Japan and the Impact of No Nuclear Power

It’s not hard to understand the reason why:

Kansai Electric Power said it incurred a net loss of 242.26 billion yen ($3 billion) turning around from a year-before profit of 123.14 billion yen.

This is in Japan. I mentioned last week that a nuclear plant can be very expensive to build but very inexpensive to run – both in absolute terms and relative to other power plants. That can make them quite profitable over time. But if Kansai and other electricity providers in Japan – Tepco is the one that owns Fukushima Daiichi – switch off the plants and begin depending on electricity imports or coal imports to fire up older plants, this is the result.

“Operating costs surged from the year before with the lower utilization rate of nuclear power plants and higher fuel prices pushing up costs of thermal power generation and of electricity purchases from other companies," it [Kansai] said.

How are the other electric companies doing?

Hokkaido Electric Power, which until it flicks the switch on May 5 is the only company with a reactor still working, reported a net loss of 72.07 billion yen, reversing a profit of 11.98 billion yen in the previous year.

Tohoku Electric Power, based in the nation's northeast devastated in the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, said its net loss grew to 231.91 billion yen in the year to March 2012 from 33.71 billion yen in the previous year.

I don’t know how electricity rates are set in Japan – and coming off a gigantic natural disaster – and the accident at Fukushima Daiichi – I can imagine no one wants to contemplate raising rates.

And yet - here comes Summer.

Let’s not be too doomy. The Wall Street Journal says that production capacity has returned almost to normal, though not without sacrifice:

Then, there's the question of whether Japan will have enough electricity to power all production in July and August when electricity demand is at its peak. While many companies are taking conservation measures or setting up on-site power generation, shortages could force rationing like last year or even rolling blackouts, crimping output. 

I could be wrong, but that “on-site power generation” is more likely to be gas-driven generators rather than windmills. The Journal isn’t focused here on the electricity providers – but it is the pressure on those companies that will determine what happens next.

Tokyo. In Godzilla movies, Tokyo always seemed eminently stompable by the giant lizard. Things do change.

Read More

TVA Building Watts Bar 2 and Building Up the Tennessee Valley

Here’s some good news:

The Tennessee Valley Authority board in the US has approved continuing with construction of the second generating unit at Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant located on the Tennessee River near Spring City following a revised estimate.

The estimate presented to TVA in early April, revealed the project requires an additional $1.5bn to $2bn to complete, bringing the total cost to complete the unit at nearly $4.5bn, with the most likely estimate of $4.2bn.

Now, it may seem counterintuitive to splash out that kind of money – one might call it the fixed cost issue. The fixed cost of building a large industrial plant – much less a nuclear facility – is fantastically high, at least if one is trying to raise the money for it in a fairly short time. But the variable costs of running the plant are relatively low. If the plant runs for 40 years – as the current generation has done – and then goes another 20 years – then that plant cost can generate electricity quite economically even given the fixed costs involved in building the plant.

Here’s a 2011 assessment of how that works out:

• Advanced nuclear  - $113.90 per megawatt hour
• Advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration - $136.20 per megawatt hour
• Solar PV - $210.70 per megawatt hour
• Offshore wind - $243.20 per megawatt hour
• Onshore wind - $97 per megawatt hour (though Southeastern states such as Tennessee are not good candidates for this.)
• Solar thermal - $311.80 per megawatt hour.

And that takes into consideration that renewable energy sources have relatively low fixed costs. That’s not a case of putting the fix in for nuclear energy – there are economics plusses and minuses for any energy source.

Electric companies have to balance the need to make money with the more important need of providing electricity to everyone regardless of financial wherewithal. Nuclear energy and coal have always provided a strong argument here – expensive fixed costs, very low variable costs. If nuclear has an edge over coal, it’s that it doesn’t produce carbon emissions.

---

To me, it is even more interesting that TVA continues to pursue economic development in the Tennessee Valley. This was one of its missions after its creation during the great depression and its seems only appropriate to build on its good work during the great recession:

In keeping with its economic development mission, TVA is enhancing the Valley Investment Initiative, an incentive program that rewards industries that commit to locate, stay and invest in the Valley region, Thomas said.

“Beginning in 2009, companies participating in the Valley Investment Initiative have announced five-year plans to invest a total of $8.2 billion in their operations, keep 55,000 jobs in the region and create another 17,000 jobs. Those jobs represent almost $16 billion in wages for Valley residents and communities.”

