Author Archives: dyurman

Federal judge: State can’t shut down Vermont Yankee over spent fuel

The plant dodges another bullet at least for now

Federal District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha ordered on Monday, March 19, that the Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) cannot use the issue of spent nuclear fuel as a mechanism to deny a certificate of public good to the 40-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

Murtha wrote that the PSB cannot prevent the plant, owned and operated by Entergy (NYSE:ETR), from continuing to operate because of the necessity of continuing to store its current inventory and new spent fuel.

Last January, Murtha ruled that the State of Vermont’s legal efforts to shut down the plant were improperly driven by issues involving nuclear safety. He said that state law in this area is preempted by federal law and that regulation of nuclear reactor safety is the province of the federal government.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed the license in 2011 for the Vermont Yankee plant to operate for another 20 years. (See also Tamar Cerafici’s February 10 legal review of Judge Murtha’s decision here on ANS Nuclear Cafe.)

On February 27, Entergy filed an appeal of the ruling claiming that the PSB should not be able to stop Vermont Yankee from operating over the spent fuel issue. The judge concurred with the appeal saying that any effort to do so by the PSB would fall under the umbrella of nuclear safety regulation and was outside the jurisdiction of the state agency.

The Vermont Yankee plant on the banks of the Connecticut River in southern Vermont (file photo)

Murtha wrote that any act by the PSB to deny Entergy the authority to store new spent fuel on-site would force the reactor to shut down, thus slamming the door shut on revenue for Entergy and with it the loss of the workforce without the possibility of recovery.

The key part of the judge’s ruling this week is that Entergy can continue to operate past March 21 while its petition for a certificate of public good is pending before the PSB. He pushed back on Entergy’s request to set aside the requirement to have one at all.

The PSB told the Vermont news media that it would allow continued operation of Vermont Yankee for the time being, not because it agreed with the reactor operator’s issues, but because the federal court gave it no choice. It is not clear when the PSB will complete its work. One possible outcome is that it will wait until the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals rules on the State of Vermont’s legal action in response to Judge Murtha’s ruling last January.

Legal experts say that the twin legal processes, an appeal by the State of Vermont to Judge Murtha’s January ruling, and the PSB’s deliberations are likely to take some time to work themselves out. In the meantime, the reactor will continue to operate, which shows that Entergy’s big bet to complete a fuel outage in 2011 is likely to pay off.

Separately, anti-nuclear activists say that they are planning protest demonstrations in Vermont, which may involve civil disobedience at the reactor plant’s front gate. A pro-nuclear demonstration last week brought out about 70 people.

__________________

96th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

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, 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.

This week’s Carnival

Yes Vemont Yankee – Meredith Angwin

  • Why Nuclear Is Regulated at the National Level

Many people in Vermont claim that Vermont should have the right to regulate nuclear safety.  Yes Vermont Yankee points out that pharmaceutical drug approval, nuclear power, and airline safety are all regulated at the national level. Angwin shows that national regulation of complex technologies is a very good thing.

ANS Nuclear Cafe – Howard Shaffer

  • Back to the Vermont Public Service Board: Square One – or Before!

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant received a 20-year extension of its operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission – but also is required to be issued a renewed Certificate of Public Good (CPG) from Vermont’s Public Service Board to continue operating.  This blog post untangles the legal thicket for readers, reporting from a Vermont Public Service Board Pre-conference Hearing packed to the brim with lawyers, representatives, the media, and public pro- and anti-nukes.

NEI Nuclear Notes - Dave Bradish

  • MIT study on managing renewables

The blog highlights MIT’s latest report on whether a large-scale penetration of renewables can be managed in the US. The report is a sobering read for renewable advocates. There are five main areas of concern with wind and solar that emerged from the symposium and it looks like many regulations and systems will have to change in order to accommodate renewables. There are many more interesting stats on this issue at NEI’s post so stop by.

Atomic Power Review – Will Davis

  • The AEC on Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy

This blog presents a document that everyone involved in communicating with the public about nuclear energy will want to read; Appendix III of the obscure WASH-1250 report.  This document gives a history of public sentiment toward nuclear energy from the early days through 1973, and helps explain the early activities of anti-nuclear organizations as well.

