What Is Said About Nuclear Energy–and What It Means

Storing Used Nuclear Fuel at WIPP

From Konrad Szymanski, a European Parliament MP:

“Commissioner [Gunther] Oettinger is responsible for energy policy across all 27 EU countries. It would be extremely disappointing if this became an exercise in forcing Germany’s position on nuclear energy down the throats of other countries.”

I’ve never cared for that phrase, popular during the health care debate, and would be surprised if Szymanski actually used it in whichever language he was speaking when he said it.

What he’s talking about is a European Union report about the stress tests performed on nuclear energy facilities there. The report does not recommend closing any plants; it does recommend spending up to 25 billion Euro (about $32 billion) to make them “safer.” This hasn’t gone over well.

The report is misleading because it conveys the impression that plants are unsafe and a lot of work is needed to make them safer, while in reality the situation is not that dramatic. Moreover, the methodology by which the commission reached this result isn’t clear and the commission is making recommendations in a domain where it really has no powers.

When you start talking about 25 billion anythings, you might as well say 50 or 75 billion – it’s all more than can be reasonably estimated in a fairly tight timeframe. The report might better have left out cost estimates; including them just makes the German Oettinger, who chaired the committee that oversaw the stress tests, vulnerable to charges like those from Szymanski.

The report will be up for discussion in parliament in about two weeks, but so far, the reaction has been very poor.
---
From Ron Litzinger, Southern California Edison President :

"We have concluded that Unit 2 at San Onofre can be operated safely. This plan will get San Onofre Unit 2 back to providing reliable and clean energy to Southern Californians."

This is unalloyed good news, though not one without caveats. San Onofre has been offline with generator problems for eight months, but tests show that one of the two reactors can run at 70 percent power without issue. That’s what Litzinger is announcing.

The caveats:

"The agency will not permit a restart unless and until we can conclude the reactor can be operated safely," NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane said. "Our inspections and review will be painstaking, thorough and will not be rushed."

Which is what you want to happen.

The plan "is a reckless gamble that flies in the face of the utility's claim that it puts safety ahead of profits," the advocacy group Friends of the Earth, which is critical of the nuclear power industry, said in a statement.

To FOE, this would be true of an issue-free facility that’s been turning out electricity for many years. It’s the group’s default position. Just on the level of common sense, putting profits ahead of safety will only lead to tears – not to mention corporate ruin.

Notably, an attempt earlier this year to gather enough signatures (not by FOE) to put an initiative on the ballot to close San Onofre (and Diablo Canyon, another California facility) failed utterly.

Always shouting upwind on a rainy, cold night, our FOE.

So – let’s see how the NRC inspections go.
---
From Jack Volpato, Eddy-Lea Alliance board member:

"The Department of Energy wants this to happen. There are nuclear rods around the country just sitting on a pad, costing $5 to 10 million a year to keep an eye on."

Well, all right, they’re not just sitting on a pad decaying away, they are in used fuel casks, but we get what Volpato is saying. Eddy and Lea are counties in New Mexico that have seen a boomlet in nuclear energy activity. None of it has anything to do with making electricity for New Mexicans, but with byproducts and used fuel.

There is the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, or WIPP, that has been a big local success story, even inspiring the Blue Ribbon Commission investigating the back end of the fuel cycle to recommend using the WIPP-derived community consent-based approach to siting consolidated used fuel storage sites (and a permanent repository, too.) That’s what AREVA is helping with.

So who’s better than Lea and Eddy counties to attract a consolidated used fuel storage site? It worked out exceedingly well once with WIPP, why not again?

The Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance has selected French firm AREVA to help create an above-ground interim storage facility to store nuclear fuel on 1,000 acres between Carlsbad and Hobbs. The facility is being billed as a safe way to temporarily house used fuel from nuclear power plants.

Early days of course, but involving AREVA at this point shows real seriousness to make it work. What we can say is: good. Go for it, New Mexico.

I got sidetracked but that corner in southeast New Mexico also hosts or will host the International Isotopes uranium deconversion facility and Urenco’s uranium enrichment plant. That’s not a coincidence, either, but a subject for a future post.

Read More

Can California Survive Climate Change Without the Help of Nuclear Power?

California’s Environmental Protection Agency is required to prepare what are called “periodic science reports on the potential impacts of climate change on the California economy.” This is carried out by the Climate Change Center within the California Energy Commission. The overarching findings contained in the most recent report, ‘Our Changing Climate 2012,’ are seemingly stark:

• “Temperatures in California will rise significantly during this century . . . by 2050, California is projected to warm by approximately 2.7 degrees F above [year] 2000 averages, a threefold increase in the rate of warming over the last century.”
• “Springtime warming – a critical influence on snowmelt – will be particularly pronounced.”
• “Summer temperatures will rise more than winter temperatures . . . Heat waves will be more frequent, hotter, and longer.”
• “Wildfire risk in California will increase as a result of climate change.”

