Why an MIT Study on Energy, Water Use and Carbon Emissions is Seriously Flawed

The following post was submitted by William Skaff, NEI's Director of Policy Development.

The MIT study, “Water-CO2 Trade-Offs in Electricity Generation Planning,” that was recently published in Nature Climate Change Letters indicates that power sector water use increases as carbon emissions are reduced. The measure employed for water use is withdrawal. A closer look at the study indicates that this approach is seriously flawed and could lead to erroneous conclusions about nuclear power plants and cooling water.

Climate change eliminates water from watersheds. It does not take water out and then put it back again. Therefore, the appropriate measurement of power plant water use in this context is consumption. This study is seriously flawed because its modeling employs withdrawal, when once-through cooling systems return 99 percent of the water withdrawn,¹  and the power sector as a whole returns 98 percent of water withdrawn, to the source water body.² For example, according to EPRI, nuclear plants with once-through cooling withdraw between 25,000 and 60,000 gal/MWh, but consume only 400 gal/MWh.³

Thus, when the study says, “The water withdrawal under the CO2 limit is 64% greater than under the no-limit case, owing to the additional water withdrawals for nuclear energy” (p. 2), that percent would be substantially reduced to a very small percent increase if consumption were considered. Specifically, according to the statistics above, power sector withdrawal is 100 percent of water use, and 2 percent of this amount is consumed. If, according to the study, there is an increase in withdrawal of 64 percent, roughly 2 percent of which is consumption, then the additional increase in consumption is approximately a little over one percent, at 1.28 percent.

The MIT study demonstrates that selecting an inappropriate water use measure for computer modeling will yield deceptive results that, in turn, may lead to erroneous, if not detrimental, choices for electricity generation portfolio mix made for the purpose of climate change.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹ Electric Power Research Institute, Water & Sustainability, Vol. 3 U.S. Water Consumption for Power Production, 2002, p. 3-1.
² U.S. Geological Survey (Wayne B. Solley, et al.), Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995, 1998, p. 48-9.
³ Electric Power Research Institute, Water & Sustainability, Vol. 3 U.S. Water Consumption for Power Production, 2002, p. viii.

Read More

In California, Nuclear Turns Off and Prices Go Up

What would happen to electricity prices in the event of a significant nuclear power plant shutdown? If recent events in Southern California are any measure, electricity prices would go up.

In January of 2012, both reactors at San Onofre in Southern California were taken out of service. The result? Electricity prices in the north and south of the state are no longer comparable. Prices were up 12% in 2012 in “the Southland” compared to Northern California where PG&E’s Diablo Canyon keeps humming along, according to new data from the US Energy Information Administration.



Electric Light & Power magazine says that the difference is one of simple substitution. Switching off nuclear power has led to more expensive alternatives.

But don’t look to natural gas prices as the culprit.

Relative differences in natural gas prices do not seem to be driving the gap between Northern and Southern California power prices…

Electricity imports (from other states) aren’t to blame either. In fact, one of the more affordable import sources turns out to be nuclear energy from Arizona.

Generation from outside the state is often less expensive [emphasis added]. Some power plants located in adjacent states are partially owned by California utility companies, and special agreements exist for exporting power to California. For instance, 18% of the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant, located in Tonopah, Arizona, is owned by California-based utilities.

Rather, it’s local (non-nuclear) sources of electricity generation that may be causing the price increases.

The major nearby alternative sources, however, are more expensive, and seem to be contributing to higher wholesale power prices.

The article isn’t clear on whether this price rise is due to “transmission congestion” or local natural gas plants (see chart below). But the root cause remains the same: The lack of nuclear-based generation from San Onofre is driving electricity prices higher in Southern California.

This overall dynamic is not unique to California, Germany has seen electricity prices escalate as a result of its nuclear shutdown and switch to pricier renewables.

Nuclear energy already suffers from a raft of myths and misconceptions. Here’s hoping that if anything is learned from the shutdowns in California and Germany, it’s that nuclear power is one of the most cost effective ways to generate electricity.

Read More

Some Thoughts on the Wall Street Journal Story on Natural Gas and Nuclear Energy

Cheap gas? Not last week in the Northeast.