Neutron Economy - Steve Skutnik

  • Looking Back One Year Later

The blog reflects on the aftermath of the Great Tohoku Earthquake and its aftermath, an event which sparked Skutnik and his colleagues to start their blog in an attempt to convey accurate information about nuclear technology to the general public free of the sensationalism which prevailed around the time of the Fukushima crisis.

Idaho Samizdat – Dan Yurman

  • Talking Fukushima One Year On

A panel convened by the American Nuclear Society reports no one has died from radiation exposure at Fukushima and that the health effects from radiation exposure are too small to measure.  Also, the panel questioned the technical basis for the NRC’s call for a 50 mile evacuation zone around the Fukushima reactor complex.

Deregulate the Atom - Rick Maltease

A one year retrospective on why the Fukushima Nuclear event unfairly dominated the news media.

Next Big Future – Brian Wang

The World Nuclear Association has an update of the nuclear reactors that are starting (or restarting after complete overhauls) from 2012 through 2017. There are 46 reactors that are scheduled to start from 2012 to 2014.

Kevin Jianjun Tu is a senior associate in the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program, where he leads Carnegie’s work on China’s energy and climate policies. He also worked in China 1995-2001 in large China natural gas and petroleum companies. His analysis is that China should go slow on approving new nuclear reactors.

China’s 2020 nuclear target is widely expected to fall to 60 to 70 gigawatts (GW), while China’s nuclear advocacy groups are still actively lobbying the government to set the 2020 nuclear target as high as 80 GW.

ANS Nuclear Cafe

  • Nuclear Inspiration – Suzy Hobbs Baker

“Modern physics is a field that is as complex as it is beautiful.”  The blog interviews nuclear engineering Ph.D. candidate Kallie Metzger, whose passion for science also inspires beautiful works of art – and a marvelous nuclear-inspired art exhibit. Examples are displayed online.

# # #

What a difference a prime minister makes

Japan’s new political leadership represents a sea change in the post-Fukushima era

By Dan Yurman

Japan PM Yoshihiko Noda

Want to know what the difference is between the current Japanese prime minister relative to his predecessor? The answer is how he deals with the issue of nuclear energy and blame for the ways TEPCO and the government contributed to the Fukushima crisis.

Former PM Naoto Kan threw a temper tantrum in the TEPCO emergency center and in a statement that loosely translates as “off with their heads,” called for the permanent closure of all the nation’s nuclear reactors.

Current PM Yoshihiko Noda accepts that the government and TEPCO made serious mistakes, but says that the country can do better and he is committed to restarting the nation’s 54 reactors, which provide 30 percent of Japan’s electricity. He also must reverse the nose dive the country’s economy has taken and rebuild the communities shattered by the earthquake and tsunami.

Want third-party confirmation of that? Check out a major paper by James Acton and Mark Hibbs titled, “Preventing Another Fukushima.” The paper puts its lead emphasis on the need for an independent nuclear safety agency, something Japan didn’t have on March 11, 2011.

Nothing outside our imagination

Perhaps most important is the change in Japan’s world view when it comes to nuclear energy. It is that nothing is outside the possibility of imagination.

Prior to March 11, TEPCO repeatedly and negligently rejected sound technical advice about protecting its coastal reactors from tsunami and earthquakes, saying such disasters were “outside its imagination.” That’s no longer the case under PM Noda.

In a press conference held last week PM Noda said, “We can no longer make the excuse that what was unpredictable and outside our imagination has happened. Crisis management requires us to imagine what may be outside our imagination.”

In making this statement, Noda is acknowledging that the government shares the blame in part because its safety regulators and business leaders were “blinded” by the “false belief” in the country’s technological mastery.

“The government, operator, and academic world were all too steeped in a safety myth. Everybody must share the pain of responsibility,” Noda said.

