ANS banner, donations support Fukushima workers

Posted on January 31, 2012 by pbowersox| Leave a comment

A banner signed by American Nuclear Society members during the society’s Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, signifies the support and encouragement of ANS membership for the people of Japan and the workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant who are rebuilding after the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.

In a letter to Eric Loewen, ANS president (page 1) (page 2), Tokyo Electric Power Company president Toshio Nishizawa thanked ANS for the banner and noted that donations totaling $240,000 have been collected through the ANS Japan Relief Fund to support the workers at the plant and their families. Nishizawa also noted that in December the Fukushima Daiichi plant was brought to a condition equivalent to “cold shutdown” and that it “entered into a new phase of mid- and long-term Roadmap for decommissioning of the reactors.”

Fukushima plant workers with ANS banner

 

Loewen said during the Winter Meeting, “We continue to honor the brave men and women of the Japanese nuclear community who are committed to the clean-up and rebuilding efforts after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. We want them to know that we recognize their dedication and hard work. To do this, we created a banner to be signed by meeting attendees who can personally send encouragement and best wishes to demonstrate our continued support. Our Japanese colleagues know they are remembered through our financial support and the banner message.”

 

Banner message in English and Japanese

 

At the 2011 ANS Winter Meeting: President Eric P. Loewen and Vice-President Michael Corradini. Flanking the ANS officers are Loewen’s son and daughter, Hans and Zatha

 

→ Leave a comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Earthquake, Fukushima, Meetings, Natural disasters

Ballot initiative to close California’s nuclear plants

Posted on January 30, 2012 by lscheele| 3 Comments

By Jim Hopf

There’s not much new happening in DC right at the moment, so this month I’ll discuss something that’s going on in the state of California. That is, a proposed ballot initiative to shut the two remaining nuclear power plants—the two-unit Diablo Canyon and the two-unit San Onofre—in the state.

The Initiative

The initiative proposal has been filed by Ben Davis, a delivery driver, self-taught legal professional, and long-time anti-nuclear activist who lives in Santa Cruz, Calif. He tried (unsuccessfully) to pass a similar initiative in 1988. More than 500,000 signatures are required by April 16 in order for the initiative to qualify for the November 2012 ballot.

The language of the initiative is similar to that of previous initiatives. It would require the state’s nuclear power plants to close until “there exists a demonstrated technology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.” The plants in question generate 16 percent of California’s electricity.

Response from Legislative Analyst

Like all of California’s legislation and ballot initiatives, this proposal was evaluated by the state’s legislative analyst, an objective, non-partisan office that is tasked with evaluating the impacts (economic impacts in particular) of all proposed policy initiatives. The analyst’s conclusions regarding this initiative were very strong, and almost entirely negative.

Diablo Canyon

The legislative analyst requested an evaluation of the impact of the plants’ closure on grid stability and reliability from the states independent system (grid) operator (ISO). The ISO stated that the plants’ closure “would reduce the capacity to deliver electricity in the Los Angeles Basin area to below state and local standards for reliability”, and that it would significantly increase the risk of rolling blackouts in the area.

The analyst went on to say that the plants’ closure could result in economic damages/costs of tens of billions of dollars to the state. These economic impacts would be due to:

  • Increased cost of power in the short term due to scarcity.
  • Economic costs due to blackouts and reduced reliability in the short term.
  • Loss of jobs and industries due to the above power cost and lack of reliability.
  • Higher power costs (and associated job losses) over the long term due to higher costs of replacement power sources.
  • Cost to the taxpayer from compensation that will have to be paid to the utilities.

Other Reactions

Probably due, in part, to the very negative conclusions of the non-partisan legislative analyst, the initiative has garnered little political support (from state newspapers, etc.). No major paper has taken a position in favor of the initiative, and many papers have come down strongly against it. Even the article about the initiative in the (formally anti-nuclear) LA Times took a negative tone, focusing primarily on the negative conclusions of the legislative analyst.

Most independent observers believe that the initiative has little chance of passing.

My Perspective

It’s clear that Mr. Davis is filing this initiative (again) in response to the event at the Fukushima plant in Japan last March. He believes that this will increase his chances of passing an initiative that he has failed to pass before.

Initiative’s Purpose?

I find it ironic, and telling, that the initiative itself does not talk about nuclear plant safety features at all, but instead only refers to the waste issue, even though it is trying to take advantage of Fukushima fears. It does not require the plants to install any safety upgrades (e.g., earthquake and/or tsunami defenses) as a condition for being allowed to operate. It only requires that the waste problem be resolved.

Perhaps this is because Mr. Davis knows that the waste requirement will not be met for decades, whereas the plants would be able to install any required safety improvements and restart. Thus, the waste requirements are better if your real goal is to permanently shut the plants. Perhaps the waste issue is the real reason Mr. Davis is opposed to nuclear power, and the initiative language reflects that. In any event, it seems clear that the initiative is trying to use the Fukushima event in pursuit of another agenda.

California Plants’ Safety

As for the actual safety of the California plants, it should be noted that the earthquake and tsunami risks at the California plant sites are nothing like those that existed for the Fukushima plant. The Diablo Canyon plant sits on a high bluff, 85 feet above the water. The San Onofre plant sits 50 feet above the water, with a 30-foot tsunami wall for additional protection. Thus, neither plant would have been inundated by a tsunami as high as the one that struck Fukushima. As for earthquakes, the California plants are actually designed to withstand ground acceleration levels roughly twice those that were experienced by the Fukushima plant.

