The Clear Case for CWIP – A Rebuttal to Mark Cooper’s Analysis on “Advanced Cost Recovery”

Uprate at St. Lucie impossible without CWIP.

Two nuclear critics, Peter Bradford and Mark Cooper, recently published a report (pdf) explaining how “advanced cost recovery” for nuclear plants in Florida and South Carolina “creates another nuclear fiasco.” Cooper’s main argument seems to be that Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) shifts to ratepayers all of the risks of building nuclear plants. This is either a deliberate distortion or a misunderstanding of how the cost recovery mechanism works.

How “advanced cost recovery” (aka CWIP) works

When a utility builds any type of project, it uses a mix of debt and equity to pay for the construction. The debt comes from banks and other investors and, of course, the utility must pay interest to use the debt. The equity comes from the utility’s shareholders and also requires a return for its use. The CWIP financing mechanism, which is also allowed by the federal government for interstate transmission projects, allows a company building a project to include the interest on debt and a return on investor’s equity (known as carrying costs) in its electric rates while the project is under construction.

SCANA’s latest filing to the South Carolina’s public utility commission (pdf), Appendix 3 (page 27) explains how CWIP works for the two-reactor expansion at its Summer station. These carrying costs are classified in accounting and electric-utility parlance as “allowance for funds used during construction” (AFUDC). When CWIP is allowed, AFUDC is basically what the power company adds to its rates, and collects from the ratepayers during construction. The AFUDC in SCANA’s case is $238 million.

What’s also shown on page 27 is the yearly and cumulative amount of cash flow SCANA needs to build the two reactors. This is currently $5.5 billion and is funded by debt and equity. Cooper neglects to explain that SCANA’s customers are paying only about five percent of the construction costs of the projects (the AFUDC rate) during construction, while the owners and investors are contributing 95 percent.

Cooper also neglects to explain another significant feature of CWIP. Because the interest on debt and return on equity are being paid each year, these carrying costs are not accumulating as they would in the absence of CWIP, to be recovered when the plant begins operation. Because these costs, like all debt, compound over time, the quicker they are paid, the less they build up. When ratepayers pay these carrying costs while the plants are under construction, customers will save substantial sums over the life of the units. From Georgia Power:

“Approximately $0.5 billion of these customer benefits are associated with the inclusion of CWIP in rate base.” – p. 36 from Vogtle’s 8th Construction Monitoring Report (pdf)

From SCANA:

“Paying financing costs while construction is ongoing, as opposed to waiting until the project has been completed, will lower the cost of the new units by about $1 billion. We estimate this reduction will save our customers approximately $4 billion in electric rates over the life of the new units.” – SCANA Press Release

Peter Bradford asserted that these cost savings are false and the plants will cost customers more money in the end, but (typically) failed to provide any explanation of or factual support for these statements. A total of ten states – and the federal government – allow CWIP today because the legislators and public service commissions in these states know that such a cost recovery mechanism saves money for its customers.

“Ratepayers are on the hook”

Cooper’s paper claims that “ratepayers are on the hook” and taking all the risk of building a nuclear plant because of CWIP. Apparently, Cooper does not understand how utilities build and recover the costs of power plants in regulated states.

In regulated states, when a power plant is completed, the utility requests approval from the Public Service Commission to place the cost of construction in its rate base, which means that the utility begins charging its electric customers for the construction costs. State public service commissions analyze the costs to determine if they were spent “prudently.” If the PSC deems the costs to have been prudent, then they can be passed on to ratepayers. This occurs with or without CWIP.

When CWIP is allowed, public service commissions exercise even greater oversight and cost control. Costs are audited, reviewed and subject to a prudence determination by the PSC, typically on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. The utility must also demonstrate the economic viability of the project before it even begins construction. 

Cooper and his fellow anti-nuclear critics contend that CWIP allows utilities to collect costs without having to build the plant. Cooper’s paper claims that they can get halfway through the project, cancel it, and then collect the incurred costs of construction from ratepayers without having to pay anything. This is of course an erroneous view of how states govern projects.