Restarting Japan’s reactors

In laying out the view that there is no haven from accountability, Noda also is setting the stage for restart of the nation’s reactors. As of March 13, 52 of the 54 reactors are closed and the other two will close in April.

The economic effects are already cascading across the nation, with its first trade deficit in 30 years and a highly annoyed steel industry threatening to go offshore with production if the electricity from the reactors isn’t restored and soon.

Japan is less than 50-percent self sufficient on food production. This means that its high value heavy industrial exports, which require lots of electricity, are what keep its balance of payments from going in the red. Pull the plug on manufacturing exports and you’ve also yanked the rug out from under the economy. The key to all this is electricity, and with 30 percent of it coming from nuclear reactors, they can’t stay turned off for long.

Noda has committed to convincing provincial government officials to agree to the restart of the reactors. That will be a tough sell. In fact, the provincial government in Fukushima province is so hard over about the impact of the reactor crisis there that it wants the government to scrap the four undamaged reactors at the Fukushima Daini site. There is, of course, the delusional policy of his predecessor, PM Kan, who wanted all the reactors off right away. Japan is paying for that folly with huge bills for fossil fuel imports. It can ill afford to sustain that kind of buying spree.

Kan comes in for a roasting

PM Noda may have painted the word “accountability” with a broad brush, but various groups looking into the Fukushima crisis have a narrower focus. In particular, the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation (RJIF) has issued a 400-page report. In searing language, especially for face-saving Japan, the group wrote:

“Top government officials without expert knowledge and experience ordered haphazard countermeasures,” and . . . “orders from the prime minister’s office may have raised the risk of creating unnecessary confusion and worsened the accident further.”

The RJIF report leaves no doubt how hard the criticism is on the government and TEPCO.

“The emerging crisis at the plant was complex, and, to make matters worse, it was exacerbated by communication gaps between the government and the nuclear industry.

These players were thoroughly unprepared on almost every level for the cascading nuclear disaster. This lack of preparation was caused, in part, by a public myth of absolute safety that nuclear power proponents had nurtured over decades and was aggravated by dysfunction within and between government agencies and Tepco, particularly in regard to political leadership and crisis management.

The investigation also found that the tsunami that began the nuclear disaster could and should have been anticipated and that ambiguity about the roles of public and private institutions in such a crisis was a factor in the poor response at Fukushima.”

The report’s findings are based on interviews with over 300 government and nuclear industry leaders. One of the key findings is that trust between the prime minister’s office and the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency evaporated when hydrogen explosions took place at three of the Fukushima reactors. At that point the prime minister’s office took matters into its own hands, bypassing the safety agency. The report says that PM Kan “aggravated the situation” through micromanagement.

There are three other commissions investigating the Fukushima crisis. One of them, from the Japanese parliament, has subpoena power. What hasn’t been raised so far is whether or not charges of criminal negligence will be filed against TEPCO officials and some in the government. That may come in time from a panel being run by the Japanese parliament.

Kan’s legacy a drag on progress

PM Kan’s chief spokesman during the crisis, Yukio Edano, is now the head of the METI agency, which still houses the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency. He’s been a proponent of going slow in terms of restarting the reactors. Progress to reform the nuclear safety agency by making it independent have also dragged on. Rebuilding public confidence in restarting the reactors will require a thoroughly independent nuclear regulatory agency. The cabinet has approved a legislative package, but whether it will go anyway remains a question.

On the other hand, the current government manager of the Fukushima crisis, Goshi Hoshano, is a realist and has pushed back on Edano’s defense of his former boss’s policy of permanent shut down of the nation’s reactors. He’s pushed for safe decommissioning of the damaged Fukushima reactors and control of the huge volumes of radioactive water on the site.

The fact that Kan is out of power and Noda is in charge may be the real difference in getting the commercial reactors back in operation. That doesn’t mean it will happen quickly or without a lot of political arm wrestling.  Reuters reported on March 14 that 80 percent of those responding to a newspaper poll did not trust the government’s promises of improved safety for the nation’s nuclear reactors.