Yesterday evening, the Wall Street Journal published a story by Rebecca Smith that asked the question, "Can Gas Undo Nuclear Power?" It's a question that's been asked often, especially in the wake of the announced closing of the Kewaunee Power Station in Wisconsin by Dominion last October. Here's what NEI's Richard Myers had to say about it at the time:

In 2005, when Dominion bought the plant: (1) power prices in the Midwest were in the $40-50/MWhr range; wellhead gas prices were in the $6-10 per million Btu range; and U.S. electricity demand was growing.

Today: (1) power prices in the Midwest are in the $30/MWhr range: gas prices are in the $2-3 per million Btu range; and (3) the U.S. has had 5 years of no growth in electricity demand, thanks to the worst recession in 80 years.

Near the close of 2012, NEI's President and CEO, Marv Fertel addressed the natural gas issue head on when it came to building new nuclear energy facilities. The following exchange with Steve Dolley of Platts came during an NEI-sponsored press briefing that took place in December (page 12):

Steve Dolley, Platts: Thanks Marvin, thanks for taking the time today. If you’re not expecting any new plants to be built over the next five or ten years, what are the industries other priorities with the nuclear regulatory commission? I know obviously plant safety is the number one priority for the industry and for NRC, but specific things that you’re hoping to accomplish with the commission over the next year?

Marv Fertel: Well first of all, news flash, we are building four. And we’re finishing Watts Bar, so there’s five new plants both in the pipeline being build. And one of the reasons on new plants, I don’t see us completing any beyond those five in the next - the rest of this decade. [A]s a nation we have not gotten back to 2007 electricity demand rates yet. So our demand is still down. We’re still in this recession. If you go over to financial whatever, we’ve probably increased the recession duration for a while.

So we need demand to come back. And as you all know because of the shale gas game changer (type) situation, we’re seeing low gas prices and low electricity prices right now. So everybody is looking to gas.

I would expect late this decade like into 2020 after we finish Vogtle and Summer that you could see new plants get started in our country. They just won’t be completed this decade. I expect demand will go up and there’s no question the price for natural gas will go up. I don’t expect it’s going to go to $12 or $14, but it will go up. It’s not going to stay at $2 or $3, it’s not even in the futures right now it’s almost $4 next year.

So we’ll see gas go up.

The message here ought to be pretty clear: while natural gas prices are at historic lows today, that can't last forever, especially if, as projected, America begins to export shale gas to international markets. In addition, we're already seeing evidence that industries that rely on natural gas as a feedstock that fled the U.S. during periods of high prices are now returning, driving additional new demand.

Finally, we need to remember that even in times of plenty, the price of natural gas can be awfully volatile. Just a few days ago during a cold snap in the Northeast, day ahead spot prices for natural gas reached $34.25 per MMBtu in New England and $36.00 in New York City.

Read More

NEI Energy Markets Report (October 8-12, 2012)

Here's a snippet of what went on in the energy markets last week:

Electricity peak prices rose slightly last week at ERCOT and Palo Verde, averaging $32-34/MWh at those hubs. Meanwhile at the Northeast, PJM, and Southwest hubs, prices fell $2, $6, and $11, respectively, to average $38-39/MWh. Gas at the Henry Hub rose 12 cents during the week, averaging $3.38/MMBtu. “Faced with softening fall demand fundamentals, power prices for next day delivery worked mostly lower across the U.S. on Thursday, Oct. 11, even as traders looked to rising natural gas prices and climbing outages. ... Cash gas markets also worked higher, adding as much as 15 cents in parts of the West and as much as 25 cents in the East, which offered direct support to power markets. Also lending support, various generating units continue to drop offline, and the outages will accelerate in the coming weeks as units shutter operations for fall maintenance and refueling. ... Several more outages lie around the corner. According to private sources, five nuclear reactors could shut in the next week: SCANA Corp.'s V.C. Summer in South Carolina, Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper plant in Nebraska, Public Service Enterprise Group Inc.'s Salem 2 in New Jersey, Exelon Corp.'s Braidwood 2 in Illinois and Entergy Corp.'s Waterford 3 in Louisiana.” (SNL Energy’s Power Daily – 10/12/12)

…

Last week’s uranium spot prices were unchanged, according to Ux Consulting, but TradeTech reported a $2.25 drop to an average $43.50/lb U3O8. “Bearish sentiment gripped the spot uranium market this week and the spot uranium price fell dramatically, losing more than 5 percent over the course of this week. Seven transactions totaling approximately 800 thousand pounds U3O8 are reported for the week. Reasons for the bearish outlook among sellers are varied, but the driving force is clearly a pessimistic view about near-term spot demand from both discretionary and ‘have-to’ buyers. The drop in prices failed to stimulate significant buying interest, and instead caused buyers to pull away from the market in anticipation of further price declines.” (TradeTech’s Nuclear Market Review – 10/12/12)

For more of the report click here.

