expected thing to do on December 31; instead, let’s see if we can find some recent quotes that summarize (some of) the themes of the last year even if that is not exactly their purpose.
Take this, for example, from the Wall Street Journal:

But phasing out nuclear power, which helps meet nearly 75% of France's electricity needs and about 27% across the EU, could deprive the continent of a key source of energy and jobs, making it more dependent on fossil-fuel imports.
Higher fuel bills could also hurt European economies, economists warned. And closing nuclear reactors—which emit little to no greenhouse gas—could jeopardize the EU's efforts to address concerns about global warming.

We’ve written about this a lot in 2012, because the subject raises a lot of prickly questions. Countries should have a right to leave nuclear energy if they want to – no energy source is sacrosanct – but it has had and will continue to have consequences, most of them unintended. In Germany, the change is so precipitous that the transition promises to be incredibly expensive at best and truly terrible for the people at worst. And it’s an energy policy that solves no particular problem.

The Journal story is worth reading in full, though its focus on countries closing nuclear plants tells only part of the story, as we’ll see.
---
There’s a flip side to leaving nuclear energy, as indicated in this story in Commodities Today, and it also provided a theme for 2012 (I guess uranium is the commodity, but the story does not directly refer to it):

The number of nuclear new build projects, despite Fukushima, is still higher now than across the last two decades – although Asia is leading in numbers, the US has approved its first new build since 1970. France, Finland, the United Kingdom and Sweden have all reaffirmed their commitment to nuclear power. In Central and Eastern Europe, Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic are also planning to push ahead with new units, following increased safety assessments.

I just saw a story about the Bulgarians holding a referendum to decide whether to build a second nuclear facility – we’ll see how that turns out. The United States has four new reactors (in Georgia and South Carolina) under construction and a fifth (in Alabama Tennessee) being revived and completed.

So nuclear energy is moving forward despite some handwringing – in the United States, in parts of Asia and Eastern Europe, perhaps even Bulgaria.

Naturally, there is a reason to celebrate this continuing development. 2012 represents the year following the year of the Fukushima Daiichi accident. It’s been a period for learning lessons from the accident and moving forward.

The industry unveiled FLEX early in 2012, its response to the accident that ensures that no nuclear plant will ever be an island in a sea of adversity. FLEX directs the facilities to stage new emergency equipment at each plant and it sets up regional centers to hold larger safety items that can be used by any facility.

Still, what about Fukushima Daiichi? Let’s be clear about the accident and its impact. The earthquake and tsunami that precipitated the accident killed almost 16,000 people. The accident killed no one (there were some industrial fatalities). About 340,000 people were put out of their homes, some by the disaster and some by the accident.

The lack of fatalities and the successful planning to keep people clear of radiation doesn’t excuse the accident at all – and cannot be used as exculpatory of it - but the truth of the matter is that the earthquake and tsunami created human devastation while the accident, unwelcome though it was, did not. That point sometimes gets overlooked or elided.

But the impact of the accident has been, as it should be, enormous. There’s still more to learn from the accident, which has already been and continues to be studied by every conceivable Japanese, American and international organization with an interest. There are still lessons to be learned, but a lot has been learned and even implemented – with IAEA help around the world and NRC and industry directives here.

This post-Fukushima work has been transparent enough that people can follow what’s going on and understand the implications for themselves and their families. In this country (and others, such as Great Britain), the result has been very positive. Nuclear energy is seen as safe by a majority of respondents and most people favor further expansion. Gallup puts public approval at about 57 percent, exactly the same as before the accident.

More about 2012 on Wednesday. Maybe we’ll know the outcome of that election in Bulgaria by then, too.

Correx: Thanks to our commenter for pointing out I meant Tennessee for the fifth reactor. You say Watts Bar, I say Bellefonte. Let's call the whole thing off (kidding - let's build both Watts Bar and Bellefonte. )

Read More

Inescapable Dilemmas: A Few Friday Nuclear Readings

From the end of a column in the Guardian by Neil Hirst of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change:

All in all, there is no simple answer to this question. If you believe strongly enough that we should phase out nuclear then with sufficiently strong political commitment around the world, this could be done consistently with tackling climate change. However, as a practical matter, we are far from being on course to limit carbon emissions to levels consistent with a 2C target. Ruling out one of the major low-carbon technology options currently available is bound to add to the difficulty and the risk of what is already looking like a very tough challenge. Balancing the problems of nuclear power against its contribution to climate mitigation (and other energy policy objectives) is an inescapable dilemma.

Hirst knows as well as we do that finding “sufficiently strong political commitment around the world” to shutter nuclear energy is as likely as finding sufficiently strong political commitment to do anything, notably about climate change. After all, that’s the “inescapable dilemma” he sees by shutting down the facilities.

Hirst has contributed an unusually sophisticated and nuanced argument, especially for a newspaper piece – worth a full read.

---

From John P. Banks and Kevin Massy at the Brookings Institution, a think tank, a similar view, but a different angle:

While the developed world gets cold feet on nuclear power, its prospects in developing countries are different. The challenges of meeting electricity demand, reducing reliance on imported energy, and promoting economic growth while lowering carbon dioxide emissions, leave many emerging nations with no alternative but to consider nuclear energy as a key component of their economic development and energy security strategies.

I’m not as convinced the developed world is quite so chilly, but let’s give that to the authors. Or that the alternatives are so slender that nuclear energy is the only way to proceed. The reason for this doubt is that nuclear energy answers to more issues than just climate change – energy security and independence, the prospect of a very large amount of electricity for one admittedly large investment, etc. Still, the authors investigate the issue with due seriousness:

In our view, lack of stakeholder engagement is a major contributing factor. Governments that may not have a tradition of proactively explaining policy decisions and responding to questions and concerns in a timely and transparent manner are now confronting the reality that engaging in a dialog with all interested parties is essential, especially for an endeavor with such long-term and unique safety, environmental, cost, proliferation and strategic characteristics.

This is the gist of their piece and they provide examples of governments pursuing nuclear energy without buy in from their peoples, leading to protests borne of fear. Perhaps the idea is a bit oversold, but it seems a good topic with which to engage.

---

From Dr. Dale Dewar, executive director of the group Physicians for Global Survival, in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix:

An industry born in the secrecy of the Manhattan Project, building the nuclear bomb in the 1940s, it has continued to operate largely behind closed doors. Power plant construction has been highly government subsidized, consistently subjected to lengthy technical delays and always massively overbudget.

Anti-nuclear advocates often try the history-of-secrecy approach to imagine the nuclear industry a kind of atomic star chamber, doling out energy justice as it sees fits and irradiating its enemies out of inborn vicious spite. It’s a pretty old fashioned attack – at least Dr. Dewar could cast herself as the van Helsing dragging the shrieking nucleus of evil out of the shadows before staking it.

I wondered about the doctor, whose full column is equally littered with, shall we call it, antispeak, that is, a collection of dire if bald and dubious assertions. Here’s a little about her, after winning a raffle held by  International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War:

Dr. Dewar lives on a cash-strapped struggling Land Trust in Saskatchewan. She and her husband are delighted with the raffle win and plan to put it to good use in their continued exploration of alternative energy and lifestyles. Part of the ticket was purchased by the PGS, administrative officer, Andrea Levy, who earmarked her win to visit and provide supportive care to a dear friend on the other side of the continent. There will be many people and projects who will benefit!

Which is great! We also learn that she is a family doctor, great, too, especially if she is providing service at that Land Trust. I wonder if there is a certain groupthink in these interlinking groups, but it does help explain the “industry born in secrecy” view if you’re determined to connect the Manhattan Project to domestic nuclear energy.