Kan is under fierce attack for his failings during the crisis, but that doesn’t translate into support for restart. The real challenge the government faces is to close the gap between deep public skepticism about nuclear power in general, which was created because of the “myths” of nuclear safety that pervaded the halls of power prior to March 11.

_____________

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

95th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The 95th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers
is up at
Atomic Power Review

Tag cloud for Atomic Power Review

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, 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.

# # #

Marking Fukushima at one year

Retrospective and prospective views

Fukushima tsunami at moment of impact

A number of organizations are marking the one-year anniversary of the terrible tragedy that took place in Japan on March 11, 2011.

In the year that has passed, a lot of information has come out and many organizations have, or are, developing reviews of lessons learned from the damage to the nuclear reactor complex. This blog post lists a few events that will take place this week. Some are live and online.

See the ANS Nuclear Cafe for the announcement about the American Nuclear Society event on Thursday, March 8, 10AM EST at the National Press Club. A press conference will be webcast, and the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima report will be made available for download.

Background

The March 11, 2011, Tohoku earthquake, or the Great East Japan Earthquake, was a magnitude 9.0 undersea event that occurred about 45 miles off the coast of Japan east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tohoku.

According to geologists, it was one of the most powerful known earthquakes ever to have hit Japan, and one of the five most powerful earthquakes in the world since 1900. The earthquake triggered tsunami waves that reached heights of over 133 feet (40 meters) in Miyako in Tohoku’s Iwate Prefecture, and in the Sendai area, the wave traveled up to 6 miles inland.

The tsunami caused damage to the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant complex resulting in the partial meltdowns at three reactors and prompted  the government’s order of the associated evacuation zones affecting nearly 200,000 residents.

  • Three nuclear reactors suffered explosions of hydrogen gas that had built up within their outer containment buildings after cooling systems failure.
  • Residents were evacuated from within a 20 km (13 mi) radius of the Fukushima plant. In addition, the United States recommended that its citizens evacuate up to 80 km (50 mi) of the plant.

The Japanese National Police recorded approximately 16,000 dead, 6,000 injured, and another 3,300 missing and presumed dead from the combined effects of the earthquake and tsunami.

Here are some events taking place this week to review what has been learned from the events at the Fukushima reactor complex since last year.

Nuclear Energy Institute
March 6

The Nuclear Energy Institute will hold a news conference on March 6 to outline the actions taken in the year following the Fukushima Daiichi accident to improve every U.S. nuclear energy facility’s capability to respond safely to extreme events, no matter what the cause.

At a 9 a.m. media briefing in the Fourth Estate Lounge at the National Press Club, the industry will discuss its new equipment procurement initiative as well as the FLEX (flexible and diverse) strategy it developed to implement post-Fukushima safety enhancements quickly and effectively.

When: 9 a.m. Tuesday, March 6

Where: Fourth Estate Lounge, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, Washington, DC

If you are unable to attend in person, please join by conference call.
Toll free: 800.732.8470  International: 212.231.2901

Speakers

Charles Pardee, chief operating officer, Exelon Generation Co. LLC,
chairman, Fukushima Response Steering Committee

Tony Pietrangelo, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer, Nuclear Energy Institute

Contact NEI’s Steve Kerekes with any questions at sck@nei.org or 202.739.8073.

March 9

NEI will also have an online webinar on Friday, March 9. NEI will be hosting a conference call for bloggers with NEI’s Adrian Heymer on FLEX, the U.S. industry’s strategy to enhance safety at its nuclear energy facilities. The call will be conducted from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Friday, March 9, and will be hosted by Dan Yurman of Idaho Samizdat.

All participants must pre-register in order to dial in to the call. Please RSVP to the NEI email address at epm@nei.org by COB Thursday, March 8, in order to reserve your space.

For those of you who might not be familiar with Mr. Heymer, here’s a short bio. In the United States, there simply isn’t anyone with a better read on how the incident at Fukushima is impacting the way our industry does business than Mr. Heymer.

Adrian Heymer is the executive director, Strategic Programs, at NEI. In this position he serves as the industry’s point person in organizing an integrated response to the events at Fukushima Daiichi.