In addition to the greater levels of protection (discussed above), the maximum earthquake and tsunami that could occur at the California plant sites is far smaller than that which occurred in northern Japan. The (thrust) type of fault that can produce earthquakes and tsunamis of that size does not exist near Southern California. Furthermore, California has relatively few off-shore fault lines that could produce tsunamis.

San Onofre

Finally, some of the issues and weaknesses that apply for the old boiling water reactor plants at Fukushima are less severe or not applicable to the more modern pressurized water reactor plants in California. On top of that, the U.S. plants had already made several safety and security upgrades in response to September 11, and will make further upgrades as a result of the lessons learned from Fukushima. All this adds up to a severe release risk that is much smaller than that which was present at Fukushima.

Economic Impacts of Plants’ Closure

I concur with the legislative analyst’s conclusions regarding the impact of closing California’s two nuclear plants, but I believe that they do not go far enough. I believe that there would be additional negative impacts that the analyst failed to mention, or clarify.

The analyst was right about the short term (scarcity) costs and blackout risks, but it failed to clarify the magnitude of the impact on long-term power costs. Continuing to operate an existing nuclear plant is extremely inexpensive, with going-forward operational costs of ~2 cents/kW-hr or less. Building and operating new natural gas and/or renewable generation (to replace the nuclear plants’ output) would be much more expensive. These costs will be passed down to consumers in the form of higher power costs, and tax bills related to compensation the state will have to pay the utilities (for forcing them to close perfectly good nuclear plants with decades of life left).

Whereas continued operation of the nuclear plants costs ~2 cents//kW-hr, construction and operation of renewable sources will cost ~10 cents/kW-hr or more, even before costs related to grid upgrades and fossil backup capacity are considered. New natural gas generation may cost somewhat less (6-7 cents/kW-hr) in theory, it may not be that simple in practice.

A RAND Corporation study was performed to evaluate the impact of California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard policies. The study concluded that the renewables could reduce overall energy costs even though their per kW-hr generation costs were higher than that of natural gas plants. The reasoning was that the cost of gas is very sensitive to the balance between supply and demand. Thus, any reduction in gas demand (for power generation) would result in a reduced cost for gas, which in turn would reduce the cost of the (remaining) gas-fired power generation, as well as the cost of all other applications that use gas (e.g., space heating, industrial use, etc.). Another argument they gave was that the gas pipelines into California were near their limit, and therefore any measure that would reduce or avoid any further increase in gas use could prevent a large cost associated with upgrading the pipeline infrastructure.

Well, what’s good for the goose (renewables) is good—or perhaps even better—for the gander (nuclear). If the two nuclear plants are shut down, most of the generation will be replaced by gas-fired generation. This will result in a significant increase in demand for natural gas in California, which will in turn measurably increase the price of gas. If the new level of gas demand is beyond the capacity of the existing gas pipeline infrastructure, the economic impacts will be even greater. This will have a significant effect on the overall economy.

Employment Impacts

The legislative analyst talked about job losses as a result of higher power costs and reduced reliability, and their impacts on electricity-using industries. They did not, however, sufficiently discuss employment impacts in the power generation sector itself.

The plants’ closure will have a significant, negative jobs impact, particularly in the local area around the plants. Any new gas or renewable generation used to replace the plants’ capacity will not create as many jobs as those lost at the plant; not in California, anyway.

Gas-fired power plants employ far fewer people, for a given level of capacity. Most of the cost of gas generation is in the fuel, and therefore many if not most of the jobs associated with gas generation are those associated with fuel extraction and transport. These jobs, however, occur elsewhere in the country, or in other nations.

A similar (jobs) situation exists for renewables. Most of the cost, and jobs, associated with renewable generation is in the fabrication of the wind turbines and solar panels, etc. Relatively few are employed at the generation site. Suffice it to say that such jobs are offshore-able (unlike the jobs at the nuclear plant). These components can be manufactured anywhere; in other states or even other countries. In fact, it is well known that most renewable component construction has been moving to China.

With nuclear power, on the other hand, most of the jobs are associated with on-site plant construction and plant operation, both of which occur in the local area. Nuclear plant jobs are not offshore-able. Local (or state) employment, per unit of generation, are much higher for nuclear than they would be for either gas or renewables.

Environmental Impacts

In addition to higher power costs, the retirement of California’s nuclear plants will have a significant negative impact on the environment and public health. In the short-term, the nuclear plants’ capacity will be replaced by firing up old, relatively dirty fossil (gas, and perhaps oil) fired power plants. These plants will emit significant amounts of CO2 and other harmful pollutants. Over the longer term, new and more efficient combined cycle gas plants may be constructed, but even those plants will emit significant amounts of CO2 and measurable amounts of air pollution. This will significantly impact California’s ability to meet its CO2 emissions reduction goals.

It is unlikely that the nuclear plants’ closure will result in a significant amount of additional renewable generation. This is because the amount of renewable generation that will be built in California is almost entirely governed by the state’s aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard requirements. Many, including myself, believe that the (33 percent) renewable generation goal is already unrealistic and impractical. Given this, it seems pretty clear that utilities will struggle to meet those requirements, and will not be building any renewable capacity beyond what is required by the policy. The closure of the nuclear plants will do nothing to change this. Getting one third of overall generation using intermittent sources is probably already beyond what can be done (practically, let alone economically). Even with the increased gas costs that occur as a result of the nuclear plants’ closure, it will not be economic to build renewable generation beyond the state’s requirements. Thus, it seems clear that most if not all of the generation used to replace the nuclear plants will be gas-fired.