Read More

NEI Energy Markets Report (October 1-5, 2012)

Here's a snippet of what went on in the energy markets last week:

Electricity peak prices fell slightly last week at ERCOT and Palo Verde, averaging $32/MWh at those hubs. Meanwhile at the Northeast and PJM hubs, prices rose $7 to average $40 and $45/MWh, respectively. “Next-day power markets were mixed to conclude the first week of the new month Friday, Oct. 5, as traders looked to cover short positions ahead of the impending weekend but also with choppy demand outlooks and recent ho-hum moves for natural gas also coming into play.” (SNL Energy’s Power Daily – 10/8/12)

…

West Texas Intermediate crude oil fell 54 cents to average $90.81/bbl last week. “EIA projects average household expenditures for heating oil and natural gas will increase by 19 percent and 15 percent, respectively, this winter (October 1 through March 31) compared with last winter. Projected household expenditures are 5 percent higher for electricity and 13 percent higher for propane this winter. Average expenditures for households that heat with heating oil are forecast to be higher than any previous winter on record. The forecast for higher household expenditures primarily reflects a return to roughly normal winter temperatures east of the Rocky Mountains compared with last winter's unusual warmth.” (EIA’s Short-Term Energy and Winter Fuels Outlook – 10/10/12)

For more of the report click here.

Read More

NEI Energy Markets Report (September 24-28, 2012)

Here's a snippet of what went on in the energy markets last week:

Electricity peak prices rose across the country last week, except at the Northeast hub, where they fell $8/MWh. “As traders closed their books on September and dealt the first daily product for October, power prices drifted in mixed directions in the eastern two-thirds of the U.S. on Friday, Sept. 28. ... Across the U.S., demand remains a muted driver as the mild fall air keeps weather-related demand balanced between cooling and heating needs. However, a growing number of outages continued to lend power prices a push higher, especially with natural gas prices once again on the rise, meaning replacement generation is likely to cost more, too.” (SNL Energy’s Power Daily, 10/1/12)

…

Average nuclear plant availability fell one percent last week, to 83 percent nationwide. Beaver Valley 2 began a planned refueling and maintenance outage September 24. Brunswick 1, Nine Mile Point 1, and Monticello returned to service after brief maintenance outages. (Platts)

…

For more of the report click here.

Read More

NEI Energy Markets Report (September 10-14, 2012)

Here's a snippet of what went on in the energy markets last week:

Electricity peak prices were mostly down last week. Prices at ERCOT-Houston, PJM West, and the Northeast hubs fell substantially, dropping $27, $20, and $11/MWh, respectively. Prices at Palo Verde and the Southwest hubs rose marginally, in the face of a heat wave. “Largely defying a typical pre-weekend tick higher, power prices for Sept. 17 delivery moved in both directions across the U.S. on Friday, Sept. 14, but with the bias mostly lower as traders focused on softer gas prices and mild fall weather rather than mounting outages or the return of business-related demand early in the next week. … The cost of gas could have heightened influence at the power markets in the coming weeks as large baseload reactors drop offline for routine seasonal maintenance. In total, almost 39,000 MW of supply is already offline nationwide, up about 4,000 MW on the day, according to data from IIR Energy. By fuel, there are more than 14,000 MW of coal-fired outages, more than 5,700 MW of gas-fired outages and almost 12,800 MW of nuclear outages” (SNL Energy’s Power
Daily – 9/17/12).

…

Uranium spot prices fell to $47/lb U3O8 last week. “Demand is currently weak in the spot market, on the part of all groups – traders, financials, utilities, and producers. The relative lack of demand on the part of traders is somewhat derivative of the fact that demand is weak in the mid-term market, and hence traders do not have much motivation to delve into the spot market to buy and hold to meet mid-term needs. A non-U.S. utility recently entered the mid-term market, but beyond this, there is not much demand. Price is falling to a point where it may spur more interest on the part of utilities, but it still may have some way to go to stimulate any notable demand by this group” (Ux Consulting’s Ux Weekly – 9/17/12).

For more of the report click here.