The report (to watch the press conference announcing the findings, click here) also delves into energy use in the state the result of a dramatically warmer climate. No surprise: the report posits longer and appreciably hotter summers will “notably” increase annual household electricity consumption for air conditioning. “Increases in average temperature and higher frequency of extreme heat events combined with new residential development across the state will drive up the demand for cooling in summertime,” the report says.

More than 20 percent of California’s electricity generation today comes from hydro, and of that generation, more than 150 hydro plants – 75 percent of the hydro fleet – are located in high elevation (above 1,000 feet). These sites will be vulnerable to the effects of dryer, warmer conditions, creating diminished snowpack, the report says.

It’s impossible to read the climate change impact report and not conclude that if the projections come to pass, even greater stresses will be placed on California’s baseload generation in the years ahead. In fact, the report concludes the state will need to build more baseload capacity in response to changing conditions. “In the near term, higher temperatures in the next decade could increase demand by up to 1 Gigawatt during hot summer months – a substantial amount that would require the construction of one large new power plant in California or the purchase of costly peak power from external sources.”

Hard to imagine any new coal plants getting sited in California, and there’s a moratorium on building new nuclear. Meanwhile, anti-nuclear groups like Friends of the Earth have swarmed into the state this year and noisily advocated for the permanent shuttering of San Onofre, one of the state’s two nuclear power plant sites, and home to 2,200 megawatts of electricity generation. 

Researchers and environmental scientists in no small numbers believe these forecasted climate conditions are already set in motion, without much hope for reversal, at least not in the next couple of decades. They believe it’s getting hotter and hotter in the Golden state, and that energy consumption will have to rise. Meanwhile, California has mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets to be met, the first arriving in less than 10 years’ time.

Here at NEI, we take pains to point out that we are not climate scientists, and therefore can't and won't pass judgement on projections like these. If policymakers in California are using this document as a guide for future actions, we can only ask this: can the state and its economy possibly move forward without a clean, reliable and emission-free source of baseload electricity like nuclear energy?

Read More

Will Friends of the Earth Drop Their Opposition to Nuclear Energy?

I got a surprise this morning as I opened my email: the news that the U.K. affiliate of Friends of the Earth (FOE), one of the world's leading environmental organizations, may drop its long-time opposition to the use of nuclear energy.

The word comes from author, journalist and climate activist Mark Lynas, who recently had a phone conversation with Mike Childs, the head of climate change with the organization. Apparently, the organization is about to do an extensive scientific review of the positions for and against nuclear energy. Here's Childs from the interview:

[S]o we’ve commissioned the Tyndall Centre in Manchester to lead the review. They’ll go through a process of pulling together the arguments for and against nuclear power, both new nuclear power stations, extending existing stations, and some of the fast breeder ideas on the table. They’ll synthesise that and do a peer-review with proponents both for and against, to see whether they’ve got those arguments properly synthesised and understood. They’ll then do some further work around that, looking at the robustness and quality of those different arguments, and come forward with recommendations.

Very, very interesting (for more thoughts on the possible change, visit Rod Adams). It's too bad that this reconsideration of policy came too late for Rev. Hugh Montefiore, an Anglican bishop who was forced to leave the FOE board in 2004 for his support for nuclear energy. Rev. Montefiore passed away just eight months later.

One point that needs to be made here: this policy review is only taking place in the U.K. As Childs himself points out in the interview, each local affiliate of FOE is allowed to chart its own policy course, which I guess has Arnie Gundersen breathing a sigh of relief -- at least for now. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Another point that Childs made during the interview: the nuclear review won't disrupt any current anti-nuclear activities so as not to prejudice the result. Hence, we'll keep seeing stuff like this for a while. Our apologies, that link actually leads to a complete refutation of the Lynas piece. Guess the answer is no.

Read More

A Reader's Guide to the San Onofre Steam Generator Situation

For a number of weeks, we've been paying close attention to our colleagues at Southern California Edison (SCE) as they work to resolve a problem with the steam generators at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station or SONGS. Unit #2 and #3 at SONGS have been out of service for several weeks ever since leaks were detected in the steam generators of both units.