Other responsibilities at NEI have encompassed new nuclear plant deployment, electricity deregulation, plant performance improvement, risk-informed regulation and industry quality programs. Prior to joining NEI he worked in support of Nebraska Public Power District’s Cooper nuclear station, Nebraska; at Lloyds Register on technical certifications and inspections; and served in the Royal Navy.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
March 6

One Year On: Assessing Fukushima’s Impact

Speakers: James M. Acton, George Apostolakis, Omer Brown, Toby Dalton, Charles Ferguson, Marvin Fertel, Takuya Hattori, Mark Hibbs, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, Richard Meserve, Chris Paine, George Perkovich

On March 11, 2011, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station was flooded by a massive tsunami that triggered a nuclear accident exceeded only by Chernobyl in its severity. Almost one year later, the plant itself may finally be under control, but the accident’s consequences are likely to be profound and long lasting.

In the United States, a serious debate about the adequacy of nuclear power regulation is underway. The prospects for nuclear energy, which was widely predicted to undergo global renaissance before the accident, now appear very uncertain.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will host a conference with some of the world’s leading nuclear power experts to examine Fukushima’s impact.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012 – Washington, D.C. 9:00 AM – 2:45 PM EST

Register to attend in person
http://carnegieendowment.org/events/forms/?fa=registration&event=3553

Agenda: http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Fukushima_Conference%20Agenda_Final.pdf

· Was the Fukushima accident preventable?
· What are the implications of Fukushima for the regulation of nuclear power?
· What are the implications of Fukushima for the future of nuclear power?

If you can’t attend in person, the meeting is being video taped and will be posted on the organization’s web site later this week.  The 50 page report issued by the think tank is online now.

——-

If you know of other events taking place this week, please post the information as a comment.

_____________

94th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at NEI Nuclear Notes

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, 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.

# # #

Indian PM Singh claims anti-nuclear protests funded by U.S. NGOs

Kundankulam nuclear project jammed in new controversies

By Dan Yurman

PM Singh & Pres. Obama during state visit in New Delhi ~ Nov 2010

Months of protests have significantly delayed the hot start of twin Russian-built 1000-MW VVER nuclear reactors in Kudankulam (KKNPP 1-2), located in Tamil Nadu, India’s southern-most state. The protests are being paid for by funds from foreign anti-nuclear groups.

That’s the fiery and spectacular allegation made by India’s sitting prime minister Mammohan Singh this week, who got a pat on the back for his remarks from none other than Russia’s ambassador to India, Alexander Kadakin.

Singh also alleged that the funds came from non-government organizations (NGOs) based in the United States and Scandinavia. This charge of interference with India’s nuclear program produced a quick response in the form of a denial from U.S. Embassy charge d’Affaires Peter Burleigh, who said that the United States supports India’s nuclear energy program.

Singh’s remarks appeared in the Indian press one day after the Russian and Indian foreign ministers had met in New Delhi. For their part, at that meeting Russians officials reportedly expressed impatience with the lack of progress in getting the Kudankulam reactors up and running. The Russians have built two 1000-MW VVERs there. They want to build more, but can’t unless these first two enter revenue service.

Kudankulam nuclear reactors

What has given PM Singh’s claims a high profile, credibility, and international exposure is that he aired them as part of an interview in the February 2012 issue of the AAAS magazine ‘Science‘.

“The atomic energy program has gone into difficulties because these NGOs, mostly I think based in the U.S., don’t appreciate the need for our country to increase the energy supply… there are controversies.

“There are NGOs, often funded by the U.S. and the Scandinavian countries, which are not fully appreciative of the development challenges that our country faces. But we are a democracy, we are not like China,” PM Singh said. { The full text is behind a pay wall }

Singh also froze the bank accounts of four of the 15 Indian groups involved in the protests and revoked their licenses to operate. He has yet to publicly name the U.S. NGOs, however, that he says are paying for local protests.

V. Naryanasamy, adviser to India PM Singh

V. Naryanasamy, a spokesman in the prime minister’s office, told the BBC on February 28, “there is clear evidence the protests are obviously being engineered.”

