ANS Nuclear Cafe

Update on India’s civilian nuclear energy program

Posted on May 17, 2012 by dyurman| Leave a comment

The nation continues to chart an independent course

By Dan Yurman

According to research compiled by the World Nuclear Association, India expects to have 20 GWe nuclear capacity on line by 2020 and 63 GWe by 2032.

It aims to supply 25 percent of electricity from nuclear power by 2050. That’s an ambitious program. Getting there won’t be easy.

Whether or not U.S. firms, including small modular reactor vendors, will have any access to the Indian market remains an open question. Here are a few updates about progress, and setbacks, along the way.

First fuel loading at Kundankulam

Despite eight months of tumultuous anti-nuclear protests in India, in March the provincial government of Tamil Nadu came out in favor of starting the two Russian built 1000-MW VVER reactors at Kudankulam. Local government officials weighed in on the side of alleviating chronic electricity shortages in the region.

This week, India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory Board gave its approval for loading real fuel in the first unit. Following a 20-day startup period, the reactor will achieve criticality and begin generating electricity on the grid.

Indian Minister of State V. Narayanasmay, in the prime minister’s office, said that the decision for hot start was made following a special review by an independent team of 13 scientists and engineers.

The second nuclear unit is nearing completion. Narayanasmay said that 95 percent of the work is done and that the reactor could be commissioned later this year.

NPCIL to proceed with Kovvada plant

With ducks in a row at Kundankulam, Nuclear Power of India Limited (NPCIL) is planning to move ahead with development of a 10-GWe power station at Kovvada Matsyalasem in Ranasthalam. Construction of the first two units could start as early as 2014.

Indian government authorities have learned a thing or two from the protests at Kudankulam and also Jaitapur. At Kovvada, they are working hard to address land compensation issues for displaced farmers. This has turned out to be a crucial issue to promote local acceptance of the power stations.

Aluminum plant drives demand for new reactors

The completion of two 700-MW indigenous design PHWR reactors at the Kakarapar Atomic Power Station in Gujarat is the basis for a new collaboration between NPCIL and Nalco, the state-owned aluminum company. The two units under construction are a joint venture and the two firms are now in talks for a new round of reactors.

If the new deal goes through, NPCIL would have a 51-percent stake and Nalco a 49-percent stake. Options being considered include sites to support 1500-MW at West Bengal, Odisha, or Rajasthan.

Nalco’s plan is to diversify to become an independent power producer. Its aluminum and other non-ferrous metal smelters consume huge amounts of electricity, hence its investments in current and new nuclear reactors.

Passing the torch

Ratan Kumar Sinha

Ratan Kumar Sinha, director of the Bbabha Atomic Research Center (BARC), took over the first week of May as chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission from Srikumar Banerjee, who retired after 45 years of service.

Sinha has worked extensively on advanced reactor designs as well as on development of small modular reactors for remote areas of India that are not connected to the national grid. He first joined BARC in 1973.

In response to questions from the Indian news media about protests at Kudankulam and Jaitapur, Sinha said, “My priority will be removing irrational fear about radiation from people’s minds. Nuclear energy will have a larger role for India’s growth.”

He added that the benefits of electricity from nuclear energy will be power for economic development and desalinization processes to increase supplies of potable drinking water.

In a ceremony marking the changing of the guard, Banerjee said that India could now deliver its 700-MW PHWR reactors at the equivalent of $1700/Kw. He said that by comparison, international vendors working on Indian projects were coming in at $3000/Kw for a 1000-MW unit.

Banerjee also said that Larson & Tubro would soon be making reactor pressure vessels at its Hazira plant.

He closed by saying that despite Fukushima fears that caused other nations to shut down their nuclear reactors, India is building more of them.

“After Fukushima, we received expressions of interest from Haryana, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh to set up nuclear power plants. We will do all of them,” Banerjee said.

U.S firms remain locked out of India’s market

The landmark civil nuclear agreement signed in 2008 between the United States and India was supposed to open the door for U.S. firms to compete for up to $150 billion in new nuclear reactor business. It hasn’t worked out that way. The two countries continue to have differences, expressed through diplomatic channels, over the issue of liability in the event of an accident.

A series of high-level consultations, including a direct discussion between U.S. President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last November, have yielded little progress on the subject. Since then, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited India to address the issue, but without effect.

So far, no U.S. firm is involved in any of the planned 39 new reactors (45 GWe) that are on the books.

In early May, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner met with Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee in Washington, DC, to complain about “dampened enthusiasm” by U.S. firms related to India’s investment climate.

Ron Somers, a spokesman for the U.S. India Business Council, complained publicaly at the time of the Mukherjee’s visit by saying that “it is harder to do business there,” referring to restrictions that the Indian government has put on U.S. firms trying to enter its markets.

Somers warned about protectionist actions by several provincial governments favoring local manufacturing of electronics and their failure to protect patents by allowing generic manufacturing of pharmaceuticals.

In addition to the nuclear liability issue, India has raised issues with the United States about reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and whether U.S. firms can have the lead in an equity relationship with NPCIL for any new reactor sites. All of these actions add up to a continuing lock out of U.S. firms from India’s civilian nuclear energy markets.

Liability law a two-edged saw

It appears U.S. firms are not alone in their concerns about India’s nuclear liability law. Indian vendors providing components for new nuclear reactors to NPCIL have privately complained that insurance companies are now denying the coverage because of it.

The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce (FICCI), speaking collectively on behalf of members, wrote a letter to the prime minister’s office in early May saying that the law places them in jeopardy of “unlimited liability.”

FICCI said that it wants a turnover of liability to the reactor operators—NPCIL and its equity partners—for components five years after installation.

Japan sets conditions for nuclear technology

Japan’s heavy industries, including Hitachi and Mitsubishi, have marketing strategies that cover penetration of India’s civilian nuclear energy market estimated to be worth $150 billion over the next two decades.

India has indicated it wants access to Japan’s nuclear energy expertise. If it sounds like a case of full speed ahead, wait, because there is a major pothole in the road.

Japan said on May 1 that it wants India to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). For its part, India has said that it feels its commitment to the principles of nonproliferation make the signature a non-event. Actually there are strategic reasons why India won’t sign, which have to do with Pakistan—which also has not signed the NPT.

India’s External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007, “If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment.”

Koichiro Gemba

The issue of India’s position on the NPT relative to Japan was kicked into high gear in early May by the visit of Koichiro Gemba, Japan’s minister of Foreign Affairs, who met with India’s Minister of External Affairs S.M. Krishna.

This isn’t a new issue for either country. Japan wants to do business, but it also wants the formal NPT to guarantee that its technology won’t be used for weapons work.

Gemba said that Japan wants India to sign the NPT as proof it will not engage in any further nuclear weapons testing. India isn’t willing to make that commitment. Its future relations with the Nuclear Suppliers Group rests in part on how this issue is viewed by its members.

