All Aboard for the Neutron Express!

Nuclear energy would be perfect for electric/hybrid cars, a potentially gigantic market for electricity that is well-suited to an energy source with a 24/7-profile. We’ve got the nuclear facilities, all we need now are more cars. I haven’t given up on the possibility, and there has been some traction in the kilowatt mobile business, but it’s been a bit of a slog.

Still, a good idea is a good idea, so it’s interesting to see Great Britain explicitly tie their electric trains to nuclear energy.

The majority of Britain's trains will be indirectly running on nuclear power for the next 10 years following Network Rail's agreement to a £3bn deal with EDF to supply electricity to the railways.

“Indirectly running.” That sounds like a nice way of saying, “We cannot know where the electricity is coming from,” which is true, “but a lot of it is nuclear energy,” which is also true. What it really means is that only 50 percent of the train service is electric, though that is expected to increase to 75 percent in 2020.

Still, there is a bit more to it – it isn’t just a symbolic gesture.

EDF Energy operates 14 Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor and one pressurized water reactor, totaling 9548 MWe in generating capacity. It has advanced plans for a new EPR unit at Hinkley Point, which it wants to be the first of four.

EDF owns two coal plants, two natural gas plants and a couple of wind farms – though EDF is not one of the big boosters of renewable energy on the isles – but the focus is definitely and explicitly on nuclear energy, with eight facilities generating about 9000 megawatts, and Network Rail insisting that the electricity it will use must come directly from nuclear energy.

The deal has positive implications for both British Rail and EDF. For Network Rail:

Network Rail will purchase power "up to ten years in advance" under the deal, a privilege which the companies said "helps to deliver greater certainty over costs and significantly reduce exposure to short term, volatile energy prices." This kind of long-term arrangement is made possible by the economics of nuclear power, which feature high costs for construction and capital but low and predictable fuel and operating costs.

Very true. And for EDF:

For EDF Energy, CEO Vincent de Rivaz called the deal "a massive vote of confidence in our nuclear-backed energy." He said, "The deal places nuclear energy at the heart of the UK's infrastructure for the next ten years and serves to underline that nuclear power is part of everyday life in Britain."

I wonder if British Rail will incorporate this into selling the service – something like Atomic Trains to Bramford or Neutron Expresses to Oxford or perhaps it will  just reference its green profile in the literature. I vote for the atomic train.

Read More

Nuclear: On Which the Nation’s Fate Rests

We’ve kept an eye on the English versions of some of Japan’s national newspapers to see if they have thawed the nuclear energy deep freeze there. It’s more an issue of curiosity than an overtly partisan pro-nuclear view, because whether Japan begins to feel comfortable with nuclear energy after it implements post-Fukushima safety measures or it doesn’t is something no amount of partisanship can change.

If the Japanese ultimately decide to leave nuclear energy, that’s that – if you lived through something harrowing, far be it from others to to tell you to get over it. The advocate in me might say, well, the danger was minimal and no one died as a result of the accident. That’s an exceptionally low bar to clear when people have been scared badly. There’s an understanding that there is only so much one can do about nature’s vicissitudes – which did kill many in this instance – but nuclear energy facilities? Turn the lights out – done!

But the recent election went strongly for the pro-nuclear party. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has already spoken of bringing the nuclear facilities back online and even building new reactors.

Pubic opinion is still rather dire, though, so it’s interesting to see if newspaper editorials will act as bellwethers for a change in attitude.

That brings us to this editorial in the Daily Yomiuri, which praises Abe’s moves on nuclear energy to date:

Revitalizing the Japanese economy will require a stable supply of electricity. This year will be important in that the energy and nuclear power policy, on which the nation's fate rests, needs to be drastically reformulated.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has shown his intention to review the "Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment" drawn up by the Democratic Party of Japan-led administration, which set a target of having zero nuclear reactors operating by the end of the 2030s. Abe also expressed support for allowing the construction of new nuclear plants with enhanced safety features. We think his position on these issues is reasonable.