On February 27, the Indian government deported a 49-year-old male German national from Tamil Nadu after claiming his confiscated laptop files and cell phone records proved that he has been a conduit for NGO funds to anti-nuclear protest groups. (Indian TV video report)

The TV news report notes that Sonntag Rainer Hermann was hustled out of the country in the dead of night with no notification of the German embassy nor were any charges brought against him under Indian law. The government said that the deportation order was issued based on violations of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act.

Source of protests suspect

The protests erupted last fall in Kundankulam as the commissioning dates for the reactors became public. Local fishermen claimed that the hot water discharged by the reactors would harm the environment and their fish catch.

Later, the fishermen, joined by local groups, mounted a hunger strike that intensified the protests in December. The local groups also claimed that the reactors were not safe, citing the Fukushima nuclear crisis as the basis for their fears. It is unclear why the fishermen and local protest groups waited nine months after Fukushima to make the connection to KKNPP.

Catholic church charity singled out

Singh’s office named four local groups working in Tamil Nadi including NGOs associated with the Tuticorin Diocese Association (TDA) and the Tuticorin Multipurpose Social Service Society. Singh’s office also named a group from Sweden said to be providing funds to Indian protest groups.

The prime minister’s office said that the Catholic church groups used the equivalent of 550,000 Indian rupees ($11,123) to fuel the protests. The government said that the NGOs provided food and booze to protesters based on a stipend equivalent to 500 Rupees/day ($10).

Tuticorin church leader Bishop Yvon Ambroise, who has been outspoken in opposition to the nuclear plant, denied the government’s allegations. For its part, the government has not published documents backing its claims or has showed to the press any proof that the church had diverted funds to protests from accounts assigned to relief and medical programs.

S.P. Udayakumar, Head of PMANE

The evidence may come out in trials of the NGOs against whom the government has now filed criminal charges.

S. P. Udayakumar, head of the Peoples Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), lived in the United States for a period of time and returned to lead the protest movement. He tells the local news media that the charges by the Indian government are “totally false.”

He also denied that PMANE received any financial support from the Catholic church.

Government seeks to recover from protests

The government, caught off guard by the sudden and vehement outbreak of the protests, sent a high-level group of scientists to review the plant’s safety and to meet with protest leaders. Despite a series of public meetings, however, distrust of the government was not diminished and the visiting scientists appear to have had little effect on the enthusiasm and energy of the protest groups.

Srikumar Banerjee, India Atomic Energy Commission

In another twist in an increasingly strange turn of events, Srikumar Banerjee, director of the India Atomic Energy Commission , told an international meeting being held in New Dehli, sponsored by the World Nuclear Association, that start-up of the Kudankulam reactors would take place in about six weeks.

The official, whose remarks were reported in The Hindu on February 22, said that the commissioning process would take about four months. About 3000 people are reportedly working at the plant, which is about 95-percent finished and needs to be maintained while the government addresses local concerns. There have been conflicting media reports about the effects of the protests on plant staffing.

A Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) spokesman said separately that the protests would be contained by a four-member team set up by the Tamil Nadu provincial government. This may be wishful thinking. That panel met this past week with the lead protest group, PMANE.

J. Jayalalithaa, Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu state chief minister J. Jayalalithaa, who has been caught between the central government and the protestors, pressed her four-man panel to complete a safety inspection of the plant and to meet with local villagers.

According to a report on NDTV, that meeting, which took place on February  20, was “cordial,” but apparently little progress was made. PMANE’s intense distrust of the government, and demand that the government appoint “experts” of its choosing also have equal standing, has kept the dialog at loggerheads.

The four-man team submitted a report to the provincial government saying that the plant is safe, but their efforts made little if any impression on PMANE or other protest organizations. For their part, the protest groups issued inflammatory statements objecting to PM Singh’s charges that their funds came from U.S. NGOs.

Local protest groups also claimed that the allegations about the NGOs were an attempt to distract people from their issues about plant safety. Despite this antagonistic atmosphere, the Tamil Nadu provincial government has not contradicted the allegations made by Singh’s office about foreign funds being funneled to local NGOs.