India needs Japanese nuclear technology and parts, especially reactor pressure vessels. While India is building a factory to make them, production is a few years away. In the meantime, Japan holds a virtual monopoly on these components through Japan Steel Works.

If the two countries can’t work out their differences, it could impact not only India’s construction of its 700-MW PHWRs, but also Areva EPRs. The Russians supply their own pressure vessels and would not be impacted by an impasse.

__________________

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

→ Leave a comment

Posted in News

Spent fuel at Fukushima Daiichi safer than asserted

Posted on May 16, 2012 by pbowersox| 23 Comments

By Will Davis

In recent days, a number of articles have been printed that assert that a grave danger exists at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear generating station. These articles claim that this danger exists due to the condition of the spent nuclear fuel at the site and the supposedly shaky condition of its storage and care. Two examples:

“The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Is Far From Over” by Robert Alvarez

“Fukushima Daiichi Site: Cesium-137 is 85 times greater than at Chernobyl Accident” by Akio Matsumura

These articles are highly deceptive. The occurrence of a cataclysmic release of radioactive material as surmised is hinged upon the occurrence of so many statistically impossible events that it is certain to be a practical impossibility. Since the assertions continue to gain a wider audience, however, it is necessary to examine them and make a realistic assessment of their likelihood.

Assertion 1: The spent fuel pools, particularly at Fukushima Daiichi No. 4 plant (1F-4), are liable to collapse

Since shortly after the Tohoku quake and tsunami, TEPCO has continually inspected the buildings at the site for physical integrity. More importantly, TEPCO has conducted seismic safety studies of all the reactor buildings; the results of these studies are linked below, which show that the reactor buildings are safe in the event of further (even severe) earthquakes.

“Submission of Reports about the study regarding current seismic safety and reinforcement of reactor buildings at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station”

“Important Report from TEPCO” (particularly items dated April 5)

“At 11:04 pm on April 1, a 5.9-magnitude earthquake centered in the coast of Fukushima Prefecture occurred. Hama-dori of Fukusihma Prefecture registered intensity 5 lower on the Japanese seismic (intensity) scale of 7. No abnormalities were detected at facilities for water injection into the reactors, nitrogen gas injection, cooling of spent fuel pool, and the treatment of highly contaminated water at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. They all operate normally after the quake. As for the degree of the shake of the reactor buildings, Unit 6′s reactor building’s foundation registered 40.7 gal in horizontal direction and 19.4 gal in vertical direction.

We, TEPCO, evaluate earthquake-proof safety by developing Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion Ss as large-scale quake which would possibly occur in future. For example, the degree of shake of Unit 6′s reactor building’s foundation against the Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion is 448 gal in horizontal direction and 415 gal in vertical direction (which is around 10 times large in horizontal way and around 20 times large in vertical way compared with the quake occurred on April 1, 2012). We assess that the level of this Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion is almost same as the one recorded for the Tohoku–Pacific Ocean Earthquake. Based on the Motion, we simulated the damaged situation of the current reactor buildings of Unit 1 to 4, having implemented quake response analysis for the reactor buildings as well as equipments and pipes which are important in terms of safety. As a result, we confirmed that there are no negative signal, such as shear/twist of quake-proof walls of buildings, the fact that the stress of facilities/piping lowers the standard value, and the fact that buildings collapse and facilities/ piping lose their functions.”

NUREG /CR-4982, “Severe Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools in support of Generic Safety Issue 82,” Brookhaven National Laboratory, indicates that the likelihood of seismically induced spent fuel pool failure may be as low as 1 X 10-10 occurrences per reactor year, which is a statistically insignificant rate of occurrence.

From the above, it can easily be ascertained that further seismic damage to the buildings is not likely. It should be added that TEPCO is continuing to remove material (both debris and structural material) from the upper levels of the damaged reactor buildings—further reducing their mass, and the amount of mass at higher levels that could induce larger swaying moment. Thus, seismically induced collapse of the reactor buildings (as asserted in various articles penned by activists) is very unlikely. Assertion 1: False

Assertion 2: The spent fuel pool at 1F-4 is in particularly dire structural condition

TEPCO has continuously monitored the 1F-4 building for damage (having no damaged reactor in the building, it is the most widely accessible among 1F-1 through 1F-4, and thus most easily examined). TEPCO has also constructed, as a result of structural studies performed on the building, a steel-reinforced concrete support beneath the spent fuel pool at this plant. Photos are available at TEPCO “Completion of Installation of Supporting Structure…”

TEPCO estimates, in fact, that the seismic safety margin of the 1F-4 building’s spent fuel pool is now improved 20 percent over the original condition. Thus, there is no basis to assertions that 1F-4′s spent fuel pool is in a dire condition. Assertion 2: False

Assertion 3: The spent fuel in these plants’ spent fuel pools could ignite, leading to a massive radiological release

This assertion is patently false. First, it is important to understand that in order for the fuel to ignite, it has to get hot—and in its present condition, submerged in spent fuel pools with redundant cooling systems and filtration systems, constant remote temperature monitoring, backup generating and pumping systems in mobile units in place (on standby), and high reach concrete pump trucks on site (if necessary), there is no chance of the fuel heating up in any significant way while it is in the pools in the buildings.

We’ve seen already that it’s unlikely that the buildings would be damaged in a quake—and we can surmise, given the manpower and equipment on site, that even if any sort of equipment leak or malfunction temporarily suspended cooling for the spent fuel, that malfunction would be quickly detected and fixed. So, it’s just not likely at all that the fuel would even begin to get noticeably hot in the spent fuel pools as-is now. Temperatures of the water in the spent fuel pools is currently in the ~30 °C and under range.

In order for apocalyptic assertions of a “fuel clad ignition and fire” to occur, moreover, the clad itself would need to be heated to incredible temperatures, which just isn’t possible. Ignition of the cladding (Zircalloy-2) on those fuel elements can occur roughly at 900 ºC in the proper conditions, but it’s important to note that, depending on the surrounding conditions (presence or absence of water vapor and oxygen content of the surroundings), the material may not ignite at that temperature anyway. From NUREG /CR-4982:

“The cladding on such fuel will not ignite until 900 ºC (1652 ºF), while the fuel melting point for UO2 fuel is 2880 ºC (5216 ºF).”

An online video shows Zirc-2 tube being heated with a blow torch (probably over 2000 ºC) and not catching fire. In point of fact, while the chemistry of rapid oxidation /combustion of Zirc cladding is complex, it just would not be possible under the conditions at the site. Further, even under the wild assumption that the buildings somehow collapsed, all of the other resources on site, and remotely off site, are still available to move in and provide cooling for the fuel.

In addition, the rate of heatup of the fuel depends on how long it’s been out of a reactor. According to NUREG /CR-4982, unless the spent fuel is recently discharged from an operating reactor (within 180 days), ignition of the clad is completely impossible in any situation, regardless. Experts have calculated that the heat output presently from the hottest of the spent fuel is only on the order of several hundred watts per element—a very insignificant amount in comparison to heating the material to between 900 ºC–2000 ºC in order to ignite it.