The government should immediately craft a realistic energy strategy that includes the use of various sources of power generation--including nuclear energy.

That’s – impressive. It suggests that the election hinged on what most elections hinge on: economics, especially the pocketbook. Now, this is one editorial, though the most striking change of tone I’ve seen. There have been others. Business newspaper always offer strong support for resuming with nuclear energy and there are some odd sidewise angles on it.

For example, this editorial in favor of accepting fish from Fukushima Prefecture:

Just a few kinds of fish, such as bonito and Pacific saury, which are caught by Iwaki fishermen far away from Fukushima's coast, are unloaded at local ports like Onahama. But it's a sad story. If such fish are unloaded at ports outside Fukushima Prefecture, nobody thinks twice about buying them. But if they are unloaded at ports in the prefecture and then shipped to other places for sale, they attract suspicion because they are from Fukushima Prefecture.

The Japan Times points out that allowing processing to go on in Fukushima provides employment there, a good goal, and makes the case there is no danger in doing so. It should probably be the government saying this, not a newspaper, but it certainly suggests that a clear-eyed view is present and functional.

Even with Abe openly flirting with restarting the facilities, support for doing so is rising only minimally, and newspapers support it fitfully. It isn’t much, I know, but it’s something and there’s been progress. I know this is the advocate in me wanting the Japanese to reclaim nuclear energy as a good, perhaps the best, energy source for their resource-poor, electricity hungry country – but really, that’s not for me to say, is it?

Read More

The FLEX Solution: America's Nuclear Industry Responds to Fukushima

Earlier today, the Nuclear Energy Institute released a five-minute video explaining the comprehensive and tailored response strategy that it is implementing across the industry to enhance nuclear plant safety in the face of extreme natural events.

To produce the high-definition video, NEI acquired first-of-its kind footage of the deployment of new emergency response equipment at U.S. nuclear energy facilities. The video also features animation and interviews with industry leaders and technical staff discussing nuclear plant safety.


The diverse and flexible (“FLEX”) response strategy developed by industry addresses the major challenges encountered at the Fukushima Daiichi power station following the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami: the loss of power to maintain effective reactor fuel cooling.

Additional on-site portable equipment is being acquired to help ensure that every U.S. nuclear energy facility can respond safely to extreme events, no matter what the cause. The equipment ranges from diesel-driven pumps and electric generators to ventilation fans, hoses, fittings, cables and satellite communications gear. It also includes support materials for emergency responders. For additional information concerning how the American nuclear energy is applying lessons learned from Fukushima, please visit the Fukushima response section of NEI.org.

Read More

Going to Mars – and Quickly – With Nuclear Energy

The White House’s petition site, called We the People, has gained some attention over the last couple of months because – well, let’s just say that a wide-open web site that invites citizens to put together petition drives is likely to attract a fair number of cranky malcontents – and that makes for fun news stories.

But there’s some genuinely interesting petition topics, too. Take this one, for example:

Harness the full intellectual and industrial strength of our universities, national laboratories and private enterprise to rapidly develop and deploy a nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) adaptable to both manned and un-manned space missions. A NTR (which would only operate in outer space) will jump-start our manned space exploration program by reducing inner solar system flight times from months to weeks. This is not new technology; NTRs were tested in the 1960s (President Kennedy was a guest at one test). The physics and engineering are sound. In addition to inspiring young Americans to careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, a working NTR will herald a speedy and economical expansion of the human presence in the cosmos.

Well maybe it will and maybe it won’t, but no harm asking, right? It certainly has that New Frontier-Atoms for Peace vibe that we wholeheartedly endorse and harks back to the NERVA/Rover projects of the 60s.

MSNBC describes the original programs and their history in more detail:

Back in the 1960s, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and its industrial partners set up Project NERVA, which stands for Nuclear Energy for Rocket Vehicle Application. The idea was to use a nuclear reactor to heat up liquid hydrogen propellant and blast a rocket out of Earth orbit. A trip to the moon would take just 24 hours. Going to Mars? You could make the voyage in just four months.