Read More

Nuclear Energy and The Darkest Nightmare

I like the way the Sundance Film Festival tries to square a bunch of circles in selling its showings (beginning January 18) of Robert Stone’s Pandora’s Promise, his pro-nuclear energy documentary:

The atomic bomb, the specter of a global nuclear holocaust, and disasters like Fukushima have made nuclear energy synonymous with the darkest nightmares of the modern world. But what if everyone has nuclear power wrong? What if people knew that there are reactors that are self-sustaining and fully controllable and ones that require no waste disposal? What if nuclear power is the only energy source that has the ability to stop climate change?

Need we note that domestic nuclear energy, the subject of the film, has nothing whatever to with the atomic bomb or “the specter of a global nuclear holocaust?” I hope not. If you allow that, “Darkest nightmares of the modern world” might seem a bit hyperbolic, yes?

But fine: if it inspires people to wander in and see the film, fine. They may get some of their preconceptions about nuclear energy, as represented by the blurb, shaken up, and that would be a good thing.

Read More

Pro-Nuclear Party Wins Big in Japan

They have elections:

More than 20 months after a catastrophic nuclear disaster that triggered massive protests against atomic energy and fueled public opinion polls backing the phase-out of reactors, a pro-nuclear party won Japan’s parliamentary election.

The result left anti-nuclear proponents in shock Monday, struggling to understand how the Liberal Democratic Party not only won, but won in a landslide.

Japan has a parliamentary system. This election was for the lower chamber, like ours called the House of Representatives, and elected by direct vote. The upper chamber, the House of Councilors, has a rather complicated system for election (part proportional based on party, part direct based on candidate). The House of Representatives will select a new Prime Minister later this month.

In any event, you might wonder if this means that the accident at Fukushima Daiichi has receded as an issue. Probably not – the Japanese national paper the Asahi Shimbun, polled the attitudes of voters and came back with interesting if not very heartening results:

The Asahi Shimbun approached voters nationwide who had cast their ballots in the Dec. 16 Lower House election to find out if they supported "scrapping nuclear power immediately, "gradually phasing out nuclear power altogether" or "not pursuing zero nuclear power."

Fourteen percent chose scrapping nuclear power immediately, and 64 percent picked gradually phasing out nuclear power altogether.

…

Fifteen percent of the respondents said they do not want to pursue zero nuclear power.

An explicitly one-issue, anti-nuclear energy caucus, called the Tomorrow Party, fizzled almost completely, winning nine out of 480 seats. To me, that suggests that Japanese voters are not one-issue partisans – the economy no doubt weighs as heavily there as here, for example. Beyond that, despite a multi-party system, the Japanese tend to favor the centrist Liberal Democratic Party (the big winner this time and most of the time), with opposition coalitions sometimes taking the reins of power.

So this is what one might call a status quo election. The Prime Minister selection will be worth attending, as Japan burns through PMs alarmingly fast, whichever party is in charge. That can lead to a vacuum where policy should be.

“I really wonder if the people who voted for the Liberal Democrats really know what their policies are,” said Kawakami, who along with other skeptics fears the Liberal Democrats will boost hawkish nationalism, raise taxes and favor big business over the little guy.

That sounds like one of our Presidential elections, with different issues. The opposition party always thinks the winning party will destroy the nation and that the foolish electorate didn’t understand the foul villainy it unleashed with its votes.

Most of all, they fear the Liberal Democrats will restart the nation’s 48 working nuclear reactors that are still offline, except for two that are back up, since the disaster.

Well, that’s how it goes. Elections have consequences and all that. Not to be too airy: I cannot guess what Japan will do with its nuclear plants and it would be presumptuous to try. However much it would be good for Japan to bring them back online – and it would be - it’s something that has to be left to them. 

Read More

Nuclear Energy - Justified

A letter from Martha Gordon of Monmouth Oregon to the Statesman-Journal of Salem (Ore.), re-rendered as a poem:

As one survivor
of the Dust Bowl who
experienced the failure of one mistaken idea,
I am vitally afraid
of earth-shaking experiments.

Our experience with nukes,
you would think,
would rival that of
a child learning about fire
by getting burned.

Our wind power,
while not so fruitful
in this water-lush year,
is a “money in the bank” recourse
for the dry years predicted to come.

How can we justify more nukes
on our beautiful Columbia?

I was struck by Ms. Gordon’s (who must be well into her eighties if she remembers the dust bowl) artful arrangement of words in making her lyrical and somewhat mysterious statement about the vagaries of energy.

So it’s not pro-nuclear – or is it?  Or is that even the point? Wind, nuclear, natural gas – she alludes to their power generating potential and, like the first person confronted with fire, finds them fearful, potentially hurtful or incomprehensible (“not so fruitful”). Her letter seems less an anti-nuclear, pro-wind piece than a warning against accepting the promethean gift of energy hastily.

And she’s right in the particular case: if there are to be more nukes on the Columbia, they must be justified. I think it could be done – and it might be worth doing, worth justifying, though I haven’t heard of plans for nuclear build in Oregon (the Trojan plant there closed awhile ago). Regardless, Ms. Gordon’s words are wise and bracingly counterintuitive.

Read More

Where Used Nuclear Fuel Is Wanted

The WIPP facility

Sometimes, it just takes a little push. For example, The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (whew! – let’s call it the BRC) made a number of recommendations on how to proceed with used nuclear fuel without Yucca Mountain.

One recommendation still promoted the use of one or more permanent repositories just like Yucca Mountain, but the interest here – and the push - is on a second, related suggestion: interim storage sites. However many of these there would be, they would be many fewer than the nuclear facilities now holding used nuclear fuel – if the idea is to decrease the number of sites with used fuel, then this is an especially plausible idea.

Even better, the BRC said that communities could suggest themselves as hosts for these interim sites. The federal government could then negotiate terms with the communities, assuming there are viable locations to put the sites.

This idea arose from a visit the BRC members took to the Department of Energy’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, N.M., where it held a hearing on how the site was determined and how the townspeople like having it there. WIPP stores defense-related transuranic waste, not domestic used fuel, but otherwise it is a model for a community-based storage site. And the community loves WIPP.

Offering the community’s insight, Carlsbad Mayor Dale Janway told the BRC the Department of Energy’s openness has been essential to the project’s success.
"They have kept their promises. I can honestly say they have kept us informed from the very beginning,” he said.
New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez told the BRC the keys to WIPP’s success have been the area’s geological composition, sound science, transparency and citizen engagement.
“WIPP has been vital to the nation and is responsible for major, significant economic impact to the community,” she said. “WIPP’s local support has never wavered.”

And that’s the push – WIPP has been a boon to its community and the BRC recommendation put its success up for public review.
So…

Local leaders here are polishing their pitch to attract a type of business most places would shun: storing the nation’s high-level nuclear waste.
They’ve already teamed up with an international nuclear company to get an edge on any competition. They’ve bought land and built a Web page. They’ve even met with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

It’s still New Mexico – in this case Eunice, which is near Carlsbad – but they’re really pushing to be considered. Here’s a little information about Eunice:

Today Eunice boasts an estimated population of 2,606 (in July of 2005) and growing currently with 9 choices of places to dine-in or carryout, 2 drinking establishments with one requiring membership, health clinic, an inn and motel, lumber yard, seasonal tax office, 1 convenience store, towing and auto service, a bank, a grocery store, a discount store, insurance shops, organizations and many more businesses are popping up. Things are growing and the future in Eunice is going to be something to behold.

Now, in Eunice’s case, or more properly, Lea and Eddy counties, there is a possibility that they can turn that part of the state into a used fuel megamall – their term, not mine:

The growing nuclear complex includes the $3 billion enrichment plant [run by URENCO], the federal nuclear-waste repository at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in Carlsbad and the new Waste Control Specialists’ low-level radioactive waste site just over the New Mexico-Texas border, across the highway from the enrichment plant. In addition, federal regulators have just approved a depleted uranium de-conversion plant [run by International Isotopes in nearby Hobbs, N.M.].