In addition, in order for a “cataclysmic” spread of the radionuclides contained in this spent fuel to occur, we can see that a massive fire is needed to both release the material and provide a driving head (or “loft”) to spread it to the winds. It’s clear that no such fire is possible, given the above information. The assertions simply fall apart. Assertion 3: False

Conclusion

In fact, all three assertions, as we’ve seen, fall apart at every turn—there’s no basis to assertions of shaky buildings, or a structurally failed 1F-4 plant, or the chance of zircalloy cladding fire, or billowing of the released material to the entire earth. Realistic, practical analysis, performed by personnel on site (TEPCO/NISA), nuclear professionals here in the United States with decades of experience in both theory and practice, and official peer-reviewed studies and documents (e.g., NUREG /CR-4982) show that the predictions of apocalypse being spread now are just as unlikely to occur as those predictions of apocalypse that were made then at the time of the accident.

___________________________

The author expresses his gratitude for assistance in this analysis provided by John H. Bickel, Meredith Angwin, Margaret Harding, Leslie Corrice, Rod Adams, Cheryl Rofer, Bill Rodgers, Paul Bowersox, Rick Michal, Steve Skutnik, and Dan Yurman.

Will Davis is the author of the nuclear energy blog “Atomic Power Review,” and is a member of the American Nuclear Society. A former US Navy reactor operator, Davis finds his calling to be presenting the public with information about nuclear energy technology and its history.

→ 23 Comments

Posted in accident, Earthquake, engineering, Fukushima, Natural disasters, nuclear opponents, Radiation, spent fuel

The Vermont Yankee Follies Continue

Posted on May 15, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

By Howard Shaffer

Since March 22 of this year, the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant has been operating via a 20-year license extension granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The State of Vermont has been barred from attempting to shut down the plant by federal court injunctions. Nonetheless, the follies surrounding the plant continue, with all stakeholders participating: the legal system, the legislature, plant supporters, and plant opponents.

The legal system

Entergy Vermont Yankee’s suit against the State of Vermont, which was found in Entergy’s favor, has been appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Briefs are due next month. This suit involves federal authority versus “States Rights.” It is generally expected that it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. That might mean a decision at the end of the court’s 2013–2014 term, in the spring of 2014.

The NRC has been sued for improperly issuing a license renewal to the Vermont Yankee plant, on the grounds that the NRC does not have a valid water quality permit from the state. Such permits are issued by states under federal law. The plant and the NRC maintain that they do have a valid permit: the one originally issued. The commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, a lawyer, argued the state’s case on May 9.

The Vermont Public Service Board (not to be confused with the Department of Public Service) that regulates state utilities has decided to start all over on Vermont Yankee’s application for a Certificate of Public Good. The board recently held a conference of the parties to get all the issues on the table. The conference also discussed the option of starting all over by opening a new docket, or scrubbing the existing docket of issues struck down by the court when it found in the plant’s favor. A new docket has been opened. A prehearing conference was held, and the board just issued the schedule for proceedings. There will be public hearings in November, followed by sessions with testimony, rebuttal etc. Final briefs will be due August 26, 2013. A decision would follow, and could take months.

Plant opponents held a rally at the plant offices, 10 miles from the plant, attended by more than 1000 people on the first day of the plant’s extended NRC license. Non-violence training had been held, and 130 protestors were arrested for trespassing. The state’s attorney for the county refused once again to take them to court, opting to not waste court time to provide the trespassers with a forum. The rally and arrests provided plenty of media coverage.

A small group of grandmothers was again in court for blocking the plant’s gate. They acted the day after hurricane Irene did major damage in the state, while first responders were busy. Their action on that day was not popular. Their case was scheduled for trial later. It will be interesting to see what happens. (The “Grannies” have claimed that radiation permanently damages the gene pool, a discredited and dangerous argument from the early Eugenics movement—see Yes Vermont Yankee articles here and here.)

Anti-nuke grannies

The legislature

Vermont’s citizen legislature recently adjourned after its annual four-month session. The legislature passed a new tax on Vermont Yankee to make up for revenue lost when agreements based on plant purchase and used fuel storage expired. The agreements ended when the state’s Certificate of Public Good (CPG) expired on the same day as the original NRC license. Under state law, an expired CPG remains in effect if renewal proceedings are in progress, which they are. Commentators were quick to point out that the legislature and governor may not like Vermont Yankee, but they don’t mind the revenue it provides them.

The governor has been lampooned for his comments on the legislature’s action on a proposed merger of two electric utilities in the state. One of the utilities was in financial difficulty some years ago, and it was allowed to raise rates to be bailed out. A provision of the agreement was that if the utility were ever sold, the ratepayers and stockholders would be refunded the bailout money.

Now it is proposed to sell the utility for the merger, and the ratepayers are expecting checks for their refunds. The utilities suggest “refunding” the money in the form of energy and money saving investments, claiming that the ratepayers will ultimately save much more than they would gain from direct cash. Many are angry, and the AARP organization has run ads blasting the “non-refund.”

The legislature proposed a bill to order the Public Service Board to require a direct cash refund as part of the merger agreement, which they are reviewing and must approve. The governor wrote to the legislature saying that they should not interfere with the board, because it is the legal body that oversees utilities. Many quickly pointed out that interfering with the board was precisely what the legislature did during Vermont Yankee’s CPG renewal, which led to the federal lawsuit. The governor never objected to that (Yes Vermont Yankee has the details.)

Vermont Yankee’s supporters

We continue our public outreach at every opportunity. Meredith Angwin’s “Yes Vermont Yankee” blog and our “Save Vermont Yankee” Facebook page keep on inspiring supporters.

On April 28, there was a book signing in Keene, N.H., with the author of “Public Meltdown,” Prof. Richard Watts from the University of Vermont. Cheryl Twaorg, whose husband is a senior reactor operator at the Vermont Yankee plant, and Richard Schmidt were there. No opponents showed up, which was surprising, since Antioch New England University, a hotbed of opposition, is in Keene.

Richard Schmidt was on a two-hour radio panel with Meredith Angwin in North Hampton, Mass. The topic was the Vermont Yankee power struggle.

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) David Lochbaum appeared at two Massachusetts events on successive nights. The first night was at Plymouth on a panel sponsored by the Freeze Pilgrim group (that is, Freeze relicensing until all Fukushima fixes are done). Russell Gocht, a graduate student at UMass Lowell, represented nuclear power and plant supporters (American Nuclear Society Northeastern Section member Chuck Adey had lined him up at a recent section meeting). The next night, UCS had a panel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Nuclear supporters and students attended. Steve Stamm provided a report. We had encouraged attendance at these events by providing notification and details.

Our flow of letters to newspapers hasn’t stopped. There are continually issues on the whole spectrum of energy policy and technology that provide a springboard for comment.