The article goes on to note that the expense and untried nature of NERVA dampened several projects and eventually enthusiasm – and the budget to fuel it - withered away. But that doesn’t mean it died a nascent, undercooked technology, as this article in Los Alamos National Lab’s National Security science on-line magazine explains:

In 1969, NERVA's successes prompted NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center director Wernher von Braun to propose sending 12 men to Mars aboard two rockets, each propelled by three NERVA engines (Fig. 5). The mission would launch in November 1981 and land on Mars in August 1982.

Although the mission never took place, engines tested during that time met nearly all of NASA's specifications, including those related to thrust, thrust-to-weight ratio, specific impulse, engine restart, and engine lifetime. When the Project Rover/NERVA program was canceled in 1972, the only major untested requirement was that a NERVA rocket engine should be able to restart 60 times and operate for a total of 10 hours.

Pretty impressive. 

The article goes into great detail about the working of the nuclear engine and how it differs from the nuclear reactors we talk about here – that is, those generating electricity. Well worth a read.
The article does not say, but I wonder if the long lead time from von Braun’s endorsement and the launch of a NERVA powered rocket was due to other advances would need to happen to make a 4-month flight to Mars plausible – protecting astronauts and equipment from space-borne radiation, for example, or finding ways to mitigate the disruption of the sleep-wake cycle (the Russians have been playing with this one.)

But never let it be said that any of this should discourage anyone. Aaron VanAlstine, an Army major at Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Seattle, set up the petition. And he did it for the best reason imaginable: "I'm just into space."

Last I checked, the petition had 24,297 signatures and needs 25,000 to receive a White House response – I reckon it would come from NASA, but we’ll see. So head on over there if you’re inclined and add your name.

Read More

How Nuclear Energy Helps Canada Snag Data Center Business

Courtesy of the Globe and Mail

Over the holidays, the Globe and Mail, Canada's major national newspaper, took note of a positive business trend for our neighbors to the North -- namely, how more and more companies were locating computer data centers in the country. The trend is becoming so pronounced, that some are openly speculating that the greater Toronto metropolitan area could become a global hub for data center operations.

Among the reasons why: Canada's cool climate means that data centers operating there don't have to spend nearly as much money on energy in order to keep cool. And it doesn't hurt that the nation has access to plenty of affordable and reliable electricity:

Information technology services company Fujitsu Canada is planning to open a facility to take advantage of what Canada has to offer. Free cooling, however, is only part of the picture. Access to cheap, clean, reliable energy is also a magnet for investors looking to build these power-hungry facilities, some of which consume roughly as much energy as a small city.

“The advantage Canada has is it’s far cheaper and easier to bring data to power sources, and vice versa,” says Mike O’Neil, president of IT research firm IT Market Dynamics. “It’s much cheaper to stick your data centre next to a hydro dam.”

Or in the case of Ontario, Canada's most heavily populated province, a nuclear power plant. After all, nuclear energy, along with hydropower, are the two leading sources of emission-free electricity all over the world. According to our friends at Ontario Power Generation, more than 50% of the province's electricity is generated by nuclear energy. Together, the nuclear energy facilities at Pickering and Darlington generate an impressive 6,600 megawatts.

As our Mark Flanagan noted a few months ago, Greenpeace has tried to raise hackles about companies relocating data centers to areas with copious amounts of nuclear energy, but the whole effort hasn't seemed to amount to much thus far. It's too bad the Globe and Mail failed to mention how nuclear energy is helping foster the trend they've identified.

Read More

Good Nuclear News by the Numbers

Sometimes, among the little controversies and tidbits of news, it’s nice to have a reminder now and then as to what we’re getting newsy about. Nuclear energy is a really strong provider of electricity – “really strong” because it delivers 24/7, often runs at or near 100 percent capacity (take that, renewable slackers) and is very inexpensive to operate.