Some of Eunice seems to poke into Texas, so this looks like a two-state effort.
---
Eunice may be kind of an obvious place to host a site, given what its neighbors are up to. But others are at least poking their noses under the tent.

Although there are no formal proposals to create a nuclear waste facility in South Carolina, it is an issue that must be evaluated, said Rick McLeod, the executive director of the SRS Community Reuse Organization, an economic development consortium unrelated to Areva’s presentation [about interim fuel sites] in Columbia.
“Right now, it’s just a topic that’s out there,” he said. “Everyone’s discussing what it could or could not be, and not just here. A lot of other communities are looking at it, too.”

So what’s AREVA up to?

The Thursday presentation is one of several signs that behind-the-scenes interest in the Palmetto state remains high as Congress and the U.S. Energy Department try to forge new solutions for spent fuel now stored in pools and casks at the nation’s 104 commercial power reactors.

And although McLeod is being cautious, his group has put serious money into exploring the issue:

McLeod’s group launched a $200,000 study in June to explore Savannah River Site’s potential role in spent nuclear fuel solutions and the role of surrounding counties.

I think there will be a lot more to say about this over the next year. Congress hasn’t really moved on the BRC recommendations, but they are likely to do so – and there are communities waiting for it to happen.

Read More

A Little Now, A Lot Later–Florida and Cost Recovery

Michael Waldron, who is director of nuclear communications at Florida Power & Light, takes an unusually pugnacious tone in this op-ed in the Miami Sun-Sentinel. He is defending the concept of cost recovery, a process by which a company can levy a small surcharge on ratepayers to improve or build reactors. In this case, FPL is using this to upgrade their reactors at Turkey Point and do some early work on two more potential reactors there:

Over the past several years, Florida's nuclear cost recovery statute has allowed FPL to upgrade our existing nuclear plants and add over 500 new megawatts of clean, cost-effective power-generation to our fleet.  To put this in perspective, this is about the same amount of electricity generated by a medium-sized nuclear power plant without having to build one.

Waldron says that FPL is saving a lot of money for its customers – for itself, too, of course, but that also benefits customers:

For example, the 400 new megawatts we have already added will save our customers roughly $7.5 million a month on fuel costs going forward.  Over the lifetime of the units, these upgrades are expected to save customers approximately $3.8 billion. These projects would not have been possible without Florida's nuclear cost recovery statute.

Waldron is answering Stephen Smith of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, an anti-nuclear group. Smith’s argument is actually a – little – strange. Aside from just generally not thinking nuclear energy represents a worthwhile investment, Smith links cost recovery to socialism and rapacious capitalism. There’s a ton of risk associated with it and it’ll be a financial bonanza. His argument is actually kind of wacky.

But this law now socializes costs and all the risk of reactor construction by shifting it to customers. Meanwhile it privatizes all the reward to big power company shareholders, such as FPL — even though they shoulder no risk. FPL has recently requested an 11.25 percent return for its shareholders as part of a base rate increase. The FPL project, if ever completed, is estimated to cost upwards of $20 billion. Clearly an 11.25 percent return on $20 billion is a sweet return for FPL shareholders for a risk-free investment.

This might be the part that actually made Waldron put up his dukes, because it’s not exactly what is happening. He explains this:

Under the law, FPL is only reimbursed for amounts that we have already spent IF these expenses are deemed prudent through an independent evaluation by the Florida Public Service Commission.  In practice, this means that during the licensing phase, customers pay only for licensing activities; during construction, FPL must borrow the money and customers pay only for financing charges, not the construction itself; and, it is only after the plant is in operation that customers would pay for the charges incurred during construction.

Waldron doesn’t point out that paying interest charges early reduces the overall cost of the project – as when you double pay on your credit card. Cost recovery can be used for any large capital projects – it works especially when the outcome benefits the commonweal, as it does here.

Florida is always going to be a somewhat prickly environment when it comes to even small surcharges because so many people there live on fixed incomes. I cannot fault that – and maybe it’s a better angle from which to make an argument about cost recovery, especially in Florida. But Waldron’s aggressive response to Smith seems exactly correct – Smith isn’t giving cost recovery its due and Waldron says so.

Read More

The Bohemian Nuclear Appeal

Temelin - the Czech nuclear site

We know that nuclear energy gets a strong thumbs up from countries such as the United States and United Kingdom – France – and a few others. And a resolute thumbs down from Germany – Switzerland – Australia. That’s fine – you can’t be loved by everyone all the time.

But where we’re a little fuzzy is a lot of the other countries out there. There have been some international polls, but I find those a little suspect, not necessarily tuned to national temperament or custom. It just seems prone to skew one way or another.
So, this is interesting:

Two thirds of Czechs are for further development of nuclear energy in the Czech Republic, 4 percentage points more than in May, according to the latest poll of agency STEM.

That’s on the low end of what’s found in the United States, but still pretty good. What’s more, this number is a bit depressed form its due to concerns about the Fukushima accident.

Despite that, the current support to nuclear energy has not yet reached the peak from 2009 when over 70 percent of Czechs were in favor of its development.

But if the Czechs are about 10 points down from their high, that’s not bad at all and suggests that the authority that oversees nuclear energy in the Czech Republic has done a good job providing information to the public.

Some of the other numbers expanded on these findings:

On the other hand, support to renewable energy sources is falling. The current poll shows that 44 percent of Czechs think that nuclear energy is replaceable. Still in May, 48 percent of Czechs voiced such opinion, after the Fukushima disaster it was 52 percent but in 2009 only 42 percent.
One of the arguments strongly in favor of support to nuclear energy is fear that energy dependence would pose a security risk for the country. Some three quarters of Czechs subscribe to this view in the long term.

The article doesn’t say so , but I wonder if Russian bad behavior with natural gas a few years ago weighs into the thinking. That’s what energy security means – being able to generate more electricity with one’s own resources. The Czechs have plenty of  uranium, though uranium mining appears to have fallen on hard times – until recently, at least. (This is from June of this year.)

The Czech government has approved extending the life of a uranium mine as it moves to grow the country's nuclear energy program, even though environmentalists object to the plans.
Prime Minister Petr Necas also said Thursday the government wants to identify other suitable locations for uranium mining.
The mine in Rozna, around 160 kilometers (100 miles) southeast of Prague, produced some 224 metric tons of uranium last year and is the only such mine in Central Europe.

And this bolsters the argument for nuclear energy there and potentially provides jobs.
So now we know about the Czechs. Add the country to the plus column.
---
How did artsy people get the term “bohemian” attached to them? Because starving artists in 19th century France settled into cheap housing otherwise occupied by gypsies- Romaniis – and the Romanii were generally believed to have come to France from the Bohemian section of Europe – what is now the western two-thirds of the Czech Republic. So there you go.

Read More

Fukushima Reactors Stable After 7.3 Magnitude Quke

Official points to affected area on map.

A 7.3 magnitude earthquake struck Japan overnight, triggering tsunami warnings across the island nation, but fortunately the warnings were lifted soon after and the quakes caused very little damage.

Of course, we've got out eyes on the situation at Fukushima Daiichi, and things there look quiet according to ABC News:

No damage has been reported at monitoring posts and water treatment facilities at the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, the nuclear facility that was devastated by tsunami waters after the 2011 quake, according to the Tokyo Electric Power Company. All the workers were moved to higher ground on the site and told to stay inside after the tsunami warning.

For a look at what the U.S. nuclear industry has done in the wake of Fukushima, please consult our Safety First microsite.

Read More

Idaho Ponders Its Nuclear Future

Idaho Governor Butch Otter

Nuclear Notes highlighted Governor Butch Otter’s Leadership in Nuclear Energy commission when he formed it last February. Now, the group is beginning to issue reports.

Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter today encouraged the people of Idaho to review the progress of his Leadership in Nuclear Energy (LINE) Commission and to begin a public dialogue on critical questions facing the Idaho National Laboratory and their potential impact on Idaho’s economy.

This might sound like an "uh-oh, maybe this isn’t going to go so well" sort of moment, but Governor Otter is actually quite the fan of INL:

“The timing was right for an extensive, external review of INL and nuclear-related activities in Idaho,” Governor Otter said. “I think this progress report clearly points out that the environmental cleanup envisioned by my predecessors has largely been realized while at the same time we’ve established INL as the nation’s preeminent nuclear research and development laboratory. There’s been significant economic benefit to the entire state. As we sustain and even try to build on that in the future, the Commission is working to answer some tough questions and I applaud its effort to involve the public in that discussion before making final recommendations.”

If you look at the news clips on his home page, you’ll see that Otter is very engaged with energy issues. This we already knew. The commission and its report are something else again and show the state really grappling with where it wants to go with nuclear energy, with INL representing an Idaho success story, Clearly, Otter wants to expand that success into related areas. The questions about INL and nuclear energy in Idaho that the commission was charged with reviewing are really worthwhile:

In its final report to the Governor, the Commission will use the subcommittee recommendations, input from the public and its own deliberations to finalize recommendations on the following questions:

1. What strategic role can the INL and Idaho’s nuclear industry play in the country’s energy future?
2. In light of reduced federal spending, what impacts may affect INL and what role can Idaho play to protect INL research and cleanup funding?
3. What broad environmental risks are posed by nuclear technologies and what mitigating steps are reasonable to protect public health and the environment from current and future applications of nuclear technology in Idaho?
4. Where is nuclear technology going and what role and/or opportunities exist for INL and Idaho companies in those technology developments?
5. Given the Blue Ribbon Commission focus on consent-based siting and the suspension of the Yucca Mountain repository, in what way can Idaho’s 1995 Settlement Agreement protect the State’s interests to support and enhance research and development at INL and complete the cleanup mission?
6. How can Idaho’s universities influence, support and participate in the future of nuclear energy, nuclear workforce development, and advancements in nuclear technologies?
7. Following the impacts of the Fukushima tsunami and the recent market impact of natural gas, what future role will nuclear energy play in the nation’s energy policies and what can Idaho do to prepare for that future?

Some of the answers here may seem self-evident to nuclear advocates, but all are worth answering to create a meaningful report.

The commission’s progress report Otter refers to above is here. It’s worth a complete read, though the agreements between Idaho and INL to safeguard nuclear materials on the INL site and clean up waste takes up a lot of pages. (Long story short: the effort has been very successful. Still, it’s very specific where most of the report is concerned with more general – and, from my perspective, more broadly applicable – topics.)

I liked this bit about the post Fukushima environment for nuclear energy (page 28):

Outside of Europe and Japan, the concerns raised by Fukushima are not diminishing this long-term international interest and demand for nuclear energy. Regulators in the U.S. and in other leading nuclear nations are responding prudently and putting necessary changes in place to deal with extreme external events and improve public confidence. While the safety of the global nuclear enterprise should become even better as result of these efforts, many of post-Fukushima recommendations had already been implemented in the U.S. after 9/11.

This is quite true – no doubt why I like it – and very straightforwardly expressed – not as common as it should be. I’ll just highlight one more thing before leaving the rest to you – the recommendation that Idaho host an interim storage facility for used nuclear fuel, as first promoted by the President’s blue ribbon commission (page 36):

As the lead US Regional Interim Storage facility, demonstrate full scale technology, licensing, and operations for the nation’s regional used fuel storage facilities.
• Considerable investments (100s of million dollar) into RD&D infrastructure at the site with additional jobs
• Investments into fuel cycle options demonstrations at engineering scale (100s of jobs)
• Spinoffs commercializing innovative technologies

Jobs, good salaries, the potential to seed commercial activity: Idaho sees the possibilities. This is part of a strong list of nuclear-related activities that the commission recommends Idaho consider.
This is one of the most thorough looks at nuclear energy and its potential that I’ve seen from a state. Other states could easily use it as a model if they are similarly interested.

Read More

STP Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 Returns to Service After Safe, Successful Outage

The South Texas Project.

The following was issued by the media team at the South Texas Project.

The South Texas Project (STP) Unit 1 reactor is back online and operating at full power after a scheduled refueling and maintenance outage. The unit returned to 100 percent power Friday, Nov. 30.

“Our team safely and efficiently completed a large scope of work that included maintenance, testing, and inspection activities,” said STP President and Chief Executive Officer Dennis Koehl. “The work completed prepares the unit to run continuously until its next refueling outage, about 18 months from now.”

The unit was taken offline on Saturday, Oct. 20 for scheduled refueling and maintenance. The beginning of this outage marked an STP record of 530 continuous days online for Unit 1. The previous STP record for consecutive days on-line – held by Unit 2 – was 525 days, completed in 2008.

STP mobilized approximately 1,100 contractors to assist with major and minor modifications that enhance equipment reliability. Numerous plant systems and components were tested and inspected, and about one-third of the reactor’s fuel assemblies were replaced with new ones.

More than 11,000 maintenance, testing, and inspection tasks were completed. Major projects included inspections and repairs to a 530,000-gallon refueling water storage tank and replacement of a 50-ton reactor coolant pump motor.

“Safety is our highest priority,” said Koehl. “Through preparation and planning, our team safely worked more than 250,000 man-hours to complete the scheduled work and bring Unit 1 back online."

For eight consecutive years, STP has safely produced more energy than any other two-unit facility in the nation.

The plant is managed by the STP Nuclear Operating Company and owned by Austin Energy, CPS Energy and NRG Energy. STP's twin reactors produce 2,700 megawatts of carbon-free electricity, enough to power two million homes.

Congrats to the entire team at STP for a job well done.

Read More

Meanwhile, In France … Losing the Nuclear Advantage

President Francois Hollande

We’ve had a merry time showing that the German effort to close its nuclear plants has been ill-advised and counterproductive.

Meanwhile, in France, President Francois Hollande wants to reduce dependence on nuclear energy or at least, close the oldest of the plants:

“The Fessenheim plant which is the oldest in our country, will be closed at the end of 2016 in conditions that will guarantee the supply needs of the region... and safeguard all jobs,” say Hollande, as quoted in a French news outlet. The country operates 58 nuclear reactors. Twenty-four of them would be retired by 2025.

What happens in 2025 is likely not under Hollande’s purview, so we’ll wait on that one. Closing Fessenheim seems more a symbolic gesture, so fine.

The article at Energy Central shows that the French may have missed a few tricks:

The new French president has painted himself in a corner: He has vowed to reduce the nation’s most plentiful resource, nuclear energy. But he has also declared that one of the most critical fuels there will be off-limits, shale gas. The most promising road ahead, he insists, is the development of renewable energy.

Will it work? No, given that the French nuclear sector employs a reported 400,000 union workers and that nuclear energy helps provide an enviable standard of living there.

The article has more to say and altogether makes a pretty good case for taking care not to make hasty energy choices.
---
We can always find examples favorable to our cause. France seems at least moderately serious about finding a way to supplement nuclear energy – and really, there’s nothing wrong with that. And maybe it will will find a way to unblock its options.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said then the group was to develop a "road map" for the implementation of the energy transition, which would include a sharp focus on renewable energy.

"The profound crisis that we are experiencing is not just financial and economic one, but an environmental one as well," he said, adding the government would launch a new tender for the construction of two offshore wind farms located off Le Treport and Noirmoutier by the end of December, France24 reported.

The group mentioned above is a gathering of leaders from different spheres.

The debate process will be led by seven "colleges" comprised of representatives of trade unions, employers, environmental non-governmental organizations, consumer associations, chambers of commerce, local elected officials, parliamentarians and government ministers.