Summary

The proposed initiative to close California’s nuclear power plants (until the nuclear waste problem is “solved”) is an attempt by a long-time anti-nuclear activist to take advantage of the Fukushima event to further a pre-existing agenda. It does not acknowledge the fact that overall risks, particularly risks associated with earthquake and tsunami, are much smaller for the California plants. The initiative does not even require, or refer to, plant safety upgrades to further reduce these vulnerabilities.

Closure of California’s nuclear plants would have very large negative economic impacts on the state, as well as significant negative impacts on public health and the environment (due to the firing up or construction of fossil fuel power plants for replacement power). Power costs will rise significantly, and taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars of utility compensation. Over the short term, grid reliability will suffer, and the risk of rolling blackouts will increase significantly. The plants’ closure will also result in the loss of thousands of non-offshore-able jobs in the local area. These job losses will not be offset by jobs associated with (gas or renewable) replacement generation. The plants’ closure will also make it much harder for California to meet its CO2 emissions reduction goals.

This initiative does not deserve serious consideration, let alone passage.  Fortunately, most experts believe its chances of passage are slim.

________________________________________

Hopf

Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in BWRs, Education, Electricity generating capacity, Fukushima, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Natural disasters, News, nuclear opponents, PWRs, spent fuel

89th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Posted on January 29, 2012 by dyurman| Leave a comment

The 89th Carnival of Nucler Energy Bloggers is up at Idaho Samizdat

This post is the collective voice of blogs with leading names that emerge each week to tell the story of nuclear energy.

If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

Past editions have been hosted at Yes Vermont Yankee,  Atomic Power Review, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Idaho Samizdat, NEI Nuclear Notes, and CoolHandNuke, as well as several other popular nuclear energy blogs.

The publication of the Carnival each week is part of a commitment by pro-nuclear bloggers in North America that we will speak with a collective voice on the issue of the value of nuclear energy. While we each have our own point of view, we agree that the promise of peaceful uses of the atom remains viable in our own time and for the future.

If you have a pro-nuclear energy blog, and would like to host an edition of the carnival, please contact Brian Wang at Next Big Future to get on the rotation.

This is a great collaborative effort that deserves your support. Please post a Tweet, a Facebook entry, or a link on your Web site or blog to support the carnival.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Carnival of nuclear bloggers, News

ANS statement on BRC’s final report

Posted on January 27, 2012 by pbowersox| Leave a comment

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future released its final report on Thursday, January 26. The report contains recommendations for a comprehensive U.S. strategy for managing spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.

Please click here for the American Nuclear Society‘s statement on the report.

__________________

→ Leave a comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, News, position statements, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

TVA’s countdown to MOX fuel

Posted on January 26, 2012 by dyurman| 3 Comments

The utility is assessing options to use it 

By Dan Yurman

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) could be one of the first nuclear utilities to accept mixed oxide fuel (MOX) from the Department of Energy (DOE) for use in its commercial nuclear reactors. The government is building a $4.8 billion factory in South Carolina that is scheduled to start producing MOX fuel assemblies by 2016 by blending weapons grade plutonium with uranium. The resulting fuel can be swapped out for regular uranium fuel.

The government’s nonproliferation objective is to get 34 tonnes of surplus weapons-grade plutonium out of circulation forever. TVA’s objective is to get nuclear fuel that will work safely in its reactors and at a competitive price.

TVA is a public power provider for a seven-state region serving nine million people. In 2010, 36 percent of its power generation came from nuclear energy. One element of its charter, which dates back to the New Deal programs between 1933 and 1936 of President Franklin Roosevelt, is to support national security missions. TVA built power plants to provide electricity for the Manhattan Project at Oak Ridge.

Today, it participates in the DOE’s nonproliferation efforts through the use of fuel made from blended down highly-enriched surplus uranium.

Evaluating the potential for MOX

Mick Mastilovic, TVA's manager of Nuclear Fuel Supply

Mick Mastilovic, TVA’s manager of Nuclear Fuel Supply, told ANS Nuclear Cafe in a telephone interview that the utility’s evaluation of the potential for using MOX fuel will primarily address safety as well as economics of using MOX relative to all uranium fuel. TVA has not yet made a decision to pursue MOX fuel licensing and implementation.

If TVA decides to use MOX, it could eventually replace up to 40 percent of the fuel assemblies in the cores of its Sequoyah and Browns Ferry reactors. The two Sequoyah reactors are pressurized water reactors with 193 fuel assemblies each. The three Browns Ferry reactors are boiling water reactors with 764 fuel assemblies each.

The DOE’s MOX plant is expected to produce the equivalent of 1,700 PWR assemblies to dispose of 34 tonnes of surplus plutonium. At a projected output rate of up to 70 metric tons heavy metal per year, the MOX facility may produce more fuel than TVA’s five reactors could consume.

The National Nuclear Security Administration and its contractor, Shaw Areva MOX Services, are working toward agreements to market additional MOX fuel through the fuel fabrication vendors operating in the United States: Areva, Westinghouse, and Global Nuclear Fuel Americas (GE-Hitachi).

TVA won’t start out at the 40-percent core replacement level. The initial replacement level for the reactors will be about 8 assemblies of MOX fuel. Ramp up time to the 40-percent level depends on the DOE’s production schedule, how well the MOX works, and cost factors, among others.

“There is nothing quick about the process, as we have many gates to go through before possible implementation,” Mastilovic said, adding, “For instance, in the best case, we don’t expect to be able to load MOX assemblies before 2018.”