Read More

NBC Presents A World Without Electricity on Revolution

What would a world without electricity look like? That's a question that Hollywood's J.J. Abrams is attempting to answer this Fall on NBC in a new hour-long Science Fiction drama called Revolution. Set 15 years after the world's electricity mysteriously blinks out, the show premieres tonight at 10:00 p.m. U.S. EDT/9:00 p.m. U.S. CDT on the peacock network.

The full premiere episode is available as a free preview on iTunes, so I was able to catch it over the weekend. While I wouldn't want to reveal any spoilers, I'll just say that a lot of the program looks awfully familiar. If you've ever watched Life After People on cable's History Channel, you'll know exactly what I mean. But while the world the characters inhabit looks a lot like post-apocalyptic worlds we've seen on television and in the movies before, it sure seems like more than a few folks managed to stash a working blow dryer and a washing machine somewhere.

Then again, this is network television, and suspension of disbelief is always a prerequisite. That being said, I'll have the DVR to set record episode #2 next Monday night.

Read More

NEI Energy Markets Report (September 3-7, 2012)

Here's a snippet of what went on in the energy markets last week:

Electricity peak prices were mixed last week across the country. ERCOT-Houston and PJM West hubs saw the most action, rising $20 and $12 to average around $55/MWh, respectively. Prices at the Western, Northeastern and Southeastern hubs remained soft, moving less than $5/MWh in either direction. “Power prices across the United States moved mostly higher Tuesday, Sept. 4, with the largest gains recorded in parts of the East and Midwest after markets were closed Monday for Labor Day. … PJM West jumped more than $10 on the day with trades in the mid- to upper $50s, driven in part by a higher demand forecast as the PJM grid operator expects demand in the Western region reaching 69,700 MW on Wednesday. … As the Gulf Coast recovers from Hurricane Isaac's landfall last week, hotter weather and higher demand helped push ERCOT power prices higher Tuesday” (SNL Energy’s Power Daily – 9/5/12).

Average nuclear plant availability remained at 90 percent last week. After brief outages, Palisades, Three Mile Island 1, Turkey Point 3, Watts Bar 1, and Waterford 3 returned to service. Dresden 2 closed for five days to “perform maintenance work on water tubes in the unit's condenser.” Limerick 1 closed for four days for inspections, repair and testing of its low-pressure turbine blades. (Platts)

…

For more of the report click here.

Read More

NEI Energy Markets Report (August 27-31, 2012)

Here's a summary of what went on in the energy markets last week:

Electricity peak prices made marginal gains last week across the country. The largest movers were the Western hubs which increased $4-$6 to average $40/MWh in the region. The Eastern hubs barely budged and the Texas hub rose $4 to average $36/MWh. “Power prices across the U.S. moved in mixed directions Tuesday, Aug. 28, finding support from hot weather in California, across the Southwest and Texas but taking on a more bearish bias elsewhere across the country in line with weak spot gas prices. … In addition, generation remains healthy. While several units are slated to shut through September and October, a fairly minimal 22,790 MW is offline nationwide in the meantime, according to IIR Energy. The nuclear generation sector, which could see as many as 30 reactors shut for refueling by the end of the year, represents the largest market share of outages, with 8,337 MW offline. In addition, about 5,568 MW of the total is coal-fired and more than 4,000 MW is gas-fired, IIR said” (SNL Energy’s Power Daily – 8/29/12).

…

Uranium spot prices fell to $48/lb U₃O₈ last week. “Although a significant portion of the lowest-priced supply has been cleared from the market, demand remains thin and highly price sensitive at month’s end. Some potential buyers have yet to enter the spot market in spite of the recent drop in the price. In the case of many utilities, there is little room or budget available for inventory or discretionary purchases, and those interested in taking advantage of the price drop must procure management approvals before proceeding. In addition, several market participants still expect that prices could fall even further and, therefore, are delaying purchases in hopes of securing material at even lower prices” (TradeTech’s Nuclear Market Review – 8/31/12).

For more of the report click here.

Read More

NEI Energy Markets Report (August 20-24, 2012)

Here's a summary of what went on in the energy markets last week:

Electricity peak prices fell $1-$16 last week across the country to all settle below $40/MWh. “Next-day power markets were mixed but generally lower across the U.S. to open the workweek Monday, Aug. 20, as traders eyeballed higher load forecasts in most areas but also weak natural gas prices and an overall healthier generation picture. … Other sources of generation were improving Monday. According to data from IIR Energy, just more than 19,300 MW of various generation was offline across the U.S. early Monday. By fuel type, 3,866 MW was coal-based, while about 8,150 MW was nuclear-based and 1,969 MW was natural gas-driven” (SNL Energy’s Power Daily – 8/21/12).