So if you have a business idea that requires a little light manufacturing, there you go. You provide the structure, TVA the infrastructure.

Watts Bar. Unit 1 has been on-line since 1996 and supplies electricity to about 750,000 people. Unit 2 is the one TVA will now be completing.

Read More

Governor Whitman Answers Greenpeace

A few days ago, we wrote about big tech companies moving their data centers to nuclear friendly states and getting some grief for it for not being “green” enough. I take no credit for the following, but it’s nice not to be talking in a vacuum.

This a letter to the editor of the New York Times commenting on the same topic (same article actually):

“Report Faults Online Services Over Reliance on Coal and Nuclear Power” (Business Day, April 18) discusses a Greenpeace report suggesting that emissions-free nuclear power and coal constitute “dirty energy.”

It’s true that by opening up new data centers in states like North Carolina, Virginia and Illinois, major Internet companies are using more nuclear energy — and at affordable prices. What’s untrue and insinuated in both your article and the Greenpeace report is that this reliance on nuclear somehow sullies a company’s environmental reputation, when nuclear is in fact playing an important role keeping the cloud clean.

Nuclear energy accounts for 70 percent of the clean electricity produced in the United States, and together with renewables like solar and wind is a vital part of any clean energy portfolio. Companies that rely on 24/7 baseload power to meet their electricity needs are contributing to emission-reduction goals by including nuclear in their energy mix.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Princeton, N.J., April 19, 2012

Ms. Whitman is former governor of New Jersey, EPA Administrator, and currently co-chair of the Clean and Safe (CASE) Energy Coalition.

---

That Greenpeace report stirred up some interest in finding out how Greenpeace is doing with its own cloud  - another way to say this is: Can Greenpeace avoid the world it lives in in order to claim the purity it demands of others. Answer: No, largely because such issues aren’t entirely in its control:

But Greenpeace also has a number of servers in a colocation center in northern Virginia. “They’re using whatever the grid mix is in Virginia,” said Cook, who added that the colo deal was arranged about five years ago. “At that point in time, there weren’t providers that met our requirements (for renewable energy). We’re in the process of reworking some of our IT infrastructure, and we’ll clean that up.”

Virginia’s mix: coal and nuclear, with some renewable energy, much the same as is being used by Google, Facebook and the rest. Cook is Gary Cook, a Climate Policy Advisor for the Greenpeace CoolIT Campaign. The line that interested me was “”at that point in time, there weren’t providers that met our requirements.” True, if you wanted to remain in a state with relatively light electricity charges – due to the presence, or course, of nuclear plants.

Credit due to Rich Tripp of Data Center Knowledge for a great article – do read the whole thing –but let’s give props to Gary Cook, too: he didn’t try to evade the fact that Greenpeace, much like the rest of us, has to deal with the world as it is rather than the world it’d prefer. Maybe Greenpeace can learn enough generosity to extend that view to the companies about which it writes reports.

It might happen. But:

Is Greenpeace holding Facebook to a higher standard than it applies to its own Internet operations? Cook says the data center industry’s largest power users have a higher obligation to use renewable energy to power their servers.

Neat argument. Okay for me, not for thee.

Christine Todd Whitman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Support Grows for Small Reactor Partnership in Missouri

Ameren Missouri and Westinghouse Electric Co. last week revealed a new partnership to compete for federal funds to develop and license a small reactor at the Callaway nuclear plant site in Missouri. The joint collaboration has the potential to open the doors for nuclear energy to play a more prominent role in the Midwestern state’s energy portfolio—a move that is being met with increasing enthusiasm by local leaders.

Given the previous challenges to new nuclear plant development in the state, it is exciting to see several notable people and institutions come forward to voice their support. Below is a sampling of some of the positive coverage we have come across so far.

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon on the day of the announcement:

Designing, developing and commercializing next-generation nuclear technology will create good jobs for Missourians, expand our global exports, and ensure that Missouri has affordable, abundant, safe and reliable power for generations to come.  Missouri offers Westinghouse an outstanding nuclear operator and workforce, world-class research universities, a strong foothold in the nuclear industry, and a central location to develop a worldwide manufacturing base. As Governor, I'm fully committed to working with Westinghouse, Ameren Missouri and all our electric energy providers to take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity.