In a press briefing earlier this week, SCE's CNO delivered some good news, and said that there's a 50% chance that one or both of the plant's reactors will be back in operation by the Summer. The thing to remember here is that SCE and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission won't allow the plant's two reactors to restart until both parties are convinced that it is safe to do so.

For real time updates from SCE, please visit SONGSCommunity.com.

A number of outside observers, most notably Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates, have been commenting on the situation as well, with Gundersen publishing a pair of reports in conjunction with Friends of the Earth concerning the steam generators.

As the staff at SONGS continue to work on a solution, I thought it would be a good idea to collect a number of blog posts that taken together could serve as a rejoinder of sorts to Gundersen.

First, we should probably point to a post by Will Power at Atomic Power Review (APR) from last month that lays out the issue in very clear terms. Next, here's a post at NEI Nuclear Notes that Victoria Barq wrote after a conversation with Alex Marion, NEI's Vice President for Nuclear Operations. It covers the content of Gundersen's initial report.

More recently, Meredith Angwin, who normally blogs at Yes Vermont Yankee, provided a guest post at APR that dives a little deeper into the issue. To wrap things up, we should point to a blog post by Dan Yurman over at Idaho Samizdat that pulls on a couple of loose threads in Gundersen's reports.

Read More

Arnie Gundersen Authors Another Shoddy Report

Nuclear consultants Fairewinds Associates and anti-nuclear activists Friends of the Earth are at it again with a new “report” that seeks to create concern, with little to no substance, over steam generator tube leaks at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The report, “Steam Generator Failures at San Onofre,” claims that without a thorough root cause analysis of why the plant’s recently installed steam generator tubes have become worn, that:

“…radioactive releases might be significantly larger than those that occurred after the January 2012 tube leak. Such an accident would cause implementation of the California emergency evacuation plan and closing of the San Clemente beach and Interstate I-5, potentially for an extended period of time.”

Fairewinds’ opinion misleads the general public to believe that the plant already released a large amount of radiation, which in fact, it has not. In a February 17 press release, Southern California Edison (SCE) clarified:

The radioactivity released to the atmosphere during the steam generator tube leak was barely measurable – 4E-5 millirems or 0.00004 millirems -- which is 200 times less than you would receive by having a smoke detector in your home for a year.

The steam generator tube wear leads to very minor leakage within the steam generator, which is something that can easily be detected by sophisticated monitors (as proven in this case) before any significant release of radiation would occur.

In addition, the statement implies that Southern California Edison (SCE), the plant’s owner, is putting Californians at risk, which is an even more egregious stretch of the truth. Not only does the nuclear industry make safety its top priority, but the people who work at the plant also live in close proximity and have a personal stake in the plant’s safe operation.

Given the fact that some news articles have already referenced the misleading Fairewinds report and other activist organizations are using it to push their anti-nuclear campaigns, I decided to get further analysis on this report with NEI’s Alex Marion, an electrical engineer who sits on the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Board on Nuclear Codes & Standards. In a nutshell, here’s what he had to say:

The issue at SONGS demonstrates the stringent safety practices in the U.S. nuclear energy industry. SONGS detected there was an issue with the steam generator tubes while implementing its rigorous inspection program, which has been accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This involves examining the steam generator tubes and if degradation is found, then a more comprehensive examination is conducted that may include pressure testing of the tubes or sending samples of tubing to a metallurgical laboratory for independent evaluations. Once a root cause for the problem is discovered, the plant can fix the problem and restart. However, the plant will not continue operations until this analysis has been completed.

Why is a “root cause analysis” important?

Marion:

Basically, what you have is a large heat exchanger that uses heat from the primary reactor cooling water that flows within the thousands of tubes to transfer heat to a separate flow of water that surrounds the tubes. The water that flows outside of the tubes is converted to steam, which is used to drive turbine generators and make electricity. Because of vibrations that result from the water flow during plant operations, the tubes may rub against supporting structures resulting in “wear,” or thinning of the tube wall. This is a known form of wear that occasionally occurs, however, it was not expected to have occurred on as many tubes as had been found at San Onofre. A root cause analysis will determine what caused this unanticipated wear and how it can be minimized.

The Gundersen report suggests that the tube degradation is an anomaly and that the plant should continue to be shut down indefinitely. Is there a technical basis for this?

Marion:

We agree that the extent of wear in recently installed steam generator tubes is unusual. This is why we believe that you cannot effectively address the issue until a root cause analysis is completed, which is exactly what SCE is doing now, in close coordination with Mitsubishi and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The report also calls into question SCE’s “like-for-like replacement” of its steam generators recently, suggesting that had the replacements been duplicates, “the problems that San Onofre is currently experiencing would have been dramatically reduced or entirely eliminated.” What does he mean by this?