And in a way, facilities can run higher than 100 percent capacity. Operators achieve uprates by swapping in new equipment or modifying existing equipment (along with maximizing efficiency) with the goal to increase capacity. The NRC determines if a potential uprate might compromised safety, but it’s generally a incidental function of how long lived a facility can be. Uprates are common enough.

I don’t have the number right in front of me, but I believe the capacity increase over the years due to uprates is about the equivalent of six new nuclear reactors. Pretty good for not having to break ground with spade.

Bloomberg spends a whole article talking about recent nuclear energy capacity, using the restart of Minnesota’s Prairie Island (down for refueling) as a jumping off point.

Generation nationwide advanced by 1.1 percent to 93,254 megawatts, or 91 percent of capacity, the most since Sept. 9, according to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission data compiled by Bloomberg.

The number in 2011 was over 95 percent, but it’s still pretty good given the plants down for refueling or for other reasons. Bloomberg notes that Michigan’s Fermi 2 and Mississippi’s Grand Gulf 1 ramped up output (neither to full capacity) and Watts Bar 1 in Tennessee went to 100 percent capacity.

A little more:

The Northeast increased 0.6 percent to 24,899 megawatts, or 100 percent of capacity, while production in the mid-Atlantic and Southeast states advanced 0.5 percent to 28,891, or 91 percent of capacity. Western U.S. generation increased 0.9 percent to 19,126 megawatts, or 80 percent of capacity.

The western droop likely has to do with San Onofre’s extended outage in California, though the story does not say.

Nuclear energy is very good at maintaining capacity and allows for surer planning. I’ve read some pieces complaining that nuclear energy does not ramp down fast enough to accommodate the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, to which one can only say, Boo-hoo, may all your problems involve abundance.

Seriously, this is something a smart grid could more easily accommodate and, if the will (and money) materialize to build out a smart grid, the issue of renewable intermittence and nuclear energy’s usefulness as a full throttle energy source will reconcile. The Department of Energy has a good introductory paper on the subject – take a look at the environmental improvement section starting on page 14 for more information about renewable energy sources and the smart grid.

But that’s down the road a piece. On our section of highway, the news is generally good. I thought the capacity would go down a bit due to the wild weather and some extended outages, but this is much better than expected.

Read More

An Authentic Replica of a Closed Nuclear Plant

This affects Germany, too, and I suppose any country with a democratic form of government:

One of the first policy victims of Japan's incoming Liberal Democratic Party is likely to be the commitment to phasing out nuclear power. The promise made after Fukushima does not sit well with the pro-business party.

Get it? Every few years, the party in control changes and everything that was certain becomes  uncertain. Can you be sure that the next time the government changes in Japan, the nuclear facilities will not be heading into mothballs?

Now to be fair – and to ding this story a bit – the previous prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, did not get as far as pledging a shut down of the nuclear facilities. He was, if anything, frustratingly vague on that subject.

Abe, who has been in power since December 26, has not said directly what he intends to do with the plants. All but two reactors are currently idled and have been since the 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi. He has been trying out a few statements, though.

But Abe's Liberal Democratic Party, which regained power in elections this month, says it plans to spend 10 years studying the best energy mix for the country. Abe has said he may reconsider the previous government's decision to stop building reactors.

And gotten a good response from the people he would like to appeal to.

The relatively favorable stance toward resuming operations of more nuclear plants has won favor among business leaders worried about power shortages and rising costs; since the Fukushima disaster, Japanese imports of costly liquefied natural gas have soared.

To be honest, the thaw in Japan lurked in my mind as something more likely to happen in Germany. There, the government has said it will close nuclear plants by 2025. That’s far enough down the road that a change in regime could reverse it. That’s still true.

I’ve read that the tax cuts in the current fiscal cliff deal are “permanent.” Really? Permanent? Permanence in government policy is like that authentic reproduction of a Renoir on my wall. Unless Japan or Germany were to bang down the nuclear facilities with sledgehammers and salt the earth, we may expect a similar permanence in their decisions – or at least anticipate the possibility of a complete or partial reversal. Either would be welcome – and good policy, to boot.

Read More