Electricity production was down 8.3 percent last week compared to the same week in 2011. For the first 34 weeks of 2012, electricity production is down 2.3 percent compared to the same period in 2011.

…

For more of the report click here.

Read More

Almost 700 Million People Without Electricity in India

It's almost impossible to get your arms around the sheer size and scope of the blackout that's struck India over the past two days. Estimates say that about 670 million people are without electricity. As the New York Times noted, that's roughly equivalent to the entire population of Europe or more than the population of North and Central America combined.

By way of comparison, the largest blackout that ever struck North America, the 2003 outage that hit the Northeastern U.S. and parts of Canada, deprived about 50 million people of electricity for about two days. As we've seen in the past, power outages in advanced economies can lead to economic disruption and loss of life -- something that should give all of us pause when considering the magnitude of this event.

I'll close with some words from NEI's Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, Alex Flint:

The earth has 7 billion people on it. Today, 2 billion of those people’s principal source of energy is burning firewood or dung. More than 1 billion people have no access to electricity, and non-OECD electricity growth will far surpass that of OECD countries for several generations.

As we see population growth in those countries, we will see tremendous demand for electricity and energy of all sorts. It’s a moral imperative. There is a correlation between life expectancy and access to electricity.

India, pre- and post-blackout, as seen from Russia's Roskosmos satellite.

Read More

Electricity as a Moral Imperative

We cannot fully endorse everything that puts nuclear energy in a favorable light:

It isn't hard to see the one energy source that's grown lockstep with South Korea's economic ascension...
The country built its first nuclear power plant in 1977. Its rise to economic powerhouse began in 1980.
Today nuclear accounts for 30% of generation, but because of its high reliability, it accounts for 45% of the country's total electric consumption.
Since that first reactor in the late seventies, South Korea has built 22 more. The United States hasn't built any.
(The U.S. ranks 26th in Internet connectivity and has no high-speed rail. You decide if there's correlation.)
Korea plans to bring 11 more reactors online between now and 2021, bringing nuclear's share of electric generation up to 60%.

It's not true that no U.S. plants went online after 1977, but the point here is that the author overloads nuclear energy with responsibility for South Korea’s phenomenal economic growth. It is electricity itself that should receive that credit because it allowed the country to industrialize. (70 percent of electricity generation there is not nuclear-based, after all.)
Electricity generation is indeed a key to growth for developing nations – South Korea then, other countries now. Alex Flint, NEI’s senior vice president for governmental affairs, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in April, explained it exceptionally well, insisting on a moral dimension that gives the argument considerable force.

“The earth has 7 billion people on it,” Flint said. “Today, 2 billion of those people’s principal source of energy is burning firewood or dung. More than 1 billion people have no access to electricity, and non-OECD electricity growth will far surpass that of OECD countries for several generations.
“As we see population growth in those countries,” he continued, “we will see tremendous demand for electricity and energy of all sorts. It’s a moral imperative. There is a correlation between life expectancy and access to electricity. I believe politicians who do not provide sufficient energy for their growing economies and populations will face political peril.
“As a result we are going to see energy deployed around the world principally based upon its cost and availability, and other considerations like the environment will be secondary in most of the world.
Flint concluded, “In that world, I see a tremendous need for baseload electricity. I think nuclear energy will provide a substantial amount of that.”

OECD is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Is Flint implying that the environmental factors are relatively unimportant? Of course not: but nuclear energy answers to the issues of “cost and availability” while also answering to environmental considerations. Almost nothing else currently does (hydro comes closest).

But we need to be clear: it is electricity that matters. If that happens to be generated by nuclear energy, so be it and all to the good.

Seoul, South Korea

Read More

Revisiting Nuclear Energy and Cooling Water

Earlier this week, the journal Nature Climate Change published a study concerning how warmer weather and reduced river flows might impact electricity generation at nuclear and coal-fired power plants. Here's how Reuters reported the findings:

In a study published on Monday, a team of European and U.S. scientists focused on projections of rising temperatures and lower river levels in summer and how these impacts would affect power plants dependent on river water for cooling.