French energy types are annoyed by this process, but that’s to be expected.

French energy industry leaders have blasted Hollande's move from nuclear power, citing current energy costs that are among the lowest in Europe as well as the country's low levels of carbon emissions.

Which brings us back around to where we started. France already has enviably low-cost, low-emission electricity generation.

Hmmm - This attempt to find something more critical of nuclear energy isn’t coming to much. It may be that nuclear energy isn’t the issue here. It may be that, lacking a problem to solve, France has set out to solve one anyway – even if the outcome creates the problem you were purporting to solve.
---
This doesn’t help the effort to be even-handed, either, but at least it shows that renewable energy can bring about positive if expensive outcomes:

France’s power grid will have to invest about 15 billion euros ($19 billion) by the end of the decade to add and refurbish electricity transmission lines as the country plans to lower its reliance on nuclear energy.

Spending could rise to 35 billion to 50 billion euros by 2030, Reseau de Transport d’Electricite said in a report published today. The range depends on the proportion of nuclear and renewable energies produced in France in the coming years.

The reason for this is because nuclear energy produces electricity 24/7 while renewable energy source do not and require, for lack of a better term, more precise metering. Building a so-called “smart grid” to do this is not at all a bad goal – it’s a long overdue infrastructure program in this country, too – and it could provide France with more options among its energy choices.

Still, it is $19 billion and that’s likely to hit the ratepayers bottom line fairly significantly. But maybe that’s just the cost of progress – if this does seem like progress – which it doesn’t to me.

Read More

To Space and Beyond With Nuclear Energy

One of the things that you can do with nuclear energy is produce a lot of energy for a long length of time with an exceptionally small amount of uranium – or dilithium crystals, whichever is available. So if you need energy for an extended period of time – say, the time it takes to get from Earth to Mars, then nuclear energy has considerable utility – and you don’t have to worry about dust blocking the sun, as on some of the solar driven rovers.

Now, a group of scientists are thinking bigger – sending astronauts to Mars and beyond and doing it in a way that could get them there and back successfully. This is a barrier that hasn’t been breached, so while this project is in early days, it’s very intriguing.

A team of researchers, including engineers from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, this week reported their successful demonstration of a new concept that could provide reliable nuclear power for space exploration. The technology is still years away from the warp drive of Star Trek, but it could provide a means of propulsion for space travel beyond the moon.

I’m not sure warp speed is even a goal, but fine – it’s hard to avoid Star Trek in this context. And as long as this is what you’re up to, why not dream big? Pluto, anyone?

"We could have a nuclear-powered rocket that could get to Pluto in two years; whereas a chemical rocket would take seven years," said Paul Czysz, Ph.D., professor of aeronautical engineering at Parks College.

"We think it is the enabling technology," he told TechNewsWorld. "If you are really going to do something on this scale, you need to have something other than chemical rockets."

This article doesn’t say so, but even with this as a fanciful extension of the project, you probably couldn’t get astronauts out to Pluto and back with this technology – at least, not alive. And keeping the space travellers alive is a goal of this project.

Anyway, here’s what this gaggle of rocket scientists are up to:

"This is really a new old system, as it is a new platform build on an old technology," said Michael Podowski, Ph.D., professor of nuclear engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

"The Stirling engine is an old one," he pointed out, but "the concept is very healthy. The nuclear factor is not an issue at this point. However, [achieving] efficiency will require a lot more work.

"While the concept is interesting and it makes good use of the elements involved," Podowski told TechNewsWorld, "it will require more work. It is as simple as that."

How old is the Stirling engine? – think 19th century old. The article doesn’t really describe its characteristics very well, so I went over to How Stuff Works for a fuller explanation.

The Stirling engine is a heat engine that is vastly different from the internal-combustion engine in your car. Invented by Robert Stirling in 1816, the Stirling engine has the potential to be much more efficient than a gasoline or diesel engine. But today, Stirling engines are used only in some very specialized applications, like in submarines or auxiliary power generators for yachts, where quiet operation is important. Although there hasn't been a successful mass-market application for the Stirling engine, some very high-power inventors are working on it.

I guess the writer means the deep space scientists as well as others. But what is it about the Stirling engine that might work in a nuclear application? I’d point to these:

The gasses used inside a Stirling engine never leave the engine. There are no exhaust valves that vent high-pressure gasses, as in a gasoline or diesel engine, and there are no explosions taking place. Because of this, Stirling engines are very quiet.

So it appears to have a variation on a containment chamber. But it looks like the nuclear reaction would happen outside the engine:

The Stirling cycle uses an external heat source, which could be anything from gasoline to solar energy to the heat produced by decaying plants. No combustion takes place inside the cylinders of the engine.

A possible scenario would be to use reactors like those on nuclear submarines to drive the engine.

I’m still curious that no one has found a sizeable niche for these engines – I tend to be suspicious of “miracle” technologies that can’t gain traction – especially in nearly 200 years. That can mean scalability problems – I’ve read that it’s a big mechanism for the power it can generate. On the other hand, the engine’s ability to output a constant level of energy without much variation likely hurts it in an automotive context, but might be beneficial for a rocket.

In any event, this is an interesting development that might allow humanity to break through the artificial barrier between the moon and the rest of space. Maybe we won’t have to wait for dilithium crystals to send astronauts to Pluto.

Read More

Aliens or Nuclear Energy –That’s Your Choice

Fitting the quotidian into the eternal can be a heavy lift, as demonstrated by this article in the Huffington Post:

He spoke about Fukushima and how we do not really know how much radiation has already or will in the future rain down on us. Fukushima is still unstable yet we hear very little about it anymore. Sungjand Rinpoche said, « Fukushima releases a lot of radioactivity in the sky and it can fall on America, Alaska, China, Russia and Europe. We should end all nuclear energy because even that can be like a nuclear bomb. It will kill everybody. The main point is in society we have to change the insatisfaction [sic?] and selfishness to Love ».

Well, no, it isn’t releasing a lot of radioactivity in the sky and nuclear energy has no capacity to kill everybody. But you know, if you do believe that, you may as well set your cap on changing selfishness to love. That’s certainly a good goal.

He repeated that we were destroying the future for our children, destroying the planet, and bringing about destruction which in Buddhist teachings is usually left to unkind, technologically advanced aliens travelling to Earth to bring about the Shambalic [ed: I think the author means Shambhalic] ending of this world.

What does one say to this? Holding views sincerely don’t make them more correct.

This plain-speaking young man in his deep red and gold robes, praying with such intent for all of us, a living Buddha in his own right, expressed a deep compassion for the suffering of the entire planet and all of the living beings on it as he spoke of the nuclear threat.

Rinpoche is described as “the reincarnation, by the Dalai Lama, of the 4th Ngawang Drakpa, the disciple of Je Tsong Khapa who founded the school of Dalaï-lamas in the 15th century.”

Let’s let one of the commenters at the Huffington Post weigh in:

Perhaps Fukushima is being forgotten because radioisotopes are extremely easy to detect and track, and to date there are no deaths, and the total projected impact on human health is certainly smaller than the number of lung cancer cases caused by coal activities every hour. Yet, it is not being forgotten, because it is constantly being brought up as some sort of catastrophic extinction event by anti-nuclear activists. I work with nuclear and particle physics on a daily basis at Los Alamos, am trained and educated in the impact of radiation and the ways radioisotopes can reach humans, and know enough details of fundamental reality to be able to filter the comments of a Buddhist. Carbon Dioxide is the real enemy, don't ever forget it, and don't mistrust nuclear: its actually here to save us from ourselves.

This fellow identifies as Joey 03. “Catastrophic extinction event,” even by anti-nuclear advocates, seems an extreme characterization, but Sungjand Rinpoche believes it can lead to such. Although he holds some of the same views as an anti-nuclear activist, I would put him in a different class.