Cooper’s paper cites an Iowa Utility Board analysis to make its case against CWIP. Last year, the Iowa legislature debated a bill that would allow CWIP which may have provided MidAmerican Energy the opportunity to build a nuclear plant in the state. The Iowa House passed the bill but the Senate didn’t act on it. There was much discussion about the issue and MidAmerican provided a short explanation of the bill (pdf). The explanation clearly states that the utility does not have the unilateral ability to cancel a project. State public service commissions must approve both the decision to build a plant, the decision to cancel one, and how much utilities can collect in rates based on the prudency of spending.

Cooper’s paper claims that CWIP puts all the risk on ratepayers. CWIP actually lowers the risks to ratepayers because it makes the projects more affordable to build, increasing the chance of successfully completing the project.

Most Economical

The five reactors under construction in the Southeast U.S. (Summer 2&3, Vogtle 3&4, and Watts Bar 2) are being built because they’re the most economical projects for those utilities. Cooper’s paper claims that there are many more economical alternatives than those plants. The utilities and state regulators in that region disagree.

Renewable resources in the Southeast are thin and natural gas plants (despite today’s low costs) are still not cheaper than the nuclear plants in the long-run. Utilities are also looking to diversify away from coal, and improved efficiency only gets a utility so far before new capacity is needed. Here’s what Georgia Power says on page 45 (pdf):

“The weighted average expected value of the relative savings for completion of the [Vogtle] Facility as compared to the gas-fired [combined cycle] alternative is $4.0 billion ….”

Paying it Forward

CWIP provides clear cost benefits for customers when building capital-intensive projects like nuclear plants. The two nuclear critics in this case simply do not like nuclear power and continue to misinform and skew the debate about the benefits of CWIP. Here’s their paper’s foregone conclusion on page viii:

“Nuclear power is inherently uneconomic because it relies on a catastrophically dangerous resource that is vulnerable to human frailties and the vicissitudes of Mother Nature.”

When one begins with such a conclusion, it’s easy to guess the rest of the paper.

Many generating plants and transmission lines operating today – not to mention the interstate highways, hundreds of bridges, and dams – have largely been paid for by customers who are no longer on the system. All customers benefit today from cost-effective capital that was deployed years ago. CWIP is not new and, as shown above, allows customers the benefit of lower electricity costs from a reliable, affordable, emission-free source of power that can last 60 to 80 to 100 years. Very few, if any, other technologies can provide such benefits.

Read More

Forbes Fumbles Nuclear Football Analogy

Author Peter Kelly-Detwiler published a post for Forbes yesterday making an illogical comparison of sunk costs from nuclear plants to Mark Sanchez (the New York Jets QB). Despite providing a definition of sunk costs, the author doesn’t seem to understand what sunk costs really are.

The article references several examples of new nuclear projects going over budget, but going over budget doesn’t mean the costs are sunk. According to the article, sunk costs are “unrecoverable past expenditures.” Nowhere in the piece does the author give an example of a nuclear plant that hasn’t been able to recover its past expenditures.When nuclear plants were built in the ‘70s and ‘80s in the US, state public utility commissions (PUCs) determined whether all or some of the costs of power plants could be recovered from ratepayers based on whether the costs were spent “prudently” or not. In some cases, the PUCs found that some costs were not prudent and therefore were not recoverable from ratepayers. Yet the Forbes article doesn’t even mention this.

Even if the article were to correctly apply the definition of sunk costs, though, the analogy to Mark Sanchez would still be incorrect with today’s operating nuclear plants. The article states that the Jets pay Sanchez $8.25M a year whether he plays or not and if he doesn’t play then that’s a sunk cost. Well, even if one of the 104 nuclear units have sunk costs, utilities still operate them. In fact, nuclear plants provide nearly 20 percent of the US’ electricity and run more frequently than any other power source. The operation of these plants provides additional benefits such as stable, predictable electricity prices and avoided CO2 emissions equivalent to the amount of emissions from nearly all US passenger cars each year.