The authors predict that coal and nuclear power generating capacity between 2031 and 2060 will decrease by between 4 and 16 percent in the United States and a 6 to 19 percent decline in Europe due to lack of cooling water.

The nuclear energy industry isn't unfamiliar with the topic. Here at NEI Nuclear Notes, we first dealt with the issue during the Summer of 2006 when a heat wave struck Europe and forced a number of nuclear plants to reduce power.

Back then, our points were pretty clear: the industry was well aware of the situation and that there were a number of adaptations that could be implemented in order to mitigate it. When we revisited the issue in response to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists back in November 2011, I turned to one of our policy experts, Bill Skaff, to handle the question. I spoke with Bill again this week about the latest study, and he passed along the following note to me:

Environmentally conscious regulators and companies are already taking into account flow, discharge temperature, and intake temperature projections when locating and permitting new power plants and other industrial facilities. The Nature study’s time parameters remind us that gradual change allows time for adaptation. Additionally, there are engineering solutions being implemented today that can mitigate climate change impact. For instance, Browns Ferry is building small cooling towers to pre-cool discharge water.

Sustainable development will require electricity for quality of life and a mix of energy sources to generate that electricity—renewable, nuclear, and fossil. We must balance all environmental, social, and economic factors and make trade-offs when considering what energy source or cooling system to deploy at each of our diverse ecosystems around the country.

Wind and solar energy use very little water, but their electricity output is variable and intermittent. An electricity grid can only balance a limited amount of these electricity shortfalls, limiting how much renewable energy can be accommodated by a grid before it becomes unstable and black outs occur. Moreover, the variable, intermittent output of these renewables is usually balanced by fossil plants, which emit carbon dioxide and air pollutants.

The electricity grid requires steady, reliable baseload electricity—the output of nuclear and fossil plants. Nuclear power plant water use is comparable to coal plants. Natural gas uses less water, but produces half as much carbon dioxide as a coal plant as well as nitrogen oxides, which contribute to ground level ozone formation, a cause of respiratory ailments. By contrast, nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gases or air pollutants during operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------
EPRI, Water & Sustainability, Vol. 3 U.S. Water Consumption for Power Production, 2002, p. viii. National Energy Technology Laboratory (G. J. Stiegel, J. R. Longanbach, M. D. Rutkowski, M. G. Klett, N. J. Kuehn, R. L. Schoff, V. Vaysman, J. S. White), Power Plant Water Usage and Loss Study, August 2005, revised May 2007, p. xiii.

Read More

Nuclear Fact Check: Jamie Reno and the Daily Beast

Earlier this week, Jamie Reno, a reporter for Tina Brown's Daily Beast wrote a story about San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and the situation there concerning excessive wear in the steam generators. For an update on that situation, click here.

In any case, Reno's story attempted to tie the operating difficulties at San Onofre to Fukushima, and efforts by anti-nuclear activists in California to shut it and the state's other nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon.

The anti-nuclear power movement in the United States peaked in 1979, with widespread protests, the “No Nukes” concert in New York City, and the release of The China Syndrome, the gripping film about a near-meltdown at a fictional California facility that foreshadowed a real-life accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania just weeks after the movie’s premiere.

Since then, no new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S.

That's incorrect. 50 more reactors were built after Three Mile Island and number 51, Watts Bar 2, will be completed in 2013.

I recently got a note from one of my colleagues on our media team, Tom Kaufmann. For those of you who might not have heard his name before, Tom worked at Three Mile Island as a reactor operator before moving on to a career in media relations.

What bothered him about Reno's article was the contention that the incident with the steam generators at San Onofre should cause the public to worry that a Fukushima-like event could occur at the plant.

Here's the note Tom sent to me in response:

The assertion that the leaking tubes illustrates that what happened in Japan absolutely could happen here is baseless. Amassing more than 3,500 reactor-years of operation, commercial nuclear power plants like San Onofre have been operating in the U.S. for more than half a century. During that entire time, including the accident at Three Mile Island, no member of the public has ever been harmed by a reactor accident or radiation from any U.S. nuclear power plant. Why? Because the facilities were very well designed, the nuclear energy industry is committed to hold safety as its utmost concern, and it has continuously improved the plants by expanding and upgrading the layers of protection.

The improvements made after Three Mile Island and the 9/11 attacks helped the industry produce a safety record that is second to none. The improvements being made in response to the accident in Japan will push safety even higher. The nuclear industry isn’t perfectly safe, no industry is, but it is very well prepared to handle challenges. In fact, a recent state-of-the-art study by the NRC found that the likelihood of a serious accident causing anyone harm is very, very small.