India needs foreign nuclear technology

India’s nuclear energy program depends on imports of technology from Russia and France. In addition to future projects at the same site in Tamil Nadu, French state-owned nuclear giant Areva has an agreement with NPCIL to build at least two and as many as six nuclear reactors.

The site for the first two EPRs is in Jaitapur south of Mumbai. Protests there erupted when local farmers objected to the loss of their land for the reactor site. They demanded increased compensation for relocation and new farmland. However, the intensity there of protests was not nearly on the same scale as what’s happening in Kundankulam.

The United States has been shut out of the Indian nuclear energy market by a tough supplier liability law. While it was passed by Parliament, however, implementing regulations have not been published, leaving the situation in somewhat of a state of limbo.

U.S. sources in India familiar with the matter declined to be quoted for this article on the outlook of the liability law, citing the sensitivity of the Indian government to anything perceived as interference its domestic affairs.

_____________

Yurman

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

93rd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at 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, 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.

# # #

TVA uses supercomputers to look inside reactors

A partnership with Oak Ridge National Laboratory will yield results for years to come

By Dan Yurman

Living next door to the most powerful computers in the world offers the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) a unique opportunity to get answers to important questions about its operating nuclear reactors. The utility has multiple reactors at three sites–Browns Ferry (three boiling water reactors), Sequoyah (two pressurized water reactors), and Watts Bar (one PWR). And TVA is having its own mini nuclear renaissance: It completed a reactor at Browns Ferry in 2007, it will complete a reactor at Watts Bar next year, and by the end of this decade, it is likely to be nearing completion of a reactor at Bellefonte.

So where does TVA go when it wants to look deep inside its reactors to help optimize their performance? After all, with billions of dollars invested in these facilities, the utility’s managers want to insure that they get every ounce of performance out of them while securing safe operation in all respects.

The answer is that TVA turns to the Department of Energy-funded Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) operating at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).

Rose Montgomery, a project manager and a TVA employee on loan to CASL, says that the primary value in the near term is validation of fuel cycle design and reactor operations computer codes.

This work is consistent, she notes, with the DOE’s objective for CASL, which is to boost reactor reliability and uptime.

“We provide computer simulations that will help TVA achieve reactor power uprates, life extensions, and higher fuel burn-up,” she said.

The CASL project is a mix of scientific research and applied research and development, but that brief summary doesn’t do justice to the objectives the organization has set for itself.

“We are looking for giant strides in computer simulation of phenomena inside a reactor in the areas of thermal hydraulics, fuel rod mechanics, and numerous safety boundary conditions,” she said.

Reactor core simulation Image source: CASL

CASL’s vision is to achieve results. Three broad areas of expected outcomes are defined in its vision statements:

  • Reduced capital and operating costs per unit of energy by enabling power uprates and lifetime extension for existing nuclear power plants and the lifetimes of new Generation III+ nuclear power plants.
  • Reduce nuclear waste volume generated by enabling high fuel burn-up.
  • Assure nuclear safety by enabling high fidelity predictive capability for component performance through failure.

TVA’s work with CASL is based on the assumption that there is industry wide applicability to the modeling and simulation work. CASL is moving beyond a focus on simulating normal steady state reactor conditions.

Its scientists and engineers want to provide insights and enhancements to fuel system design, reactor life extension, accident simulations, and used fuel storage. These are all key issues for a multi-reactor operator such as TVA.

CASL gets data about what’s going on inside TVA’s reactors by collecting operational information and using it in advanced modeling and simulation software that runs on some of the world’s most powerful supercomputers located at ORNL.

Montgomery lists work that has applicability to the U.S. nuclear industry including optimizing fuel efficiency and improving the understanding of fuel performance issues. The six technical focus areas of CASL are:

  • Advanced modeling application
  • Virtual reactor integration
  • Radiation transport methods
  • Thermo hydraulic methods
  • Materials performance and optimization
  • Validation and uncertainty quantification

TVA believes that the CASL program has wide industry applicability in terms of modeling and simulation. CASL is currently focused on the reactor system and nuclear fuel in PWRs. If given more time, however, CASL proposes to move on to simulations of BWRs, small modular reactors, and balance-of-plant systems.