Of course, nuclear plants aren’t the only type of power plants that have had sunk costs. Dare I mention Solyndra, Deepwater Horizon, or the many wind turbines, coal plants and gas plants that have been abandoned, bankrupt or shut down prematurely?If the author wanted to apply a correct metaphor for nuclear plants to NFL quarterbacks, a more accurate comparison would be to Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees or underrated QB Joe Flacco. Much like nuclear plants are to the electric grid, those QBs are highly productive valuable assets who are the backbones of the teams.
One more thing, Go Ravens!

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 Nuclear Performance Report – September 2012

Here's a summary of the performance of the U.S. nuclear fleet in September:

For the third month in a row, U.S. monthly nuclear generation lagged compared to the same periods in 2011. September 2012 nuclear generation was 3.7 percent lower than September 2011 generation and year-to-date nuclear generation was 0.9 percent lower than generation in the same period in 2011, 585.1 bkWh vs. 590.6 bkWh, respectively.

The capacity factor in September 2012 was 88.2 percent compared to 91.6 percent in September 2011. The average capacity factor for the nuclear fleet for the nine months of 2012 was 87.7 percent compared to 88.9 percent for the same period in 2011.

Nineteen units have refueled or are currently refueling during Fall 2012 as of October 17th compared to 16 units in Fall 2011 as of the same date. The FitzPatrick and Palo Verde 2 units are refueling after completing 702 days and 518 days of continuous operation, respectively, from their previous refueling outages.

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

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

Less to Wind Energy Milestone Than Meets the Eye

Early this morning, the American Wind Energy Association pushed out some data that caught our eye:

Electricity generated by the doubling of the U.S.’s crop of giant wind turbines in the past four years now equals the output of 11 nuclear power plants, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group representing manufacturers and developers.

After a big build up since 2008, the U.S.’s total wind output currently totals 50,000 megawatts, or 50 gigawatts.

It looks like AWEA has the calculations correct. Fifty gigawatts (GW) of wind at a 30% capacity factor generates about 131,400,000 megawatt-hours of electricity in a year. This is roughly equivalent to the annual generation from 11 new nuclear reactors with an average capacity of 1,400 MW, each operating at a 90% capacity factor. It’s also equivalent to the annual generation of nearly 17 nuclear reactors with an average capacity of 1,000 MW, each at a 90% capacity factor.

This is a great milestone for the wind industry, however, they need to increase their capacity by roughly another 250 GW to equal the annual generation of the U.S. nuclear fleet. For those who haven’t seen our infographic, the amount of land needed by wind to produce the same amount of electricity as nuclear in a year is equal to an area the size of West Virginia.

It’s also worth noting that the quality of power from 50 GW of wind is much different than the quality of power from 11 nuclear reactors. Wind is intermittent, only available in certain locations, requires significant amounts of transmission, and produces the least amount of electricity in a year during the summer and winter months because the heat and cold stifle wind flow.

Nuclear is just the opposite. It produces continuous power 24/7, can be located anywhere, helps maintain grid stability, and produces the most amount of electricity in a year during the summer and winter months (pdf). ‘Nuff said.

Read More

A Nuclear-Powered Space Rover Lands on Mars, Brings New Hope for Space Exploration

“If anybody has been harboring doubts about the status of U.S. leadership in space, well, there’s a one-ton, automobile-size piece of American ingenuity, and it’s sitting on the surface of Mars right now.”

This statement came from John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, this morning following the landing of a 2,000-pound nuclear-powered space rover, Curiosity, on the surface of Mars. This marks the first time that NASA has ever safely landed a human-made object of this size and weight on the surface of Mars, a notable feat in American engineering.

Early reports from The New York Times describes the rover’s landing on the Red Planet like a scene in a movie script:

As the drama of the landing unfolded, each step proceeded without flaw. The capsule entered the atmosphere at the appointed time, with thrusters guiding it toward the crater. The parachute deployed. Then the rover and rocket stage dropped away from the parachute and began a powered descent toward the surface, and the sky crane maneuver worked as designed. 

“Touchdown confirmed,” Allen Chen, an engineer in the control room, said at 1:32 a.m. Eastern time, followed by cheers, hugs and high-fives. 