I think we can call Rinpoche wrong about Fukushima and nuclear energy without dismissing the positive qualities ascribed to him and expressed by him – and which are positive and life-affirming even if more readily accessible to Shambhala Buddhists. He isn’t primarily a pundit and, in a way, I wish the article had been on other subjects because focusing on nuclear energy probably sells Rinpoche short.

The least we can do is provide Rinpoche reading material. NEI posts its Fukushima update each week on its Safety First web site. The latest edition is here.

Read More

Here Comes Thanksgiving

On TV:

The Stivics' Thanksgiving visit is ruined when Archie finds out that the Meathead lost his job for marching against nuclear energy---in the nude. Mike: Rob Reiner. Edith: Jean Stapleton. Gloria: Sally Struthers. Murray: Martin Balsam. Stephanie: Danielle Brisebois. Barney: Allan Melvin.

Ah, the 70s – where an awful lot happened in the nude. I’m not sure why they left out Carroll O’Connor as Archie Bunker.

But surely nuclear energy must have something to contribute to the day:

I assume that you all know how a nuclear reactor works. In the oven idea, instead of steam spinning a turbine, it flows around an open topped box which food may be placed in, and viola a nuclear oven!

Viola! A perfect turkey in milliseconds.

Something to contribute, for real. In Oswego County, N.Y.:

Despite a downturn in donations, Catholic Charities’ food pantry will provide more than 250 families with all the fixings for a complete Thanksgiving meal.

“It has been a very challenging year,” said Helen Hoefer, supervisor of Catholic Charities’ Community Services Program. “Thanks to the generosity of businesses such as Fidelis, who supplied the distribution bags, employees of Constellation Energy Nuclear Group’s Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, who adopted families, and other community members we are able to continue to distribute Thanksgiving food baskets.”

Not an unusual occurrence. Nuclear energy facilities are exceptionally good neighbors.

For example:

From Pilgrim in Massachusetts (how appropriate is this?), a wrap-up of 2011 activities:

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station's chapters of Women in Nuclear (WIN) and our North American-Young Generation (NA-YGN) [both associated with NEI – ed.] had another productive year. Together, these chapters conducted a "Fly the Flag" campaign that involved selling American flags as a fundraiser to support outreach programs, in particular our soldiers serving overseas; conducted a Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station campaign to raise funds as part of a Japan relief effort; hosted a Thanksgiving Day food drive; and sponsored a Christmas Toys for Tots campaign supporting Children's Cove in Hyannis, a center for abused children as well as a Winter clothing donation campaign.

I’m sure 2012 will be equally busy.

But something’s missing in all this - the nuclear energy that really matters on Thanksgiving Day.

No matter what family drama occurs throughout the year, on Thanksgiving, my complete nuclear family sits down together, gives thanks and eats pavo en chile rojo over Manischewitz, a seasonal sweet Jewish wine.

Turkey or pavo (or dindon or Puten). And your nuclear family and atomic friends.

Happy Thanksgiving from your atomic friends at NEI Nuclear Notes!

Read More

“Easy to shut down a nuclear power plant, but…”

Stephan Kohler

We’ve left Germany alone for awhile, you may have noticed. We perhaps overstressed the country’s difficulties in its projected transition from nuclear energy to (mostly) renewable energy sources. Maybe there was too much glee on our part at what is, after all, a terrible decision. The Germans have a word for that glee. It’s Schadenfreude, taking delight in other’s misery, and it’s not an attractive quality whatever motivates it.

Still … Still … there are things to say about this that are genuinely germane and instructive. Along these lines, I was very impressed by an interview Der Spiegel had with the German Energy Agency’s President, Stephan Kohler. Their chat contains a notably balanced look at the difficulties the country has set for itself. Here’s a sampler:

It's easy to shut down a nuclear power plant, but that doesn't mean you have something to replace it with. We know today, for example, that we don't have enough reliable power plant capacity in southern Germany to be able to offset the loss of nuclear energy.

Why can’t the country replace nuclear energy one-to-one with renewable energy sources?

When a new wind farm is opened and we're told how many thousands of households it can supply with electricity, that number applies to only a quarter of our demand. In Germany, 75 percent of electricity goes to industry, for which a secure supply -- that is, at every second, and with constant voltage -- is indispensable. Neither solar nor wind power are suitable for that purpose today. Both fluctuate and provide either no secure supply or only a small fraction of a secure supply. Solar energy has a load factor of about 1,000 hours a year. But there are 8,670 hours in a year.

But solar energy in particular can generate, on sunny days, a large amount of electricity. Isn’t that a good thing?

I don't want to bore you with the details, but a surplus and fluctuations lead to very unpleasant systemic effects. We have voltage fluctuations within the grid that create problems for industry. Or we overload the grids in neighboring countries. Poland is in the process of installing technical equipment to protect its grids by keeping out surplus German electricity.

Kohler goes on to make the point that many current wind and solar installations have been sited without much consideration of whether the electricity is needed there or even whether the installation can even connect to the grid without substantial new build. Additionally, where the energy isn’t needed – such as wind power in the north – there is no way to transmit the electricity to the south where it could be used. The transmission lines have to be updated first.

What Kohler describes is fairly messy, with a lot of moving parts (and expensive ones, too) that have not adequately been addressed. I found this statement to be especially telling:

In the 1970s, they believed that there is an annual 6-percent linear increase in the demand for electricity. That number was used to estimate how many nuclear power plants had to be built. … I thought the calculations were fundamentally wrong. Today we have a solar and wind euphoria, instead of a nuclear euphoria. We believe that there will be a 10-percent decline in electricity consumption by 2020. And, once again, we assume that this change will be linear. But I'm sure that we're probably going to be wrong this time, too.

Energy choices as a fad. Kohler is clearly interested in the environmental impacts of different energy sources and favors an increased use of renewable energy, though not at the expense of nuclear power. In this interview, though, he is focused on the implications of current German energy policy – and not thinking much of it.

Do read the whole thing – you’ll learn a lot about the complexities of delivering electricity steadily. It shows that energy policy matters a lot in achieving this. Making arbitrary changes to policy hurts the national treasury and ultimately, will hurt badly the people (and industries) who must have reliable electricity to thrive.

Read More

Indifferent to Nuclear Energy, Against Wind Power

Former Vice President Al Gore has never been the biggest advocate of nuclear energy:

In 2009, he said he saw it playing "a somewhat larger role" in the energy mix because of climate change and efforts to cut carbon emissions. "I'm not a reflexive opponent of nuclear. I used to be enthusiastic about it, but I'm now skeptical about it," he told the Guardian at the time.

But at least three years ago, not it biggest detractor, either. I think it’s fair to say that he is currently indifferent to it.

"It will play a role, but probably a limited role. I think the waste issue can probably be solved, and Fukushima notwithstanding, the safety of operation issue can probably be solved. But the cost is absurdly high and still rising," he wrote during a question and answer session on Reddit to promote his 24-hour Climate Reality webcast on the links between fossil fuels and extreme weather.

That happened Wednesday into Thursday. If the webcast fit your interest, you probably knew that. For everyone else, you can view some highlights here.

And Gore? Well, a bunch of countries, including the U.S., are throwing up a fair number of nuclear facilities – the World Nuclear Association pins it at 60. So Gore’s intuition simply sounds to me an expression of indifference. His interests are really elsewhere.

And that’s fine. I genuinely admire public figures like Gore who leverage their celebrity into good works. There are plenty who don’t. So Gore is indifferent to nuclear energy – so Bill Gates is all in. Let them do what makes them content. It’s all good.

---

The Guardian seems to be on a roll with antipathetic energy figures. First Gore and now Conservative energy minister, John Hayes. In Hayes’ case, he really dislikes wind power.