Explaining MOX to the public

One of the challenges that TVA faces is that the public perceptions of using plutonium as fuel needs some explaining. TVA starts by describing that MOX is a mix of uranium and plutonium. MOX has about 4-percent plutonium oxide (of which 94 percent is Pu-239) and the rest is depleted uranium oxide.

Commercial nuclear fuel starts as uranium oxide. What many people do not know, Mastilovic said, is that plutonium is a normal byproduct in nuclear reactors that fission uranium.

Plutonium builds up in the fuel inside the reactors and eventually provides up to 40 percent of the core’s heat energy. Fission of plutonium produces this energy in the reactor at the end of the life of the fuel.

“We’re not introducing a new element to a core, plutonium is already there,” he said.

And he also noted that “we’re not changing the thermal output of the reactor.”

Mastilovic said that while Pu-239 is more energetic than U-235, “The license governs the use of MOX. Heat inside a core can be managed by blending different fuels just like mixing different types of wood in a fireplace.”

Oak Ridge National Laboratory data presented by TVA to the Nuclear Waste Technology Review Board show little difference in decay heat loads between used MOX fuel and normal non-MOX fuel.

“Thus the difference in heat load between used MOX and used uranium oxide fuel can be accommodated in spent fuel pool cooling or space requirements and in dry cask thermal design,” Mastilovic said.

Next steps

Overall, with TVA support as a cooperating agency, the DOE is on track to complete a supplemental environmental impact statement for MOX fuel use that will assess safety for workers, the public, and the environment. TVA’s public affairs office told ANS Nuclear Cafe that the MOX program will proceed in phases with multiple opportunities for public input.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses for all the reactors that are candidates to use MOX will have to be updated to address physical operating differences and any changes in safety requirements. Technically, at this point, TVA believes that the physical modifications needed for each reactor are manageable. Also, TVA expects the DOE’s MOX to cost less than uranium fuel.

A decision to proceed with engineering and licensing is currently expected to be made in 2013.

_____________

Yurman

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy, and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in BWRs, Department of Energy, licensing, MOX Fuel, National Laboratories, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, PWRs, reactor designs, Tennessee Valley Authority

Nuclear Science Day Photos

Posted on January 25, 2012 by pbowersox| Leave a comment

Nuclear Science Day, January 25 2012, at the Illinois Institute of Technology, truly was a resounding success!  A huge thank you to the students, teachers, organizers, sponsors and world-class nuclear engineers and scientists who made today’s scientific celebration such a great event.  And National Nuclear Science Week continues!  A few photos from today:

 

Mark Peters, Justin Thomas, Argonne National Laboratory

ANS President Eric Loewen

National Museum of Nuclear Science & History Director Jim Walther

Walther and Indy Racer Simona de Silvestro

 

→ Leave a comment

Posted in News

Excelsior College ‘Women in Nuclear’ webinar tonight at 7 pm ET

Posted on January 25, 2012 by lscheele| Leave a comment

To round out National Nuclear Science Day, Excelsior College is hosting a webinar entitled Women in Nuclear: Professional Organizations and Career Advancement. The event is part of Excelsior College’s School of Business & Technology’s “Women in Technology” campaign.

The webinar panel is addressing a number of issues, including:

  • What is the nature of the technological “Glass Maze”
  • The current state of women in the nuclear field
  • The role of professional organizations in furthering career development and advancement for women
  • The benefits of memberships in nuclear and technological professional organizations
  • The impact of voluntary support coalitions on leveling the playing field
  • Where the nuclear industry is headed over the next decade

The panel features  Coleen Ware, training director with the Tennessee Valley Authority; Erin West, licensing supervisor, Tennessee Valley Authority; Professional Development chair, NA-YGN; and Margaret Harding, one of ANS’s national spokespersons during the Fukushima nuclear crisis this past March and a contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe. Jane LeClair, Dean of the School of Business & Technology, Excelsior College , is moderating the discussion.

Visit the Excelsior College events weblink  for more information—including how to register. The discussion is scheduled to run from 7:00 to 8:00 pm Eastern Time.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, ANS Student Sections, National Nuclear Science Week, workforce

Today is National Nuclear Science Day!

Posted on January 25, 2012 by lscheele| Leave a comment

Today is National Nuclear Science Day, an event celebrating nuclear science and technology. The American Nuclear Society is proud to be a sponsor of this full-day event at the Illinois Institute of Technology that features world-class nuclear experts in many fields of nuclear science and technology. The experts, during presentations during the day, are explaining what nuclear is all about during live internet webinars and question-and-answer sessions for students in grades 5-12 (and other interested parties).

You can register for the webinars by visiting the National Science Teachers Association Learning Center—a great all-around resource for science learning). The webinar is open to the public (free registration is required).

For details on the Nuclear Science Day agenda, the presenters, and all the day’s information, check out the Nuclear Science Day Press Release. About 1,000 classrooms are viewing the webcast throughout the day—representing more than 20,000 students and teachers across the United States.

Loewen

ANS President Eric Loewen spoke to students from six area high schools about nuclear careers. His presentation began at 1:00 pm Central Time and was  live-tweeted at ans_org using the twitter hashtag #NNSW12.

Don’t forget to check back at the ANS Nuclear Cafe for live reports!