Marion:

Utilities are allowed to replace equipment without prior NRC review and approval if certain criteria are satisfied. The criteria ensures that the replacement equipment still fulfills all safety requirements and does not deviate from the original plant design in a way that could compromise safe operation. Key features of the replacement steam generators at SONGS were modeled or tested to confirm their performance capability and structural integrity to demonstrate that they satisfied the design requirements.

In terms of “like-for-like” replacement, SONGS focused on the principle of form, fit and function. The new steam generator included a new, improved tube alloy versus the one which was previously used. They were able to demonstrate that with improved materials and enhanced design features, the steam generators could be installed and operate within the plant design limits with minimal modifications to the plant systems, instrumentation and controls.

Besides the fact that this report includes misleading claims for the general public, what is your overall conclusion about it?

Marion:

The report calls for Southern California Edison to keep SONGS shutdown until a thorough and systematic root cause analysis has been completed. That is precisely what is occurring now. The plant will remain shut down until the root cause is established and addressed and the NRC deems it can safely restart.

Once again, Fairewinds and its counterparts at Friends of the Earth have created a report that does little other than advance their anti-nuclear agenda. Their tactics, which unfortunately are picked up in news media and further disseminated by flights of television advertisements, do a disservice to the public by mischaracterizing the strong safety record of the U.S. nuclear industry.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has documented actions that must be taken before SCE is permitted to restart the San Onofre reactors. The company must demonstrate to the NRC that 1) the cause of the tube wear in both steam generators is well understood and 2) it will appropriately address the issue in order to ensure safe operation. Elmo Collins, the head of the NRC’s West region office, said:

Until we are satisfied that has been done, the plant will not be permitted to restart.

San Onofre is a safe nuclear plant and is a vital contributor to California’s electricity supply. Learn more about how Southern California Edison is working diligently to identify and fix the problem with its steam generator tubes in a new video with the company’s president Ron Litzinger.

Read More

A Good Time to Speed Up – Vietnam, Iowa, FOE

Not getting respect:

“We also have a good chance in Vietnam,” the minister added. “The United States, France, Canada, Russia, Japan and Korea can build nuclear power plants, but the U.S. lags behind in technology as it hasn’t built one for 20 to 30 years. This is a good time for us to speed up (atomic power plant construction).”

Ouch! That stung a little.

This is South Korea’s Knowledge Economy Minister Hong Suk-woo. He’s not exactly right – falling behind in construction and in technological advance are two different things and the U.S. has not fallen behind – at all – in technology. But Hong is selling Korean capacity in both, so fine. Still – ouch!

---

Land of corn and plenty:

Dueling videos debuted Wednesday on possible nuclear power expansion in Iowa.

A group that opposes nuclear power launched a television ad on the eve of today’s Senate committee hearing on a proposed compromise that advocates hope will push the bill ahead.

And minutes later, MidAmerican Energy released its own Web video, featuring Bill Fehrman, the company’s president and chief executive officer.

The opposing ad is from Friends of the Earth, our old FOEs. I generally find anti-nuclear advocates interesting if not always on target, but not FOE. It’s notably fact free.

But the pleasant surprise is that MidAmerican isn’t standing for it and has put its own ad in response. It’s simply done but that means there’s no manipulation or appeals to emotion. It’s simply Fehrman providing the company’s viewpoint:

---

Hey, South Korea was talking about Vietnam above, wasn’t it? Care to know just what Vietnam is up to these days?

"The consistent view of Vietnam is to utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in a responsible manner while ensuring safety and security," [Le Dinh Tien, deputy minister of the Vietnamese Ministry of Science and Technology, which] is responsible for overseeing the country's nuclear power, said in January.

By 2030, Vietnam aims to build 10 reactors and, by 2050, it hopes to generate enough nuclear power to account for 20-25 percent of its energy consumption.

Now you know.

---

NEI’s main site and the Safety First site have been doing a good job of keeping you up to date on post-Fukushima information and updates (Safety First has a great infographic up right now showing how FLEX, the industry’s response to Fukushima, will work – poster worthy – really), but we’d be remiss not to note good work done by some of the nuclear companies out there.

If you have a few minutes, check out these pages by FPL (Florida Light & Power) and NextEra Energy to see how they are presenting nuclear energy, the accident in Japan and the drive to apply the lessons learned to their fleets. Both are very nicely done – corporate speak kept to a minimum, little to no attempt at spin. (We noticed FPL redid its nuclear energy launch page, too – a lot less text heavy and more inviting.)

Read More