The report that Tom refers to is the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses that the NRC published earlier this month. Click here to read that report. For a closer look at it by NEI's Mark Flanagan, click here.

Back to Tom:

This current situation with the steam generator tubes at San Onofre proves how conservative and proactive the plant operator is toward safety. The problem was discovered early, the plant was shut down so a through investigation of the cause could be conducted, and the regulator and public have been kept fully informed. This is exactly what should happen.

As we approach the April deadline to submit signatures for the California ballot initiative to shut down the plants, we can expect to see more articles like this one. We'll keep an eye out.

Read More

NBC Los Angeles Gets it Right on San Onofre

Over the past few days we've seen a raft of coverage about the incident at San Onofre last week, but little of it has put the events there in the proper context. The one exception to the rule is this report by Vikki Vargas of the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles:

View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

More later.

Read More

SONGS Is Vital for California’s Electricity Supply

Earlier this week, we reported on our blog about a steam generator tube leak in unit 3 at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in California (see here and here). The key facts are that:

1) the public and plant workers were never in danger;
2) the plant responded exactly how it was supposed to—sensitive monitoring instruments alerted workers to the problem & they were able to quickly shut down the plant and isolate the component within four hours of detection. Southern California Edison, the plant’s owner, also immediately notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nation’s nuclear energy regulator, of the issue; and
3) pinhole-sized leaks in steam generator tubes are not an uncommon occurrence while a new steam generator is still being broken in. (SONGS just last year finished installing new steam generators at the site.)

As soon as the event occurred, some groups immediately called for the plant to close.

For instance, in the San Clemente Times:

But Gary Headrick of San Clemente Green said the latest incident is another reason SONGS should close.

"Let's move away from this outdated dangerous technology and replace it with safe and sustainable options that will lead us to a brighter future," he said in a statement.

And San Onofre Safety had this to say:

San Onofre Unit 2 and 3 are both down today (1/31/2012) and yet we still have plenty of power without this nuclear plant running. Unit 2 is shut down for maintenance and Unit 3 is shut down after a possible leak.

Tell me again why we are risking our lives, the environment and the future of California for energy we obviously can live without?

Although I know groups like these will take advantage of any opportunity to push their anti-nuclear energy agenda, this last quote is especially bothersome to me because it glosses over the intricacies involved with supplying electricity to the power grid and paints a picture that Californians can simply “live without” electricity from SONGS. What some may not realize is that the electricity has to come from somewhere else when a nuclear plant is shut down and it’s usually not from where they think.

When a nuclear plant is shut down, either for routine purposes or during an outage like in SONGS’ case this week, fossil fuel plants in the area will start up to offset the power that is no longer being generated by the nuclear plant. The local electricity grid operator will work with the fossil fuel plant to ensure that there is enough electricity to meet the demand in the area to avoid brownouts or blackouts. Given that it is winter and southern California typically does not have cold temperatures at this time of year, electricity demand in the area is low, which allows for other plants on standby to easily fill the gap in the lost electricity supply from SONGS. If this happened during the peak of summer when electricity demand is highest, then SONGS’ shutdown could affect the grid. Throughout the year (and even more so during peak times), SONGS provides the grid with stability in a congested region with its large, continuous baseload power.

Southern California Edison’s Gil Alexander explains this week’s shutdown on the grid:

The plant's only other reactor already had been deactivated for a scheduled refueling and technology upgrade, he said. But the utility has ample reserve electricity, which it buys from independent power producers, to continue meeting customer demands while the two reactors are off line, the company said.

"We don't expect any impact on our customers tomorrow," Alexander told Reuters.

The short-term solution of purchasing power from a nearby utility comes in handy during an unexpected or planned outage, but it is not a long-term option because the costs are higher than what SONGS can produce.

It’s important to consider that SONGS helps control power costs for Southern California, saving its customers some $250 million per year compared to the average costs of other available sources in the region. The plant generates 2,200 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to meet the needs of 1.4 million average homes. Since nuclear energy is emission-free, the SONGS plant also helped to avoid roughly 180 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions.

While it may be easy for some to quickly dismiss the economic and environmental benefits that SONGS provides to the southern California area, I hope that others will take the opportunity to learn more about why SONGS is essential to the region.

Read More