→ Leave a comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Education, lessons learned, Meetings, National Nuclear Science Week, Nuclear Advocacy Network, Nuclear Energy Narrative, Nuclear Literacy Project

Why I chose a nuclear career: video interviews

Posted on January 24, 2012 by pbowersox| Leave a comment

Today is designated Careers in the Nuclear Fields Day for National Nuclear Science Week! To kick off Nuclear Careers Day, several Chicago ANS Local Section members participated in video interviews to share what fascinates and excites them about their nuclear careers.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Careers, Local Sections, National Laboratories, National Nuclear Science Week, Nuclear events, Science & Engineering Education

Explore a Great Career in Nuclear Energy

Posted on January 24, 2012 by lscheele| 2 Comments

By John Wheeler

What better way to celebrate National Nuclear Science Week than to acknowledge amazing career opportunities that exist for people interested in joining the nuclear renaissance. If you are a middle or high school student (or are the parent of one) considering college alternatives, you would be hard pressed to find a better investment than earning an associates or bachelors degree in nuclear-related science, engineering, or technology.

Opportunities for entry level positions have not been this rich at any time during the past three decades, and the nuclear industry is partnering with many schools to ensure graduates have the knowledge and skill for success as power plant engineers, operators, and technicians. Because of a combination of national and international trends, there have never been more opportunities for young people to begin careers in the nuclear industry.

About 120,000 people are currently employed in the U.S. nuclear industry. Over the next several years, many of these workers will retire. As a result, the industry will need to hire more than 25,000 new employees just to maintain the existing workforce. The economic slowdown  over the past few years has caused many workers to delay their retirement.

Today retirements are once again on the rise because 401K balances have recovered and workers have earned additional credits in pension plans. For example, in 2011 about 2,000 workers retired from the 104 operating nuclear plants in the United States, prompting many utilities to increase hiring. Four new nuclear plants being built in Georgia and South Carolina will each add up to 2,400 workers during construction, plus 400 to 700 permanent jobs when each is operating. In addition, the nuclear industry is booming overseas with more than 60 plants under construction around the world and many more planned. All of this means ample opportunities for rewarding careers in many nuclear related fields.

The industry hires almost every type of engineer, not just nuclear engineers. The most common are mechanical, electrical, civil, and power systems engineers. Since there are engineering colleges and universities in every state that offer one or more of these degree programs, opportunities are plentiful. Earning a bachelors degree in these engineering majors opens the door to an entry-level engineer position with a starting salary of approximately $60,000 to $65,000.

Some of the positions in greatest demand at nuclear plants are power plant operators and technicians. These opportunities generally require an associate’s degree or equivalent training. Starting salaries range from around $45,000 per year to about $50,000. As workers gain experience, salaries can rise $20,000 or higher to an average of $65,000 to $70,000, and overtime pay often adds thousands more to annual income.

In the past, finding a college that offered education courses for future operators and technicians could be difficult, but this is no longer the case. Several years ago the industry began working with colleges across the United States to create new degree programs. Today there are more than 40 community colleges around the U.S. offering what is known as the Nuclear Uniform Curriculum (NUCP). The NUCP is a standardized associates degree program that prepares students for careers as nuclear operators and technicians. Students who earn a B grade or better in their core courses are awarded a transferable certificate that is recognized at all 104 nuclear plants.

For workers interested in advancing into leadership roles, these positions in engineering, operations, and other technical fields are excellent starting points for future management positions.

According to the College Board, the national average for community college tuition and fees is about $3,000 per year. Thus, for about $6,000 a student with a solid math and science background can attend an NUCP school for two years and earn an associates degree and a transferable credential. This would qualify them for an entry-level position as an operator or technician earning a starting salary of $45,000 to $50,000. This is certainly one of the greatest deals in education today!

More information on careers in the nuclear industry is available from the American Nuclear Society, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and at Get Into Energy.

__________________________________

Wheeler

John Wheeler is the Workforce Planning Manager for Entergy. He also is an American Nuclear Society member and, separately, is the producer of This Week in Nuclear, a podcast and blog about the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.


→ 2 Comments

Posted in Careers, National Nuclear Science Week, workforce

Priorities for 2012 in Vermont Politics

Posted on January 24, 2012 by lscheele| Leave a comment

By Howard Shaffer

Vermont’s “Citizen Legislature” meets from January to May/June. During this term, the major issue is Hurricane Irene and its aftermath. The hurricane caused major devastation, but, thankfully, few lives were lost.

Vermont’s geography of steep mountains and narrow valleys makes heavy rains destructive. Many roads and bridges were washed out during the hurricane.  Homes, trailers, and propane tanks were carried away. Rivers changed courses, which changed some property lines. A few town halls and their records were flooded. Federal disaster assistance and private help were provided. Heroic efforts by citizens restored the roads and bridges by winter, and the economy picked up. Governor Peter Shumlin rightfully acknowledged these efforts in his Vermont State of the State speech.

The Legislature and Governor

Shumlin

The governor is working with a legislature dominated by his Democratic party, 22 to 8 in the Senate and 102 to 48 in the House. In the 2010 election, he credited 14 percent of his vote to the anti-nuclear power/Vermont Yankee vote, in his slim victory margin. An Associated Press local writer wrote a January 17  article “Vermont Settles in To One-Party Government.”

With all the major issues the legislature must face, and with the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant’s fate in the hands of the federal courts, it might be thought that there would be no time to devote to the “Great Anti-Nuclear Crusade,” local version. Not a chance of that happening in Vermont, however.