Vermont Yankee’s opponents

Plant opponents have not “laid down their sword and shields” either. The Fukushima tragedy has provided grist for them to keep up the attack on the MK I containment design, and bring back an old German study on childhood leukemia around nuclear power plants. A letter promoting the study appeared in the Valley News, and another supporter and I had rebuttals published.

The Vermont Yankee opponents and anti-nuclear groups have allied with the Occupy movement. They held a rally where 130 people were arrested. A nuclear supporter took a picture of a sign showing the linkage. No picture of this sign appeared in the media.

____________________________________

: 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.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Entergy, lawsuit, News, nuclear opponents, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Radiation, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), View from Vermont

ANS commends President Obama for Svinicki nomination

Posted on May 14, 2012 by lscheele| Leave a comment

The American Nuclear Society today issued the following statement:

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) commends President Obama for nominating Kristine Svinicki to a second term on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Ms. Svinicki is a nuclear engineer and policy advisor and is well qualified to continue service as an NRC Commissioner. She has extensive nuclear technology experience. She is a longstanding ANS member, where she served two terms on the ANS Special Committee on Nuclear Non-Proliferation. In 2006, the Society honored her with a Presidential Citation in recognition of her contributions to the nuclear energy, science, and technology policies of the United States.

The ANS believes that U.S. nuclear safety and security interests are best served by having a full roster of NRC commissioners with proven technical and professional qualifications. As such, we urge the U.S. Senate to act promptly on Ms. Svinicki’s nomination so that there is no interruption in her service.

For more information about the American Nuclear Society, please visit www.ans.org.

__________________________

→ Leave a comment

Posted in News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Congress

Standards training course available for free online

Posted on May 14, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

ANSI strongly encourages all U.S. delegates to participate in international standardization meetings

To facilitate and advance strong U.S. participation in international standardization activities, the American National Standards Institute has released a free multimedia training course titled U.S. Delegates to International Activities: Roles and Responsibilities.

The course offers helpful advice and instruction on how to be an effective international delegate at International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical Commission technical committee, subcommittee, working group, and other international standardization meetings.

The intent of the course is to give participants an understanding of the requirements for international standardization meetings, the roles and responsibilities of delegates, and how to best prepare for and conduct oneself at meetings. Video testimonials from standardization community leaders highlight the critical importance of effective U.S. delegate participation and offer first-hand accounts of successes and challenges.

The course also provides an overview of the standards landscape, including ANSI’s role in U.S. and international standardization, and presents the benefits of standardization to U.S. organizations and the United States as a whole. The course is geared toward accredited delegates to international standards meetings, as well as corporate standards personnel and subject matter or technical experts interested in participating in international standardization activities.

TO BEGIN THE COURSE, click here.

Questions regarding course specifics may be directed to training@ansi.org.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Education, standards, training

104th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Posted on May 13, 2012 by dyurman| Leave a comment

The Carnival is up at Atomic Power Review.

ANS Tag Cloud

The Carnival 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, Next Big Future, 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 points 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

ANS Friday Nuclear Matinee: The Basics of Nuclear Energy

Posted on May 11, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

Today’s matinee is a foreign film feature: an excellent overview of the very basics of nuclear energy.

The video is courtesy of Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation. The United Arab Emirates is embarking on an ambitious nuclear energy program, having signed a nuclear cooperation agreement in 2009 with the United States, and construction of the UAE’s first reactor is scheduled to begin later this year (for background and details see this ANS Nuclear Cafe interview with the UAE Ambassador to the IAEA). Whether or not the agreement should serve as a model for all future nuclear cooperation agreements between the United States and other countries was the basis of this week’s ANS Nuclear Cafe DC Perspective article by Jim Hopf.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in DC Perspective, Education

Replacing nuclear with wind power: Could it be done?

Posted on May 10, 2012 by pbowersox| 9 Comments

by Ulrich Decher

Many people would like it to be theoretically possible to replace nuclear power with wind power, since the wind is a free resource. The way that I would like to approach the topic is to not discuss the source of power, but to discuss this question from the perspective of “intermittency.” Stating the question another way: Can an intermittent source replace a baseload power source for producing electricity? This question has nothing to do with how the electricity is generated, but everything to do with when the electricity is generated.

The production of electricity involves understanding concepts such as capacity, capacity factor, and generation. These three concepts are often misunderstood and misused when comparing the generation of intermittent electricity with baseload generated electricity. It is sometimes useful to use a familiar analogy when explaining complicated topics. I will, therefore, use the automobile for this analogy, since many of us own a car and everyone is familiar with them.

Capacity

Here is the analogy: Suppose there is a car on the market that is very environmentally friendly. Its mileage is phenomenal! I call it a “super-green” car.

This super-green car has the same horsepower as a conventional car. It will handle steep hills as well as a conventional car. It has the same 0 to 60 mph performance. The only difference is that when you try to start it in the morning, it will only start 25 percent of the time, and you can never predict on which day it will start. It runs, randomly, 25 percent of the time.

Would you replace your conventional car with a super-green car to get you to work every day? To keep the analogy simple, let us assume that if the car starts on a particular day, it will also take you home at the end of the workday. If it doesn’t start on a particular day, however, it won’t start that day no matter how often you turn the starter key.

To most people, the answer is obvious. Most of us would not hold on to a job very long if we randomly showed up at work only 25 percent of the time. So the answer is no, the super-green car cannot replace the conventional car. Horsepower is the equivalent of capacity in this analogy. An intermittent electrical power source with a capacity (or power capability when it is working) to generate 1000MW cannot replace a conventional power plant with a capacity of 1000MW. Even though the capacities are the same, the power plants are not equivalent. Yet capacity comparisons are made all the time, as if this somehow makes the power plants equivalent. They are not equivalent.

Capacity factor

Others would say that since the capacity factor is 25 percent (the car works 25 percent of the time), you would just need four cars to reliably get you to work every day. This is also not true, however. There is a chance that none of the cars will work on a particular day. As a matter of fact, this probability can be computed, if the probability of each car not working is independent of the other cars not working. It is 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.75 x 0.75 or (0.75)^4, which is equal to 32 percent. So if you owned four super-green cars, the probability of none of them working on a particular day is 32 percent. So, with four super-green cars, you get to work 68 percent of the time, which is better than 25 percent of the time, but it is still a long way from 100 percent of the time.

Another problem with using capacity factor as an equalizing parameter is that there are times when more than one car will start. The extra cars, however, are of no value to you as far as getting to work is concerned. The extra working cars do not average out with the demand to get to work on time each day. They are working at the wrong time.

Note that in the case of a wind farm, the probability of each turbine not working is not independent. If the wind doesn’t blow in a particular area, it will affect all wind turbines. The probabilities are not randomly independent. Therefore, wind farms must be in separate weather patterns, in order to significantly reduce the unavailable time.