Two minutes later, the first image popped onto video screens — a grainy, 64-pixel-by-64-pixel black-and-white image that showed one of the rover’s wheels and the Martian horizon. A few minutes later, a clearer version appeared, and then came another image from the other side of the rover.

This pivotal moment in space exploration is even more exciting because of the far-reaching implications Curiosity’s mission has for the nuclear energy field. The space rover is fully outfitted with an advanced nuclear power system called the Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator, or MMRTG (for those who like acronyms), to power its large frame over the two-year mission.

Ashwin Vasavada, deputy project scientist for the Mars Science Laboratory, explains that Curiosity needed a good, strong, reliable source of power to keep it going over its two-year mission. Other Mars Exploration Rovers—Spirit and Opportunity—have used solar panels for a source of power, but the engineers have found that they did not have enough power at times to complete their objectives because of dust settling on the panels or during the short days of winter. With Curiosity measuring two times bigger, five times heavier, and holding 15 times the weight in scientific equipment than the former space rovers, Vasavada said that the space rover needed a power generator that would be guaranteed to charge its battery year-round in all types of harsh conditions, which is why the laboratory turned to nuclear energy.

Curiosity’s generator serves a dual purpose: it provides electrical power and heat to the rover. The generator has a capacity of 110 watts of electrical power, which is used to continuously charge the rover’s battery and keep the rover moving and operating its technical devices. The heat that is created can then be pumped off using pipes, but maintain the warmth on the inside of the rover, including the scientific instruments.

Vasavada explains the reasons for selecting the nuclear-powered generator and how it works in the following video:


For a more technical explanation on how the generator works, see this description by Canadian Energy Issues:

Curiosity’s electronics are powered by what’s called a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG). An RTG is a device that uses the heat from disintegrating radioisotopes to generate an electric current. In Curiosity’s case the radioisotope is plutonium-238, a strong alpha emitter with a half-life of around 88 years. A disintegrating Pu-238 atom ejects an alpha particle from its nucleus with an energy of 5.5 million electron volts. The ensuing collision between that ultra-high-energy particle and the first material it encounters generates a lot of heat.  

All missions to Mars and beyond are powered with Pu-238. By the time you get out to Mars, solar energy is too weak to generate meaningful amounts of electricity.

Over the course of its mission, Curiosity will be searching for indications that Mars was once habitable, such as examining rocks and other organic matter and sending images and samples back to Earth. The Washington Post says this is the first time NASA has embarked on a mission to Mars since the Viking missions in the 1970s. Since then, scientists have discovered that the planet was once wetter and warmer, which signals improved possibilities for life on the planet.

Photos from Curiosity’s first day on Mars are available on NASA’s website. You can also follow the space rover’s mission on Twitter: @MarsCuriosity and on Facebook: NASA’s Curiosity Mars Rover.

Have thoughts to share about Curiosity? Join the conversation about the space rover on NEI’s Facebook page.

For more information on nuclear energy’s applications in outer space, see NEI’s website.
---
Photo captions: Image #1: One of the first test images from NASA’s space rover Curiosity upon landing on Mars to signal that everything was operational (credits: NASA TV, via The New York Times).

Image #2: Engineers work on a replica of NASA’s space rover Curiosity at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (credits: Damian Dovarganes, Associated Press, via The Los Angeles Times).

Read More

More on Nuclear Energy Facilities, Summer Heat and Water Use

The following guest post was submitted by NEI Media Manager, Mitch Singer.

Perhaps it’s asking too much in today’s media climate (no pun intended), but it would’ve been nice if Ginger Zee refrained from making the flippant comment on America This Morning that cooling ponds near nuclear plants are “either getting too low or too warm for the plants to function safely.” Ginger’s wrong on a number of accounts.

Safety is paramount to the nuclear industry and all plants have contingency plans in place to adjust to extreme weather conditions and continue operating, albeit at a lower electrical power output. All nuclear power plants operate under their respective states’ water discharge permits and when the water’s ambient temperature reaches a certain level the plant’s power output must be lowered. Thus, they continue to “function safely.”