Another Lawsuit

The two privately-owned electric utilities in Vermont that are purchasing power from Vermont Yankee are now suing the plant for their extra costs. They claim reimbursement for the replacement power they had to purchase when the plant had to reduce power in 2007 and 2008. One cell in one of two eleven-cell forced draft towers collapsed, and the next year there was a problem with areas that had been repaired.

Vermont Yankee, with the forced draft cooling towers in the foreground.

Apparently, these two companies had no insurance for power lost in these events, nor did their contracts with Vermont Yankee call for reimbursement. The companies say that the contracts did call for “good utility practice.” There was no report of negotiations, or if there is a statute of limitations.

In a change in course, the local AP writer’s story on this lawsuit described how the towers work, and how they use river water. The story finally reports that the infamous picture of the collapsed cell, with water pouring on the debris from the collapse, was leaked to the New England Coalition, an opponent of the plant. The coalition passed the picture to the media, and it is on the internet and used nationally in articles about Vermont Yankee. The plant’s opponents trot it out at every opportunity, and use it in their literature, trumpeting the dangers of nuclear power.

Keeping the Money Flowing

In order to store used fuel in dry casks on its site, Vermont Yankee had to apply to the state’s Public Service Board for a Certificate of Public Good. In the Memorandum of Understanding signed to obtain the certificate, the plant agreed to contribute to the state’s Clean Energy Development Fund. Per the memorandum, the contribution will stop on the date when the plant’s original 40-year license, now extended for 20 years, ends.

Dry cask storage

A new revenue stream is needed. Bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate to tax the used fuel from nuclear power plants stored in the state. Vermont Yankee is the only nuclear plant in the state, and the representative introducing the bill, who chairs the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, is an ardent anti-nuke. It is not likely that he is contemplating any more nuclear plants in the state. If the tax targeted just one entity, however, it is believed it would be found illegally discriminatory.

The House version calls for an annual $2 million per dry cask. It also calls for an equivalent tax on the fuel in the storage pool, determined by a formula. This formula appears to have been originated by someone with limited knowledge of the plant and fuel details, and it is incorrect. It says to “divide $2 million by the volume of a dry cask and multiply by 50 percent.” The text implies this figure would be used to apportion the volume of used fuel in the pool (i.e. multiply by), but this is not in the formula. Engineers would use a logical per fuel assembly basis to easily achieve a correct answer.

Re-greening the Green Mountain State

The House bill taxing used fuel also initiates a “Postclosure Funding Tax” of $25 million per year. This tax starts when the bill becomes law. The purpose of the fund is to restore nuclear plant sites, which are “well-suited for electric generation and transmission” to “greenfield” condition, “without a long delay.” Greenfield is defined as “removal of all above- and below-grade structures, equipment, and foundations.”

The bill assumes decommissioning as required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will take place first. It prohibits use of the funds for decommissioning unless all other funds have been exhausted. Just as with decommissioning, funds reimburse activities completed. The fund draws interest, and excess funds are returned to the owners. The tax stops when the Public Service Board determines that greenfield conditions have been met.

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit and the tax bill fare.

Meanwhile the Vermont Yankee plant has been operating very well.

___________________________________

Shaffer

Howard Shaffer has been an ANS member for 35 years. He has contributed to ASME and ANS Standards committees, ANS committees, national meeting staffs, and his local section, and was the 2001 ANS Congressional Fellow. He is a current member of the ANS Public Information Committee and consults in nuclear public outreach. 

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project.  Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in accident, BWRs, cooling towers, Electricity generating capacity, engineering, Entergy, Fellows, financing, lawsuit, lessons learned, Natural disasters, nuclear opponents, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reactor designs, spent fuel, View from Vermont

Small Modular Reactors on Military Installations?

Posted on January 23, 2012 by rmichal| 1 Comment

By William J. Barattino

(This article summarizes a paper presented by the author at the ASME 2011 Small Modular Reactors Symposium)

Federal agencies have been directed by public laws and executive orders to reduce energy consumption, increase usage of clean energy sources, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is working with the U.S. Department of Energy to develop a long-term strategy to embrace and implement these directives for military installations that includes small modular reactors (SMRs) in the mix of clean energy technologies. This blog post provides an initial assessment of the market size of SMRs on U.S. Army installations located in the United States that includes background factors driving the shift to clean energy sources; characterization of energy consumption and costs for Army installations; maximum overnight costs for breakeven based on offsets of current base electricity costs; and reductions in GHGs with use of SMRs.

The DOD is moving toward “NetZero” energy installations serviced by utility sources that are secure, reliable, and cost effective. NetZero energy implies power systems located within the boundaries of a military installation (or possibly on federal land to service a number of agencies within a region) for providing secure and uninterruptable power supplies for mission-critical base facility energy requirements.

Contractual processes for implementing new energy reduction, monitoring, and production for servicing base energy requirements are already used extensively by the DOD. Details of contract types differ, but are similar from the context that benefits (or savings) of an alternative must exceed costs over the system lifecycle. The good news here is that implementing contracts for cost-effective, alternatives requiring public-private relationships for servicing energy consumption on military installations is routine today.

Eighty installations were considered with peak power ranging from 0.6 to 132 MWe (the majority in the 1 to 75 MWe range). Installation energy consumption and cost data are recorded in the U.S. Army Energy and Water Reporting System, an on-line data reporting system with monthly inputs provided by base engineers.