Generation

A better equalizing parameter is generation. When the super-green car works, it generates highly economical miles. That parameter has its problems as well, however. The generation of economical miles can be increased simply by taking the long route to work. Those extra economical miles are of no value as far as getting to work is concerned. In the same way, generated electricity has no value unless there is a demand for it at the time that it is generated. This is because electricity has zero shelf-life. It must be consumed when it is generated.

So, when generation cost comparisons are made between intermittent and baseload power sources, this presumes that the resulting electricity value is the same. This is actually not the case, because electricity generated when the demand for it is not certain does not have the same value as electricity that is generated when there is demand for it.

There is no perfect equalization parameter when making comparisons between intermittent and baseload generated electricity. Capacity is by far the worst, next comes capacity factor, and the best is generation, but it is not perfect.

Conclusion

So, the conclusion is that intermittently generated electricity cannot replace baseload generation. Just like there is a chance that none of the super-green cars are working on a particular day, there is also a chance that no electricity is generated by an intermittent source. Hence, all the conventional power sources are still needed.

Intermittent power sources can be of value, however, because they do save fuel in conventional power plants. But the economics are usually not very good at today’s fuel prices. In the car analogy, I compute that my 20-mile round-trip commute to work would save me about two gallons of gas a month if the super-green car gets double the mileage of my conventional car. At $4 per gallon, that is $8 per month saving. It is obvious that, from an economic point of view, this saving is nowhere near the hundreds of dollars required per month to own an extra car. Similarly, I wrote an article explaining that wind farms cannot be justified on an economic basis, except in Hawaii, where expensive oil is used to generate electricity.

But perhaps using intermittent power plants can be justified environmentally. Perhaps not burning fossil fuels is worth the environmental benefit of not releasing as much greenhouse gases. Also, the fossil resource can be saved for other uses such as plastics. That argument breaks down, however, when the baseload generator is nuclear. Nuclear power does not generate greenhouse gases during operation. Saving the uranium for other uses is not applicable, because uranium has no other commercial uses. What exactly would we be saving it for?

So, to answer the general question, can wind power replace nuclear? The answer is clearly no. No technology is perfect, and there is always some impact in everything we do. Nuclear has the capability to meet the electrical needs for humanity for a millennia. That is a very compelling reason to use it, versus using a technology that only works intermittently and requires keeping all the conventional generators that we already have.

Click to go to wind to nuclear info-graphic article by Jason Correia

_____________________________

Ulrich Decher holds a PhD in nuclear engineering. He is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee and a contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 9 Comments

Posted in Electricity generating capacity, infographic, Infographics, wind power

Bill Gates and the Dalai Lama walk into a bar…

Posted on May 9, 2012 by pbowersox| 7 Comments

By Suzanne Hobbs Baker

Okay… Well, the Dalai Lama probably isn’t much of a drinker.

Let’s try again: “Bill Gates and the Dalai Lama walk into a book store, introduce themselves, and sit down. What do they talk about?”

Nuclear energy, of course! Okay, maybe it’s not that obvious, but I’m willing to bet that these two of the world’s greatest humanitarians would connect on this rather surprising topic…

Actually, let me start one more time. What happens when someone who you respect very much has a different perspective than your own? How do you respond to their concerns, even if you think they are standing on the wrong side of the aisle on an issue that is important to you both?

This is the situation I found myself in recently, which led me to start daydreaming about Bill Gates and the Dalai Lama’s imaginary coffee date.

A friend of mine and I recently found ourselves on opposite sides of the aisle at a Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting about a proposed nuclear plant in South Carolina. The prospective Lee Nuclear Station would be situated right between us, both geographically and metaphorically. For privacy’s sake, let’s call this friend Maxine.

When we saw each other in the lobby of this meeting, big hugs were in order, since I had not seen Maxine since I moved away from Asheville, N.C., about a year ago. I felt self-conscious because we both already knew that we disagreed on this particular issue, but we put that aside and caught up on everything non-nuclear for a few minutes.

Once the meeting got started, I fell into my normal routine of writing snarky notes and passing them to my friends who were also there in support of the plant. Notes like: “Can you believe that old hippie actually conducted a chant during his speaking time? All of the anti’s mindlessly repeated his nonsense in unison! Non-conformists, my %^&!” And: “Does the NRC moderator own a watch? Apparently not, considering that this woman has been talking for 15 minutes now about some plant that was built in another state in the 1970s. . . What is the purpose of this meeting again?”

My defense mechanism to deal with dozens of people who very publicly (and on the record) are calling my chosen profession evil, inhumane, and irresponsible is to make fun of them, very quietly, in the back of the room. The truth is, these accusations are heartbreaking and insulting and flat-out wrong, and humor is the best tool I’ve found for coping. Without it, I would probably be crying in the bathroom.

When my friend Maxine got up to speak her piece, however, I stopped joking and listened. Not only was she respectful of the process, the amount of time allotted to her, and the people involved, she made a really good point that left me scratching my head for a moment. She realized that many of the people in the room were very intelligent, well-educated scientists and she sincerely asked them to find a better way. Essentially, she challenged them to use their intelligence and resources to solve the energy crisis and respond to climate change, and to do it without nuclear power.

I thought to myself, what a touching and reasonable request. I knew I always adored Maxine for a reason. She is such a lovely person and she makes such a compelling case.

But then I remembered that not only have the best and brightest scientists been trying for decades to do exactly what she has asked, but so have our greatest business people and humanitarians. In fact, many top nuclear scientists at places like the Idaho National Laboratory and Areva have literally split their time between nuclear and renewable research. These folks really want to solve these problems, and they are already doing everything they can to advance our energy portfolio and quality of life. The people whom I have met in the nuclear industry are some of the smartest, most inspired humanitarians I have ever encountered. They know that their work impacts people’s lives, prosperity, and health. That’s why they do it—to make all of our lives better.

The reality is that the greatest thinkers from many different fields already agree that nuclear energy is the solution that Maxine is looking for. When Bill Gates, the Dalai Lama, James Lovelock, and Patrick Moore all agree on something, it’s got to be a very good option. In fact, I think that nuclear is our best option. It is not perfect, but if we want to solve the energy crisis, protect the environment, and advance medicine all while supporting the planet’s poorest nations as they gain access to clean water, education, and health care—then we should listen to these great minds. It is not a riddle to be solved. The answer is already clear.

___________________________

: Hobbs Baker

Suzy Hobbs Baker is the executive director of PopAtomic Studios, a nonprofit organization that conducts educational outreach through the Nuclear Literacy Project. Baker is an ANS member and a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 7 Comments

Posted in cooling towers, Nuclear Literacy Project, PopAtomic

Space nuclear propulsion: Humanity’s route to the solar system

Posted on May 8, 2012 by pbowersox| 3 Comments

By Wesley Deason

Part III: Nuclear Thermal Propulsion

Today’s post is the final installment of a series concerning space nuclear propulsion (Part I) (Part II). Previous posts discussed nuclear reactor safety and nuclear electric propulsion. Today I will focus on the other extensively researched nuclear space propulsion method: nuclear thermal propulsion.