In a letter to the chief executive of South Holland district council, seen by the Guardian, the energy minister said: "Wind turbines … create barely a trickle of non-storable electricity and none at all when wind speed is unsuitable. They will always have to be backed up by conventional power stations because of their unreliability. Because the wind by nature is intermittent and cannot generate a steady output of energy to supply constant demand, even thousands of wind turbines won't replace gas or nuclear power generation."

Unlike Gore, who can influence policy only indirectly, Hayes is the power in this realm, so he can move markets as well as policy.

His views will do nothing to reassure investors who are nervous about the battle within the government over energy policy. Several large multinational companies are holding off their final decisions on investments totaling tens of billions of pounds into wind turbine manufacturing plants in the UK because of the perceived political turmoil over the renewables issue.

To be fair, there is pushback:

His complaints were rebuffed by Maf Smith, deputy chief executive of RenewableUK who said it was a myth that wind farms were "unreliable". "Modern wind turbines are highly efficient – they generate electricity for 85% of the time. Just last week, National Grid announced that another record amount was being generated by wind – 13.5% of the UK's entire electricity needs. As we install more turbines onshore and offshore this is set to increase to 30% by the end of the decade."

Let’s take Smith at his word – though his numbers seem awfully high – and add that if I were him, the letter from Hayes would make me very nervous.

I’ll stop here since wind really isn’t our brief, but it’s interesting to see anything resembling an anti-wind crusade – there’s another story at The Guardian about a prospective parliamentary candidate who conspired with a newspaper columnist to run as an anti-wind candidate. This caused a kerfluffle, but I don’t understand British politics well enough to untangle it. See what you think.

Read More

A First Look at the World Energy Outlook

The International Energy Agency released its key annual report, World Energy Outlook, today and in it, makes a number of striking forecasts about the profile of energy.

And forecast is the right word – the IEA takes the pulse of energy markets as they stand today and projects them out to about 2035. These are not Nostradamus-like predictions of the future. The forecasts vary in detail from year to year, but are useful to policymakers and to those interested in energy-related issues.

This year, the IEA report has stirred some controversy.

In an indication how “fracking” is reshaping the global energy picture, the International Energy Agency today projected that the United States will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer by 2017.

And within just three years, the United States will unseat Russia as the largest producer of natural gas.

The response to this assertion has been mixed. Rob Wile at Business Insider polled his sources and found a decided lack of support:

But Manuj Nikhanj, the lead oil play analyst at research firm ITG, emailed us to there is no way that output alone would be able to meet U.S. demand, which already stands at 19 million barrels per day:

Do they mean energy independence on a million BTU basis including natural gas? The US consumes 19 million barrels of oil per day, so not sure how you become independent with less than 10 million barrels per day of production (based on the media chart they put out).

Nikhanj speculates that Canadian oil may fill the gap, but the IEA does not make that clear.

Another analysts dismisses this idea:

David McColl, who covers oil and gas stocks for Morningstar, emailed us to say Canada wouldn't be able to fill the gap either:

Consider Canada - on its own it isn’t likely to meet those needs, and they may be exporting more significant volumes overseas by 2020 as well. This means some U.S. refineries will still be relying on oil imports, which will likely be priced to international markets.

Bold in original. Even if the IEA has been exceptionally optimistic in its assessment, the U.S. is becoming more energy independent. That part isn’t in dispute. And remember – these forecasts are not meant to be predictive.

---

And nuclear energy? Glad you asked:

“Our projections for growth in installed nuclear capacity are lower than in last year’s Outlook and, while nuclear output still grows in absolute terms (driven by expanded generation in China, Korea, India and Russia), its share in the global electricity mix falls slightly over time,” a trend likely to drive up the fossil fuel import bills and make it harder to meet emissions reduction targets aimed at slowing climate change.

This is especially true of Japan and Germany. Nuclear energy will still play a role in Japan but not Germany, which wants to move to renewable energy sources. Until it can do that, it will depend on its plentiful coal supply. As the report points out, this does carbon emission reduction goals no good.

A little more about the atom (really, the same thing put a little differently):

Although some OECD countries, particularly Germany and Japan, are cutting back on nuclear power in the wake of the 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, nuclear power is still expected to account for 12 percent of global electricity generation by 2035, thanks to increased use of nuclear power in China, Korea and Russia.

This is based on what IEA sees happening today – that 12 percent can grow (and hopefully not shrink) in subsequent forecasts – there are enough countries with nascent industries to suggest future growth.

---

The IEA is starkly negative about the world’s response to climate change:

“Taking all new developments and policies into account, the world is still failing to put the global energy system onto a more sustainable path. Global energy demand grows by more than one-third over the period to 2035 in the New Policies Scenario (our central scenario), with China, India and the Middle East accounting for 60% of the increase,” the report said.

Scenarios are projections based on different assumptions. The New Policies Scenario, for example, flows from policies in place today. Other scenarios make different assumptions, notably different energy mixes - for example, greater use of nuclear energy with all other assumptions left the same. These can be interesting in that they can show better or worse outcomes that policymakers can pursue (or avoid). The base scenario is fairly direct – if nuclear energy capacity doesn’t grow, carbon emission goals become harder to reach.

---

You can visit the IEA yourself to get an idea of the organization’s work, but not to read the report – unless you want to pony up the 120 euro for the pdf. I’m basing this first look on published stories, but I expect to see the outlook itself soon – I know I’m interested in looking at the different scenarios and will post on them here.

Read More

Mobilizing across many miles for mutual assistance

No doubt you know that thousands upon thousands of utility workers are battling extraordinary conditions around the clock to try and restore power for hundreds of thousands of people along the Mid-Atlantic coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and then this week's Nor'easter. Some portions of the Northeast this week received a foot of snow on top of downed power lines and flooded out neighborhoods from last week. What you may not fully appreciate is the range and breadth of dedicated help that arrives when significant storms overwhelm local utilities and their power restoration efforts.

Electric companies impacted by significant outages routinely call on sister utilities to help speed power restoration. Men and women from utilities from all corners of the country have descended most particularly upon New York, New Jersey and Connecticut in an all-hands mission known as Mutual Assistance. The Edison Electric Institute formally established its Mutual Assistance Program in 1955, and it has become the cornerstone of utility assistance during emergencies. EEI has a fabulous tally of the mutual assistance efforts in the East to date.

According to EEI, more homes and businesses lost power as a result of Sandy than from any other storm . . . in history. Hundreds of thousands remained without power this week when the snow-making Nor'easter arrived. The almost unfathomable plight of so many in the East quickly caught the attention of power companies out West. Pacific Gas and Electric dispatched fully 250 of its workers to the Northeast. The deployment is believed to represent the company's largest assistance effort ever for a fellow utility. And Southern California Edison sent nearly 200 of its workers East to assist.

PG&E and SCE rank among the largest of America's electric utilities, meaning they could bring to bear significant resources in personnel and equipment for the storm recovery.

Among the hundreds of relief and restoration workers sent from California are underground and overhead damage-assesment personnel, electric field safety specialists, tree trimmers, and line workers. This was a real battalion of hard hats and suitcases shipped thousands of miles to a region that in many respcts still resembles a war zone.

Many PG&E personnel were enjoying the telecast of their beloved San Francisco Giants clinching the World Series on October 29 when supervisors rang their phones and instructed them to pack up and ship out. Though line workers often are on jobs for weeks at a time, the mission in this instance necessarily brought great uncertainty about the conditions workers would encounter.

Both California utilities sent more than manpower, too: heavy equipment -- some 630 tons worth! -- including bucket trucks and line trucks. The United States Air Force, at the behest of President Obama, deployed six C-5 and eight C-17 transport cargo aircraft to move the utilities' relief equipment across the country, much of it coming from Southern Cal Edison.