Total energy consumption cost was $855.8M during fiscal year 2010. Of this total, $573M representing two-thirds of total cost was for electricity; and $282.8M representing one-third of total cost was for industrial processes. Hawaii has the highest yearly electricity cost of nearly $49 million per year due to its extremely high cost of 20.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, whereas the average cost of electricity for the entire set of 80 installations is 7.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. While SMRs can operate in a co-generation mode, the higher relative cost of electricity led to the conclusion that the primary focus should be for electricity production from a cost efficiency perspective.

After characterizing energy usage and costs, an economic assessment was conducted of projected cost savings that an SMR must remain below for its lifecycle costs to be competitive with displaced fossil fuel. The revenue stream to offset expenses was represented by the monthly cost of electricity of $2.7 million. Costs for site preparation, manufacturing, and construction were expensed as monthly construction loan payments over years 6 through 10 with a 4 percent cost of capital. For this scenario, the manufacturing and construction (i.e., overnight) cost of $1420 per KWe was required to meet our target goal of return-on-investment>10 percent.  With a yearly cost escalation of 3-5 percent for electricity, the allowable overnight costs for breakeven increased to $3000-4000 per KWe. These preliminary analyses led to the conclusion that the DOD requires an energy business model that reconciles operational importance with cost. In other words, the principle of a “secure energy premium” will be required to balance energy-assurance-with-affordability.

Dramatic reductions in current base GHGs are realized with use of clean energy technologies. Nuclear energy for electricity results in a significant reduction of nearly 76 percent in GHGs averaged for all Army installations in the United States. When the SMRs are also used in a co-generation mode, GHGs are reduced by more than 96 percent.              

Clearly, much work remains to accurately quantify the upfront and recurring expenses for SMR systems on military bases. This analysis provided an initial assessment as to whether SMR system lifecycle costs can compete with existing installation electricity costs. There is a high potential for moving forward with alternatives that demonstrate lower system cost, enhance security, and reduce GHGs. The more challenging cases, however, will be for installations where the SMR lifecycle cost is somewhat higher than continued use of fossil fuels, but enables secure NetZero energy with significantly lower GHG emissions.

In summary, this first look at SMRs on military installations is encouraging from a number of perspectives and should lead to further evaluation of this sector. The Army Corps of Engineers has successfully operated small nuclear reactors for remote sites on a very small scale from 1954 through 1979. So, location of SMRs on bases is not a new, untried concept. It will require, however, renewed commitment and revitalization of an industrial base that the United States once had, but must re-establish.

______________________

Barattino

William J. Barattino is the chief executive officer at Global Broadband Solutions, LLC. He has more than 30 years experience in program management and systems engineering and integration for telecommunications, space systems, lasers, imaging, facilities engineering, and applied mechanics. He is an ANS member and a guest contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Economic benefits of nuclear, Electricity generating capacity, engineering, National Laboratories, News, physics, reactor designs, Small modular reactors

88th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Posted on January 23, 2012 by dyurman| Leave a comment

The 88th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Next Big Future.

Tag Cloud for Next Big Future

This post is the collective voice of blogs with legendary names which emerge each week to tell the story of nuclear energy.

If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

Past editions have been hosted at Yes Vermont Yankee,  Atomic Power Review, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Idaho Samizdat, NEI Nuclear Notes, and CoolHandNuke, as well as several other popular nuclear energy blogs.

The publication of the Carnival each week is part of a commitment by the leading pro-nuclear bloggers in North America that we will speak with a collective voice on the issue of the value of nuclear energy. While we each have our own point of view, we agree that the promise of peaceful uses of the atom remains viable in our own time and for the future.

If you have a pro-nuclear energy blog, and would like to host an edition of the carnival, please contact Brian Wang at Next Big Future to get on the rotation.

This is a great collaborative effort that deserves your support. Please post a Tweet, a Facebook entry, or a link on your Web site or blog to support the carnival.

# # #

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Carnival of nuclear bloggers, News

A win for Vermont Yankee

Posted on January 20, 2012 by dyurman| 3 Comments

Federal District Court rules against efforts by the State of Vermont to assert regulatory authority over radiological safety issues

By Dan Yurman

Efforts by the State of Vermont to regulate a nuclear reactor within its borders were struck down on January 19 by U.S. District Court Judge J. Gavan Murtha in Brattleboro, Vt. Murtha ruled in three instances against the state, which had sought to shut down Entergy’s (NYSE:ETR) Vermont Yankee reactor, located on the banks of the Connecticut River.

Murtha’s ruling follows a three-day trial last September. The decision was fast tracked to insure it would be handed down prior to the expiration of the current license on March 12, 2012.

Murtha wrote in his 102-page decision that the State of Vermont could not use the legislature’s refusal to issue a Certificate of Public Good as a basis to force the reactor to shut down. He said that state law is preempted by the Atomic Energy Act, which assigns radiological safety regulation to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The judge emphasized that the legislature was focused on “radiological safety concerns” that are the province of the NRC.

A second item in the judge’s ruling enjoined the State of Vermont from using its assertion that it has authority over management of spent fuel at the site as a means to force the plant to shut down.

Finally, the judge said that the legislation could not make a condition of continued operation contingent on the existence of a below-wholesale-market power purchase agreement between Plaintiffs and Vermont utilities, or requiring Vermont Yankee to sell power to Vermont utilities.

Immediate and irreparable harm

“The harm to the public interest from even a temporary shutdown of the Vermont Yankee Station would be significant, immediate, and irreparable,” the judge wrote.

Entergy claimed in its filing with the court that the state’s plans to shut down the reactor would cause the utility to lose highly trained employees, cost jobs both at the plant and in the community, make the electric grid in New England less reliable, force electricity prices to rise, increase greenhouse gas emissions, and hurt state tax revenues.