Nuclear thermal propulsion

Nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) involves the direct heating and expulsion of a propellant using nuclear power. To accomplish this, nuclear thermal rockets (NTRs) normally consist of three components: a propellant tank, a nuclear power generator, and a nozzle. As in nuclear electric rocket systems, the component that sets various NTRs apart is the type of nuclear generator used.

Most systems that have been designed and tested have used a nuclear reactor to provide heat, while some others have examined the concept of radioisotope power. In the end, the determining factor for which nuclear power generator type should be used is the purpose for which the system was designed. If a nuclear thermal rocket is intended to power a mission to Mars or beyond, a nuclear reactor is a necessity as a power source.

History

The concept of the nuclear thermal rocket was first developed in the 1950s as a solution for safe and reliable travel to Mars. The research program subsequently developed in the late 1950s and 1960s was unprecedented for space nuclear technology. Through the program, many NTRs were designed, built, and tested. The test site for these systems was Jackass Flats, a location adjacent to what is now the Nevada National Security Site, which lies about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Famous tests in the program included PHOEBUS 2A, the most powerful nuclear reactor ever to be operated, and NRX-A2, a reactor that was purposefully placed under a very fast power transient to prove its safety. Later NTRs were designed with a specific application in mind, as they were considered for the eventual final stage for the famous Saturn V rocket. Unfortunately, funding for the NTRs, and even the Saturn V rocket, eventually vanished due to a change in the nation’s priorities after the Apollo lunar landings. Despite this change, the program is today considered a technical success, as the tests showed that a system could be safely built and operated.

Some Reactors tested in Rover Program -- Space Nuclear Power by Angelo and Buden

Advantages

But why choose nuclear thermal rockets—and nuclear propulsion in general—over chemical propulsion technology, which has been used for carrying payload from earth to space for over 50 years? The answer lies in the tremendous energy density present in nuclear power, and its inherent flexibility in application. NTRs are able to heat any propellant that is pushed through its core, unlike chemical rockets that must rely on the combustion of propellant for energy transfer. Because of this feature, NTRs can heat and expel the most efficient propellant possible, which is hydrogen gas, allowing for a large reduction in the overall mass that must be carried from earth’s surface to orbit.

In addition, all nuclear propulsion methods are inherently capable of providing long-term electricity production. Bimodal NTRs (BNTRs) can accomplish this by coupling a dynamic power conversion system to the reactor system. These systems are designed to run an additional coolant through selected channels in the reactor core, spinning a turbine, and producing electricity. Unlike solar power, nuclear power can operate independent of its location and orientation in space, providing electricity for energy intensive life support systems and scientific equipment.

Humanity’s route to the solar system

Nuclear power offers an unmatched capability for producing the massive amounts of energy required to travel in and out of the gravity wells of our solar system. Whether nuclear power is applied as a means of heating a propellant, as in nuclear thermal propulsion—or as a generator of electricity, as in nuclear electric propulsion—nuclear power stands as humanity’s route to the solar system.

_____________________

: Deason

Wes Deason is a graduate student in nuclear engineering at Oregon State University working on the safety analysis of vented fuel systems for gas-cooled fast breeder reactors. He is a former summer fellow for the Center for Space Nuclear Research and the current student liaison for the Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology Division of the American Nuclear Society.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Professional Divisions, Space Applications

Congressional debate over terms of future 123 agreements

Posted on May 7, 2012 by pbowersox| Leave a comment

By Jim Hopf

In 2009, the United States and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) signed a “123” agreement, which allowed the transfer of US nuclear technology (e.g., reactors, etc.) to the UAE. As a condition of the agreement, the UAE gave up all rights to enrich uranium or reprocess spent nuclear fuel, now and at any point in the future. Thus, the UAE agreed to give up significant rights that are granted to it as a signee of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The UAE agreement is now fueling a debate in Washington as to whether or not similar conditions should apply to all future US 123 agreements with nations that want to start nuclear programs.

The debate has significance since several more 123 agreements will be considered in the near future, with nations such as Vietnam, Jordan, and possibly Saudi Arabia. Some of these nations (e.g., Jordan) have significant uranium reserves that they may desire to exploit someday, which may make them reluctant to give away any future enrichment rights.

Pros and Cons

The arguments for requiring new nuclear nations to give up rights to enrichment and reprocessing, as a condition of any 123 agreement with the US, are as follows:

Unlike power reactors, enrichment and reprocessing facilities can potentially give those nations access to weapons-useable nuclear materials, and could greatly shorten the time required to develop a weapon, if they ever chose to do so.
Given the mature, well-established, competitive world industry for uranium enrichment services (with multiple enrichment facilities in several developed nations), there will not be a need for developing countries to establish enrichment or reprocessing facilities.
It would not make economic (or practical) sense for a new nuclear nation with a small number of power reactors to develop enrichment or reprocessing capability and construct those expensive facilities. Thus, any desire to do so would be suspect.
Holding all nuclear entrants to such high standards would strengthen the international community’s arguments against less cooperative nations such as Iran.

There are, however, many arguments against requiring terms similar to the UAE agreement for all future 123 agreements. These include:

Such a (US) policy would have little effect since there are several developed nuclear nations, including France, Russia, China, and South Korea, competing in the world nuclear market that will not make such demands on potential customers.
Few new (developing) nations would be willing to surrender rights granted to them under the NPT, especially given that most nuclear supplier nations will make no such demands.
If (as a result) few such nations enter into 123 agreements with the US, the US will lose influence over those nations’ nuclear power programs, which would stem from their dependence on US technologies, and our involvement with their reactor operations.
It is possible that such nations would instead turn to suppliers with less safe reactor designs, and a lower level of experience and/or excellence in reactor operations.
Without an absolute no-enrichment requirement, the US may (on a case-by-case basis) be able to successfully negotiate 123 agreements that are stronger (stricter) than agreements offered by other nuclear supplier nations. With an absolute no future enrichment requirement, most nations will almost certainly instead enter into agreements with other supplier nations, which may make few if any demands.
If a 123 agreement with the US is in place, and the US therefore has influence and involvement with a country’s nuclear program, the US may be better able to convince that nation to not engage in fuel cycle activities in the future.
There are other ways to limit enrichment activities, including actions by the Nuclear Suppliers Group and ensuring that a reliable and adequate supply of enrichment services exists in the world market.
Finally, requirements for entering into an agreement with the US that are much stricter than those required by other suppliers will likely result in US reactor and nuclear technology companies being shut out of much, if not most, of the market in the developing world. In addition to any negative safety or proliferation impacts, this will have a significant negative economic and employment impact in the US.

House Bill

A bill, H.R. 1280, which essentially requires the same terms as the UAE agreement for all future 123 agreements, has been introduced in the House. It has passed the Foreign Affairs committee and is now being debated in the Rules committee. It may soon be voted on by the full House.