The Joplin (Mo.) Globe in an editorial today:

We believe that spurring safe, economical, close to load power generation, while at the same time creating tens of thousands of good paying, stable jobs is a far better use of taxpayer funds than throwing hundreds of millions at politically connected Solyndras.
We applaud Nixon, Westinghouse, Ameren and the remaining utilities — including Joplin’s own Empire District — for joining forces on a practical energy plan for all Missourians.

The Columbia (Mo.) Daily Tribune in an editorial posted yesterday:

Westinghouse and Ameren seem to be the best applicants in the United States for this new smaller unit approach, which has political as well as scientific advantages. Chances are good the grants will come through and the demonstration project at Callaway will be built, but it will take time — as long as 10 years before power will be generated. As long as progress is made, all hands should stay hitched to the wagon. Callaway II can provide a host of good jobs during construction and forever after as clean power is generated.

The Jefferson City (Mo.) News in a positive editorial yesterday:

If all goes right, it still might take until 2022 before any possible new reactors would come online in Missouri. But the potential for energy, jobs and development is impossible to ignore.

There's no such thing as a sure thing. But this proposal is a great prospect given the two businesses' community history, a solid base of technology education, and a stable, willing work force.

The same newspaper also featured an article on how the partnership will benefit the University of Missouri’s Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute, which almost dismantled earlier this year due to a decision by the graduate school’s dean.

Sudarshan Loyalka, a curators' professor of nuclear engineering, said Ameren and Westinghouse's partnership should emphasize the need to strengthen NSEI rather than trying to start a completely new program.

"We do have a strong nuclear engineering program, and the program should be strengthened further with this opportunity," he said.

MU Chancellor Brady Deaton said after the announcement that he was still learning about the university's role. "We will be involved in the very beginning in the research and educational aspects of this," he said.

Local lawmakers, including State Sen. Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia) and State Rep. Mary Still (D-Columbia), agreed that the university will play a major support role in the project and has the potential to expand its research capabilities and boost its national profile in the area of nuclear science. To this point, Sen. Schaefer said:

This could make them the No. 1 research entity in the world based on their role in designing and training on these units.

While many state lawmakers, labor unions, local chambers of commerce, and others have come forward to show their support, there are still others that are skeptical of the project, demonstrating the need for continued dialogue and education on project’s benefits. However, given that members of both sides of the political aisle and groups who traditionally oppose each other were able to stand united during last' week’s announcement, it shows promise that Missourians are not ready to close the door on nuclear energy.

Photo: Image of the Westinghouse Small Modular Reactor design. To learn more about the reactor, see Westinghouse’s website.

Read More

Nuclear Energy Not Affected by French Election

We’ve followed the French election here a bit because we were interested to see whether challenger Francois Hollande would hold to his stand to close 30 nuclear plants – a promise he made to the Green party when it appeared he might need its help against incumbent Nicholas Sarkozy. He’d already broken away from his pledge, but let’s see how things are going.

In the round one voting, Sarkozy (conservative) won about 25% of the vote, Hollande (liberal) about 28% and Marine Le Pen (reactionary) about 20%. Le Pen and the other minor party candidates now drop out and it’s Sarkozy vs. Hollande on May 6.

Anyway, Hollande has backed away from his earlier negative view of nuclear energy (but see below – he’s basically returned to his original view):

He wants to reduce the share of nuclear energy in the power supply to 50% from 75% by 2025, and promises to close the ageing Fessenheim nuclear plant but complete work on the advanced Flamanville European pressurized reactor power station.

But by increasing renewable energy sources, not a wholesale reduction of the nuclear fleet.

And Sarkozy? From the same rundown:

Backs nuclear power but says renewable energy will make up 23% of power supply by 2020.

Guess we’ll have to wait a few years to see where the percentages land. Increasing energy diversity would be an advisable move – if France goes forward with renewable energy sources, as seems likely, it’s all good. For baseload energy, after all, it’s covered. All clear, all clean.

--

If you want a broader view of French politics and nuclear energy, check out this article from last year – dated but very good.

While François Hollande sees nuclear power as an important part of the future of France’s energy landscape, Martine Aubry has declared that “France’s energy change should be characterized by phasing out nuclear in 20 or 30 years’ time”. France’s future energy supply would mainly come from renewable energy sources and the respective domestic industry would be subsidized through eco-taxes.

This is from before the Socialist party primary, obviously, and Hollande and Aubry mark out different views that remain consistent with the socialist ideology. We may say that the primary answered the question of the article: “Will the nuclear debate determine the French presidential election?” The answer: Non.

Fessenheim.

Read More