The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Alabama operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) provides a great example of how in spite of extreme heat and higher-than-normal water temperatures a nuclear plant can continue to produce electricity. TVA’s Ray Golden explained it clearly to me in a conversation earlier today:

In the summers of 2010 and 2011 TVA had to reduce electrical power output at all three Browns Ferry units up to 50 percent (approximately 500 megawatts each) to maintain downstream river temperatures within the thermal compliance limits associated with its State of Alabama water discharge permit.

Browns Ferry draws water from the Tennessee River to cool plant equipment. In the process of cooling this equipment the water gets heated. This heated water is sent to a series of seven, very large cooling towers. The cooling towers use large fans to cool the water before returning it to the river.

When the river’s upstream ambient temperature rises to 90 degrees, TVA’s water permit does not allow any additional increase in water temperature. In order to comply with this regulation, at times Browns Ferry’s power output has to be lowered.  By lowering power output we reduce the discharge temperature.

During periods of extended high river temperatures and low rainfall, the company’s environmental compliance model requires the need to take prompt action to avoid exceeding any permit limits.

TVA returns Browns Ferry and other fossil-powered generating stations to full power when temperatures and river flow conditions are adequate for full power operation without challenging river temperature permit limits.

TVA has been proactively working on a project to address the issue of summer river temperatures and the requirement to reduce Browns Ferry power output.

In the summer of 2012, TVA completed construction of a seventh cooling tower which provides additional river water cooling during the hot summer months. The seventh tower is twice the size of the existing cooling towers and uses state-of-the-art engineering and equipment to maximize cooling capability. With cooling tower #7 in operation the need to reduce Browns Ferry’s power output has been eliminated so far this summer.

TVA returns Browns Ferry and other fossil-fueled plants to full power when temperatures and river flow conditions are adequate for full power operation without challenging river temperature permit limits.

Unfortunately, there are too many reports such as this morning’s where the issue of context is never considered. The fact is that ANY power plant, including coal and natural gas, that generates electricity through steam turbines and uses cooling water to condense the steam would face similar circumstances under drought conditions.

As my colleague David Bradish pointed out in his July 11 blog post, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the month of June experienced “170 all-time high temperature records being broken or tied throughout the country.” Yet, America’s nuclear plants operated at an average of 90 percent capacity, as they have done so for most of the past decade. That’s a record of consistency that would make baseball great Cal Ripken take notice.

The Brown's Ferry nuclear energy facility in Alabama. Pic courtesy of TVA.

Read More

SEJ Honors AP Report Criticized by Columbia Journalism Review

We just got the news a few minutes ago that the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) has presented an award for in depth reporting (3rd place) to Jeff Donn of the Associated Press for his series on the safety of nuclear energy facilities. When the series first appeared in June 2011, NEI had this to say:

The coverage has factual errors, fails to cite relevant reports on safety that contradict the reporting, and raises questions about historic operating issues while ignoring more recent evidence of improved performance in areas that it examines.

As it turns out, we're not the only ones who found the series wanting. Specifically, I'm referring to the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review:

[T]he AP series, while it tackles a critically important public policy issue, suffers from lapses in organization, narrative exposition, and basic material selection, what to leave in and what to leave out. Too much is left to rest on inconclusive he-said-she-said exchanges that end up more confusing than illuminating for readers.

CJR's Irene M. Wielawski also concluded: "Reading it was, for me, a hugely frustrating experience." Something tells me she wasn't the only one.

POSTSCRIPT: Click here for additional material we published here on NEI Nuclear Notes, including links to other third party sources that found the AP's work less than convincing. NEI's Chief Nuclear Officer, Tony Pietrangelo, outlined his objections to the reporting in a video report that can be found here.

Read More

U.S. Nuclear Plants Humming Along During June 2012 Heat Wave

Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the month of June experienced 170 all-time high temperature records being broken or tied throughout the country. They also reported that the first half of 2012 has been the warmest first half period on record back to 1895. As such, we wanted to share that most all of the U.S. nuclear plants were humming along at full power during June, helping provide electricity to air conditioners to keep all of us cool during these hot times.