A good many of the California utility workers had never been to the greater New York region, let alone attempted to restore power through hurricane ("Frankenstorm") conditions, including the arrival of a very early winter. The workers were told to bring rain gear and a sweater -- not much comfort for a foot of snow. These workers have exhibited extraordinary bravery and dedication, and many will remain thousands of miles from family for weeks while carrying out their restoration efforts.

"We arrived late Thursday, November 1, and began dispatching our crews in coordination with local utilities on Saturday (after Sandy)," Southern California Edison's Dan Chung told me. "Our personnel have been working 16-hour days, yet I've personally witnessed nothing but the highest morale amongst the crew. They've worked through rain, 35-mph winds, sleet, and even a foot of snow."

In nuclear plant operations, there's longstanding protocol to mobilize and assist as needed the moment word arrives of a neighbor plant experiencing a technical or safety challenge. Among electricty utilities, that same spirit of assistance has been in place more than 50 years, getting homes and businesses powered back up faster than they otherwise would.

“We are in the midst of a great American story,” said EEI president Tom Kuhn of the ongoing utility assistance.

Read More

The IAEA Annual Report

IAEA Director Yukiya Amano

The International Atomic Energy Agency is important, in part, because it encourages, supports and helps organize the regulatory and safety regimes necessary to have a viable domestic nuclear energy industry. Countries with mature industries – the United States, France, Russia, etc. – may not need that kind of assistance, but they all participate in the IAEA’s activities to support it. The IAEA is like the engine that allows the nuclear energy industry to motor ahead globally. (Terrible analogy – I don’t think countries want to be seen as cogs.)

So, I’m always keenly interested in the IAEA’s annual report to its home base, the United Nations. A lot of the report is routine speech filler, but it’s always intriguing to see how the organization characterizes the world of nuclear energy and nuclear energy in the world. To an extent, it informs how nuclear energy will be discussed over the next year and the issues that may gain prominence.

You can read IAEA Director Yukiya Amano’s statement here. He didn’t deliver it to the U.N. General Assembly as he usually does, a benign casualty of Hurricane Sandy. I’ll highlight a couple of portions here and leave the rest to you. It’s pretty long.

On safety following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi:

Measures have been taken to improve protection against extreme hazards such as earthquakes and tsunamis. Countries are upgrading their emergency preparedness and response capabilities. IAEA safety standards are being reviewed. Our program of expert peer review services is being expanded. A key priority for all nuclear power plant operators has been establishing reliable back-up electricity supply in the event of a prolonged blackout.
Already, it is fair to say that nuclear power is safer than it was before the Fukushima Daiichi accident. But the process of ensuring that the right lessons are learned will continue for many years. It is essential that the Action Plan is implemented in full.

The expansion of expert peer review is very promising. The IAEA has repeatedly floated the idea of international safety standards, in some iterations with an enforcement component. But it has always proven problematic because it raises issues of national sovereignty and cultural priorities. The U.N. prefers consensus, which is very difficult to achieve.

The peer reviews, though, provide a framework of cooperation that should be warmly greeted, allowing new or small industries to stand up and operate regulatory authorities and implement a safety culture. Take a look at this peer review report on Slovakia to see how this can work – you can find a lot more on the subject on the IAEA Web site. The peer reviews (really they’re executive summaries done as press releases) are really interesting to read through.

On the future of nuclear energy:

Nuclear power remains a growth area globally, despite the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Growth is likely to be slower than we anticipated before the accident. But our latest projections show a steady rise in the number of nuclear power plants in the world in the next 20 years.
…
The IAEA works very closely with what we call newcomer countries - those which are building, or plan to build, their first nuclear power plants. The United Arab Emirates recently became the first country in 27 years to start building its first nuclear power plant. Countries as diverse as Vietnam, Bangladesh, Poland and Belarus plan to follow suit.

We’ve written about many of these countries here – I’ve linked to samples above. And there’s a lot on the UAE – use the search box on that one.

There’s a good deal more, on a number of topics – be sure to take a look at the sections about nonproliferation – but we’ll stop here.

The bottom line for me is the statement above – “Nuclear power remains a growth area globally, despite the Fukushima Daiichi accident.” We touched on this in the last post – that is, the relationship between public support of nuclear energy and the accident in Japan. That nuclear energy is growing globally is positive generally and it also offers a strong opportunity for American manufacturing – a lot of very specialized plant parts are made here. It wouldn’t hurt the trade balance, either.

I always find the IAEA’s activities very interesting and on-point, even when I don’t always agree with its proposals and outcomes. I can’t begin to compare the agency’s effectiveness against, say, UNICEF, but it seems an exceptionally functional and useful U.N. effort to keep countries synced up on nuclear energy.

Read More

The Pitfalls of Arguing Against Nuclear Energy

There’s little to agree with in Lucy Birmingham’s editorial against nuclear energy in Time, but I must admit, I enjoyed it. She argues her points with reasonable data points, not as common as one might hope, even if the conclusion she comes to doesn’t really follow the data.

As Sandy made landfall on Atlantic City, Oyster Creek nuclear power plant nearby was fortunately on a scheduled outage. But Indian Point 3 in Buchanan, N.Y., Nine Mile Point 1 in Scriba, N.Y., and Salem Unit 1 in Hancocks Bridge, N.J., all experienced shutdowns because of high water levels or electrical disruption.

This is all factual – a nuclear facility will also shut down if winds heading toward it surpass 75 miles per hour. This happened at Waterford 3 in the face of Hurricane Isaac. This is what you want to happen. Birmingham, however, sees this and harsh weather in general as dangerous to nuclear energy plants.

Equally dangerous are drought and record heat conditions the U.S. experienced last summer. In August, one of two reactors at the Millstone nuclear power plant near New London, Conn., not far from where I grew up, was shut down because water in Long Island Sound needed to cool the reactors got too warm.

Again, this isn’t a negative action on the part of the facility. I agree that terrible heat conditions can be dangerous, but not due to its effect on a nuclear facility. As you can see, Birmingham is sticking to a correct fact set – it’s a fact set that leads me to an opposite  conclusion than hers, but there you go.

Another good approach she uses is to acknowledge the benefits of nuclear energy. When you want to make a case, it helps credibility to not demonize your opponent.

Of course, nuclear power can bring significant economic benefits. The Nuclear Energy Institute states that every year the average U.S. plant generates about $470 million in sales and services and about $40 million in total labor income to local communities.

There’s more along these lines, too, with information gleaned from NEI – don’t want to get too horn-tooty, but it’s all true.

But then the entire argument goes to pieces in the clutch.

But we must weigh the risks. It’s estimated that superstorm Sandy will affect more than one fifth of Americans and cost up to $20 billion in damages. Imagine the addition of a major nuclear accident, potentially more lethal than Three Mile Island.

Here’s the thing: Three Mile Island was non-lethal. No one died as a result of it. That not corporate spin – that’s the fact. Allowing that to be written in Time does no favor to the magazine’s credibility. That’s the one major fail in this article, but it’s a big one.

But more relevant to the overall thrust is that Americans have weighed the risks against the benefits and decided that nuclear energy, as run by the U.S. industry, is safe. Not “safe enough” – safe. (If you don’t want to depend at an industry-sponsored poll to show this, here’s Gallup.) This factors in reactions to the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, of course, and while it’s not dismissed, it is also not seen as determinative on views of the American industry.

Now, I read a lot of ridiculous screeds against nuclear energy, full of fear mongering and, shall we say, inventive fictionalization. But Birmingham has racked up the pros and cons in a reasonably fair way and come out, in her case, con.

That’s allowed – it just doesn’t align with what the facts mean to most other people, much less myself, and it depends on hypotheticals that the industry already handles quite well. There may be reasons to fear the weather – but  nuclear energy is not one of them.

Read More