In addition to prohibiting enrichment or reprocessing facilities at any point in the future, the bill requires:

Limited access to facilities, equipment or materials by 3rd country nationals (personnel of a separate nationality to both the US and the developing nuclear nation).
Implementation of chemical and biological (weapon) production and stockpiling conventions.
Implementation of an export control system.
Cooperation with the US in preventing state sponsors of terrorism gaining access to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
A ban on (non-humanitarian) assistance to nations that have not signed the NPT.
Joint congressional approval for any changes or additions to the terms of new 123 agreements.
Liability protections for US nuclear suppliers similar to those given under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (i.e., more protection than India is offering).

Tauscher – Poneman Letter

On January 10 of this year, Undersecretary of State for arms control and international security Ellen Tauscher and Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman wrote a letter to key congressional committee leaders. The letter stated that an administration internal policy review has concluded that future 123 agreements should be made on a case-by-case basis, and that the administration would not seek the same requirements agreed to by the UAE for all future agreements.

The letter gave many of the reasons listed above (and argued elsewhere) as to why an absolute no-enrichment-requirement for all 123 agreements would not be good policy. The letter also discussed other actions that may or are being taken, including strengthened enrichment activity guidelines agreed to by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, nuclear fuel reserves, fuel leasing arrangements, and progress towards establishing a Nuclear Fuel Bank.

On the basis of the above-referenced letter, it appears that the administration will not be in favor of the House bill. The bill also faces a very uncertain future in the US Senate.

Additional Thoughts

I find some encouragement in the fact that even the non-proliferation side now appears to have accepted that power reactors in developing countries do not present a significant proliferation risk, and that the focus should be on enrichment and/or reprocessing facilities. I’ve always believed this, since spent power reactor fuel is at least as hard to convert into weapons material as raw uranium ore. The widely held belief that Iran’s enrichment activities (independent of nuclear power plants) constitute a proliferation risk further supports this principle.

Now, the debate seems to have shifted to what is the best way to prevent such fuel cycle facilities from popping up in more countries. Given that there is ample enrichment capability in the (developed) world, any such limitations should not significantly hold back the deployment of nuclear power.

The administration and others have argued that new nuclear states are likely to be reluctant to give up enrichment rights granted to them under the NPT, since they have uranium reserves and may want to complete the supply chain, or they don’t fully trust the current supplier nations to reliably supply the needed enrichment services. I would add a psychological/political reason. Policies that restrict fuel cycle facilities (or nuclear technology in general, or even nuclear weapons) to a set of existing “advanced” nations implies a notion that “we are civilized enough to responsibly handle this technology, but you are not.” Such notions tend to produce negative or contrary responses from most people (or nations). They will be very inclined to opt for the suppliers who do not make such (condescending?) demands, especially given that the right to fuel cycle technology is enshrined in the NPT, which they willingly signed.

Also of note is the fact that natural gas prices in the U.S. are currently very low (~$2/MBTU) and may stay relatively low for some time. This may limit the prospects for new nuclear here in the U.S. This makes access to international markets—where natural gas prices are much higher—even more important to the U.S. nuclear industry. Small modular reactors (SMRs) in particular, are an area where the U.S. may be able to take the technological lead and reestablish leadership in the world nuclear industry. A healthy market for those SMRs, however, would be necessary.

Conclusion

It seems to me that policies like those outlined in H.R. 1280 would not provide any of their intended benefits unless there was an agreement between all nuclear supplier states to follow those policies. Without such an international agreement, all H.R. 1280 will do is harm the US nuclear industry, and have significant negative economic and employment impacts here at home.

H.R. 1280 may even have negative worldwide impacts in terms of nuclear safety as well as nuclear proliferation, since it will result in most, if not all, nuclear entrant states forging agreements with other nuclear supplier states instead. Those other states are likely to be willing to enter into nuclear supply agreements that have less stringent requirements than what the US would be likely to negotiate, on a case-by-case basis, in the absence of H.R. 1280.

__________________________

: 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.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in DC Perspective, Export Control, Nonproliferation, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, nuclear technology, U.S. Congress

103rd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Posted on May 6, 2012 by dyurman| Leave a comment

The Carnival is up at Yes Vermont Yankee.

The Carnival 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.

While we each have our own points 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

Nuclear Matinee: Alphas and Neutrons Meet the Atomic Nucleus

Posted on May 4, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

Decades of nuclear science in just two minutes! This dramatic video takes the viewer inside the world of atomic particles, describing a rather important difference between the encounters of alpha particles and neutrons when scientists direct them at heavy atomic nuclei. The scientist referred to in the video is Leo Szilard, who conceived the possibility of a nuclear “chain reaction” among many other important scientific achievements. This nuclear chain reaction is quite a ride— so enjoy!

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Education, physics, Science & Engineering Education

No easy road for U.S. nuclear new build

Posted on May 3, 2012 by dyurman| 5 Comments

Getting the NRC license is just the first step

By Dan Yurman

Last December, Southern Nuclear had plenty to celebrate on New Year’s Eve. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission had just approved the safety certification for the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor, setting the stage for a decision on February 9, 2012, to issue reactor licenses to build two of them.

As Southern began mobilizing the full scope of its construction activity at its Vogtle site in Georgia, two issues arose that appeared inevitable based on what we know about the nuclear energy industry in the second decade of the 21^st century.

First, the federal government continued to drag its feet on fulfilling its commitment to complete the final term sheet of the $8.3 billion loan guarantee for the project. Second, anti-nuclear groups launched a campaign to stop the construction activity.

Southern’s Vogtle project

Southern’s chief executive officer Thomas Fanning is not a man to put all of his eggs in one basket. In response to reports that the Department of Energy might not approve favorable terms on the credit risk premium for an $8.3 billion loan guarantee, he said that the utility has the ability to go to capital markets without it.

The issue at hand is the cost of the “risk premium,” which is the fee the utility must pay the government in return for the loan guarantee. A fee of between 1-2 percent of the amount covered ($83-166 million) is a lot of money, so every point counts.

In addition to working out a rate to charge the utility, the DOE has to contend with political pressure from Congress over the now ill-fated Solyndra loan that cost the government over half a billion dollars. It puts any new decision for any type of loan guarantee under a microscope.

David Frantz, the acting director of the DOE loan program, told a House Appropriations Committee hearing in March that he expects the agency to close on the loan guarantee. However, Alex Flint, vice president of government affairs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, told Platts on March 28 that he worries the agency may not meet that commitment. He said that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which shares authority for approval of the loan guarantee with the DOE, “is not an enthusiastic supporter of the program.”

Flint added that the formula used by OMB “is flawed” and will result in a fee that is too high.

Another issue is that the way the collateral for the loan guarantee is calculated creates issues for the multiple equity partners on the Vogtle project. They want to limit their liability to their equity stake in the project. The government is seeking deeper pockets.

Another opening for contentions

An environmental group that wants to stop the construction of the Vogtle site reactors has won a partial victory in U.S. district court. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy won a ruling that will disclose some details of the DOE’s loan guarantee credit subsidy fee information for the $14 billion project.