Below are three charts breaking out the daily availability data from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which we aggregated based on the North American Electric Reliability Council they belong to. You can find the list of plants and their region on page 4 of this report.

The following chart shows a daily average of the 104 nuclear units. Overall, the U.S. fleet was running at a steady average availability of 90.5% during the last four weeks.

And the last chart shows the NERC regions, how many reactors belong to each region in the U.S., and their average availability.

It’s worth pointing out that two of the regions, MRO and WECC, had  a lower average availability factor of 82% and 68%, respectively. This was mainly because three of the 14 reactors in those regions have been in long-term shutdown.

Average availability in MRO is lower because Fort Calhoun is down (1 unit out of 6). If we take Fort Calhoun out of the calculation, the plants that are running in that region have an average availability of 98.2%.

Similarly in WECC, the two San Onofre units are down. If we take San Onofre out, the other six reactors in the region have an average availability of 90.3%.

And in SERC and FRCC, Crystal River (1 unit out of 38) has also been down. Take Crystal River out of the equation, and the plants running have an average availability of 95.5% (vs. 93.0% for all 38).

Performance of Other Technologies

There isn’t similar daily availability data for other technologies to compare their performances to nuclear during the same heat wave. But to give an idea of how they perform annually, below is a chart of average capacity factors for various power sources.

August is typically the summer month for peak nuclear generation. As the summer progresses, we’ll see nearly all nuclear units online by then.

Though this year’s trend isn’t looking promising, hopefully temps will be a bit cooler for everyone during the rest of the summer. Stay cool.

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

American Nuclear Society Ready to Cover Pilgrim Meeting

Received the following in my email box concerning some American Nuclear Society work around a public meeting on the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant that will take place later tonight. If you're up on Twitter, please consider listening in to their feed and retweeting the best parts.

WHEN: Wednesday, April 25, 7-9 PM

WHAT: Freeze Pilgrim Forum. Plymouth, MA: http://freezepilgrim.org/news.html

WHERE: Plymouth South Middle School, Plymouth, MA

WHO: Russell Gocht, PhD student at UMASS Lowell and ANS student member, will be opposite David Lochbaum of UCS. Expect Mr. Lochbaum to discuss the Union of Concerned Scientists' report on the NRC’s post Fukushima actions (on the UCS website).

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Attend or Follow the ANS live twitter feed: @ans_org or https://twitter.com/ans_org

Read More

Radio Debate on Vermont Yankee Set for Tuesday Morning

Some folks in Vermont shared the following about a radio debate on the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant that will take place on Tuesday morning.

WHEN: Tuesday, April 24, 8-10 AM

WHAT: Vermont Yankee Power Struggle: Radio Panel, Northhampton, MA

WHERE: WHMP Radio with frequencies at AM1400/1240/1600 and FM96.9, broadcasting from Sylvester's Restaurant in Northhampton, MA.

WHO: The Energy Education Project is sending Meredith Angwin (Yes Vermont Yankee) and Richard Schmidt to defend nuclear energy and provide factual information about Vermont Yankee. Two people will speak in opposition to Vermont Yankee and nuclear power: long-time activist Michael Daley and Jeff Napolitano, an anti-nuclear civil disobedience trainer with the American Friends Service Committee

WHAT YOU CAN DO:Listen, call in, attend in person! It will not stream on the web but will be podcast later.

Call-in number is 413-586-7140. Questions can also be posted in advance on the station's Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/WHMP/64219786132

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Meredith Angwin's blog post on this: http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2012/04/vermont-yankee-power-struggle-radio.html

From what we understand, Cavan Stone of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) will be providing live Twitter coverage of the program on the ANS Twitter Feed.

Read More

Why the World Can't Afford to Phase Out Nuclear Energy

Today's Washington Post features an unsigned editorial that asks an important question:

CAN THE WORLD fight global warming without nuclear power? One major industrialized country — Germany — is determined to find out, and another — Japan — is debating whether to try. Both illustrate how hard it would be.

Give it a read right now.

Read More

101st Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

This week's edition of the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers has been posted at the ANS Nuclear Cafe. Please check it out.

Read More