Vermont likely to appeal ruling

The court ruling will likely be appealed by the State of Vermont to the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in New York, but in the meantime, the reactor will continue to operate and supply electricity to Vermont ratepayers.

The 605-MW plant provides about one-third of the electricity used in Vermont.  Rates for electricity in Vermont are significantly lower than in surrounding states due to the low cost of producing it by the reactor.

Vermont Gov Peter Shumlin

Despite the economic advantages the plant provides, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin said in a statement he was “disappointed” with the ruling.

“I continue to believe that it is in Vermont’s best interests to retire the plant,” he said.

Entergy said in a statement issued by its corporate offices that “the ruling is good news.”

Background to litigation

Vermont has  attempted to assert regulatory authority over reactor operations, management of spent fuel, and to attempt to use economic leverage on rates as a contingency for allowing the plant to stay open.

The NRC granted a 20-year extension to Vermont Yankee’s initial 40-year license in March 2011. Vermont’s State Senate had previously voted in 2010 by 26-4 against allowing the Vermont Public Service Board to issue a Certificate of Public Good. There was no corresponding vote in the State House.

The vote against the plant came following a low point for the reactor. Entergy’s plant managers in testimony before a legislative committee said that the reactor did not have underground pipes that carried tritium.

It was later found that not only did the plant have the pipes, but that they were leaking tritium into the ground within the plant boundaries. The amounts turned out not to be a threat to public health and safety, but the damage was done to the company’s credibility.

The ruling in Vermont is significant elsewhere as neighboring New York state has been trying to shut down the two operating reactors at Entergy’s Indian Point power station. Reactor relicensing actions are pending with the NRC.

______________

________________________

Yurman

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, BWRs, Entergy, lawsuit, licensing, News, nuclear opponents, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, reactor designs, spent fuel, View from Vermont

Full agenda for National Nuclear Science Week 2012

Posted on January 20, 2012 by lscheele| Leave a comment

National Nuclear Science Week—a week-long celebration to focus local, regional, and national interest on all aspects of nuclear science—has nearly arrived! On January 23-27, events and activities will be held across the United States to recognize the benefits of nuclear science and technology and to introduce the next generation of  scientists and engineers to the applications of nuclear technologies to everyday life. The National Nuclear Science Week website serves as the clearinghouse for next week’s activities and is chock-full of great ideas for  how to learn, teach, and celebrate nuclear science and technology.

North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) recently held its 13th Annual “Roddy Nuclear” Drawing contest all over North America. Roddy Nuclear is a nuclear fuel pellet cartoon character who can fit into the palm of a child’s hand. Roddy provides as much energy as almost two-thousand pounds of coal and 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Check out the finalists at the Clean Air Energy blogsite—the winners will be announced during National Nuclear Science Week.

Tuesday, January 27, has been designated “Careers in Nuclear” Day. From technologists to engineers, radiologists to doctors of nuclear medicine, there are many fields associated with nuclear science. On January 27, a video featuring conversations with individual members of the Chicago ANS Local Section about why they were drawn to nuclear science and the fascinating aspects of nuclear careers will be featured on the ANS Nuclear Cafe. Below is a nuclear careers video currently featured on the aboutnuclear.org careers page—and don’t forget to check out the nuclear careers materials at the ANS website.

Loewen

The American Nuclear Society is proud to be a sponsor of Nuclear Science Day at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), on Wednesday, January 25. This full-day event features world-class nuclear experts in many fields of nuclear science and technology, explaining what it’s all about in live internet webinars and question-and-answer sessions for grades 5-12 (and other interested parties). ANS President Eric Loewen will participate and speak to students from six area high schools about nuclear careers. His presentation will be live-tweeted using the twitter hashtag #NNSW12.

To register for the webcasts, just visit the National Science Teachers Association Learning Center (a great all-around resource for science learning). For details on the Nuclear Science Day agenda, presenters, and all the information, check the Nuclear Science Day Press Release. About 1,000 classrooms will view the webcast throughout the day—representing more than 20,000 students and teachers across the United States.

If you can attend Nuclear Science Day at IIT in person on January 25, please come on out. Artistic individuals can peruse the latest in beautiful nuclear art that will be on display courtesy of Suzy Hobbs Baker of PopAtomic Studios. And for those who live in the fast lane—stop by to say hello to Simona de Silvestro (right), champion Indycar racer and 2010 Indy Rookie of the Year, and ask if you can take a spin in her Nuclear Clean Air Energy car #78!

 

The evening of January 25 will feature a National Nuclear Science Day webinar hosted by Excelsior College titled Women in Nuclear: Professional Organizations and Career Advancement. The event is part of Excelsior College’s School of Business & Technology’s “Women in Technology” campaign and will feature representatives from the Tennessee Valley Authority and NA-YGN, as well as Margaret Harding, one of ANS’s leading spokespersons during the Fukushima nuclear crisis this past March and a contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.  Visit the weblink above for more information, including how to register.

Are you participating in a National Nuclear Science Week event that is not mentioned here? Please add a comment and let us know. ANS members, don’t forget to report your efforts using the online form at the ANS website. Keep up-to-date on events and activities throughout National Nuclear Science Week by visiting the ANS Nuclear Cafe, the ANS Facebook page, and the ANS website, and by following ANS on Twitter.

 

→ Leave a comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Careers, Education, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, knowledge transfer, National Nuclear Science Week, News, physics, Science & Engineering Education, Tennessee Valley Authority