Federal District Court Chief Judge Royce Lambert also criticized the DOE for denying the original Freedom of Information Act request. He said in his ruling that the DOE had failed to provide adequate justification for withholding the documents.

The Southern Alliance is also one of nine environmental groups that expects to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to halt construction of the Vogtle project while other courts consider previous legal challenges to the NRC’s action to grant the reactors a license. The NRC rejected the groups’ petition challenges to its February 9 decision.

The groups said that the NRC failed to adequately address safety issues that emerged from the Fukushima crisis. The NRC said it had done so and that reactors under construction would be held accountable for future safety orders based on their application to specific designs.

This is a key issue for Southern, which points out that any halt to construction would be costly in terms of schedule delays. Also, the utility worries that design changes mandated by the NRC could drive up construction costs.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, who was outvoted by 4-1 on the licenses for the Vogtle reactors, said on March 31 that the review of the licenses for two similar AP1000s planned to be built by Progress Energy in Florida could be delayed if he has his way.

He wants all of the Fukushima safety related changes to U.S. reactors, including new starts, in place before any more licenses are issued by the agency.

The other four commissioners have rejected this position, saying that the agency can issue new safety orders whenever necessary and that there is no need to hold up new licenses.

Progress Energy is also in the midst of a merger with Duke Energy, which could change the project’s schedule or possibly end it depending on economic conditions and other financial and market issues for the new combined firm. The closing date for the merger has been postponed once and may be delayed again if state and federal energy regulatory agencies don’t sign off on it.

_______________________

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

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Department of Energy, financing, lawsuit, licensing, News, nuclear opponents, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, nuclear technology

Tape review of Vermont Yankee power struggle debate

Posted on May 2, 2012 by radams| 2 Comments

By Rod Adams

One of my college roommates served for a while as the manager of our football team; we would talk about the “tape review” sessions that were used by the team to evaluate past performance and to prepare for future opponents. Nuclear organizations, for their part, often have highly developed “lessons learned” programs and they practice the use of technical methods that have been successfully employed by other organizations.

In that spirit, I would like to offer a “tape review” of the recent radio debate “Vermont Yankee: Power Struggle” that Meredith Angwin wrote about so beautifully for ANS Nuclear Cafe under the title of Be Here Now and The Debate.

My intent is not criticism—Richard Schmidt and Meredith both did a great job and already scored a win for the pronuclear team. My goal is to contribute to continuous improvement, help our team get ready for the next time, and build confidence for anyone else who gets an opportunity to publicly engage on the topic of nuclear energy.

The “here and now” philosophy that Meredith wrote about is important. People need to recognize and deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. We should challenge our opponents to base their decisions on what IS, not what is dreamed about. Balance is also important, naturally, since if everyone always thinks of only here and now, the future for our children will be pretty grim.

The predictable

We can make reasonable attempts to predict and influence the future so that it is closer to what we want. We can, for example, predict exactly when the sun will set every day. We can also predict its elevation angle based on time of day, day of year, and elevation. With those predictable numbers, we can chart the maximum power available to collect at any given time—while factors like clouds, snow, and shade from neighboring trees reduce the amount available.

During a debate, a good prop for that statement is an old celestial navigation book with a sun table in it. You can pick one up on the web or at a used book store. A few ancient implements that were used to measure the sun’s travel—perhaps a sextant or a sundial—might also help to illustrate just how much understanding mankind has had about the sun’s behavior and how long we have collectively owned that understanding.

Predictable nuclear

Unlike the scheduled operation of a coal, oil, gas, or nuclear plant, we usually have no real way to predict when and where the wind will blow or for how long. While we know how much it costs to run power cables from one point to another, we do not know specifically whose backyard will host those cables, along with the necessary towers and clear cut corridors, if we want to use someone else’s wind to back up our own.

In contrast, we can predict, based on demonstrated history, that completed nuclear plants can run for at least 50 years (the USS Enterprise recently celebrated its 50th birthday), and probably for 60-80 years. We know how much nuclear fuel has cost in the past and can do a pretty fair job of predicting the cost in the future. We also know that used nuclear fuel still contains 95 percent of its initial energy, and we know how to capture at least some of that energy through recycling. We have no way of knowing what natural gas prices will be in two years.

Walden Pond

During the debate, Richard did a good job in declaring that coal is the alternative in the world in which he lives and works; and in his next opportunity in a public forum, he should use his own experience with a solar energy system to concisely explain why solar can NEVER replace either coal or nuclear NO MATTER WHAT engineering improvements are made. It is perhaps even better to stress that point about solar than the true statement concerning coal and the way things work now. Alternatively, another possible response would be to allow an opponent like Michael Daley to attempt to win supporters (for pronuclear!) by describing—in detail—exactly what it means to live in a “100 watt house”.

Aside: I have visited Michael’s 100 Watt home website. I wonder if Michael and his wife actually live in the 100 watt cabin, or if it is just a writing retreat. His website describes it thusly: “Michael writes his books in a five foot by five foot tower room on a solar-powered laptop computer. He lives in Westminster, Vermont with his wife, award-winning children’s author Jessie Haas.” However, the solar cabin is in Putney, about five miles away from Westminster. End aside.

The Walden Pond–style of simple living might appeal to some, but most Americans would immediately see that day-to-day living in a space that is 12 feet by 16 feet is not quite their idea of the American dream. That is especially true if living there means constantly monitoring the charge level on the battery system and the fuel state of a noisy generator. In a debate environment, there is nothing wrong with letting the opposition try to sell their vision—especially if it is one that is not all that attractive.

Economics

Another topic in the debate where Richard and Meredith could turn the opposition’s assumed strengths into a negative for the audience is in the economic area. Michael Daley stated on several occasions that his reason for opposing Vermont Yankee was that Entergy would not agree to give Vermont a discounted rate on electricity. The details there are important; Entergy had been selling power to Vermont for 4 cents per kilowatt hour and wanted to start selling at a market determined rate. It was willing to sign a long-term contract for 6 cents per kilowatt hour.

Compared to the 20 cents per kilowatt-hour that Vermont power companies pay for unreliable wind and solar electricity, 6 cents per kilowatt hour is a huge discount. Armed with numbers and hard copy charts (if prepared carefully in advance), nuclear power supporters should always be willing to talk about economic comparisons with renewable energy advocates.

I’ll now turn the microphone over to others who might have had a chance to listen to the debate. What else should we learn from this engagement? What other facts should we be ready to introduce, what appeals to emotion should we use in addition to appeals to reason, and how should we respond when challenged that “we do not know” what might happen in the future—if in reality the topic under discussion is rather predictable for those who have already done the study and calculation?

__________________________

: Adams

Rod Adams is a nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Adams is a former engineer officer, USS Von Steuben. He is the host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast. Adams has been an ANS member since 2005. He writes about nuclear technology at his own blog, Atomic Insights.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Entergy, nuclear opponents, View from Vermont, wind power