CASL does not expect to license the codes they provide; this will be left up to the utilities and fuel vendors to complete. However, CASL is working to ensure that the codes will be available to industry and will be in a position to be licensed in the future. The project is currently interfacing with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, with regular updates on the development progress.

In the short term, TVA expects to see benefits in some aspects of management of core cycle designs and a reduction in some costs related to operating issues such as CRUD deposition. (CRUD refers to tiny, solid, corrosion products that travel into the reactor core, become highly radioactive, and then flow out of the reactor into other systems in the plant.) In the longer term, CASL’s work is expected to result in findings that will be applied to TVA reactors so that they can produce more power.

For more information on CASL, contact them at http://www.casl.gov

_________________________

Yurman

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

92nd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

This week we’d might as well call the Carnival the “Vermont Yankee” edition because of all the news coming out of that state about this reactor.

Governor Shumlin tilts his lance again announcing an appeal of a Federal District Court ruling against the efforts of the legislature and the governor to shut the reactor down.

The carnival weekly 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 Next Big Future. Yes Vermont Yankee, NuclearGreen, Atomic Power Review, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Idaho Samizdat, 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.

This Week’s Carnival

Here’s what some of the nation’s nuclear bloggers have to say about Vermont Yankee news generally and CNN in particular.

Yes Vermont Yankee

  • Vermont AG to appeal Federal court ruling – Meredith Angwin writes that yes, we all knew it would happen. The State is appealing the judgment. The State is throwing good money after bad, but Shumlin has to show his hard-core supporters that he really tried.
  • Citizens Rights, State Rights, and Vermont – Everyone knows that the Vermont Attorney General stressed “state’s rights” as he fought Vermont Yankee and two clauses of the Constitution (Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause).  However, once a state begins defying the Constitution, the rights of the citizens are also compromised.

NEI Nuclear Notes

ANS Nuclear Cafe

On January 19, the Federal District Court in Brattleboro, Vt., issued a court decision in favor of Entergy Corporation, regarding the continued operation of its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.  Howard Shaffer examines the political milieu of the Vermont Yankee court decision in light of states rights issues, shared authority among Federal and State regulators, and the political history of some other rather extreme positions taken by state governors.

Tamar Cerafici has a plain English review of the legal ins-and-outs of the Federal court ruling. It is worth your time to step through the issues because so much is at stake.

Atomic Power Review

Will Davis catches up on various news items from this week, including comments on Fukushima Daiichi, a CNN report, and nuclear energy in various far places in the world.

Next Big Future

Brian Wang reports that the Areva Anteres reactor was selected by the next generation nuclear plant project. Also, he reports on French, U.S., China, India and Ukraine nuclear generation figures for 2011

Idaho Samizdat

Dan Yurman has an indepth report on the selection of Areva’s HTGR design by the NGNP Alliance for process heat applications.

Also, he reports on a major deal involving Areva reactors to be built in the U.K. by EDF as a result of a face-to-face meeting between U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Atomic Insights

Rod Adams writes that MIT’s studies on the future of various energy fuels are important guides for policy makers. The contrast between strong optimism over the future of natural gas compared to a far more pessimistic view of the future of nuclear energy is stark and difficult to ignore.

An explanation might be found in the amount of natural gas money and the number of natural gas salesmen on the Advisory Committee for the study on natural gas when compared to the more neutral funding source for the study on the future of nuclear energy. He asks if the MIT Energy Initiative has been captured by natural gas money?

Nuke Power Talk

Gail Marcus is pleased to be able to pass on information provided by a reader of her blog providing more details on the Japanese personnel practice called ‘amakudari,‘ the institutionalized system of moving Japanese government retirees into positions in the organizations they used to regulate.

Nuclear Diner

Cheryl Rofer has a unique report that Peter Alaric DeSimone tells how he makes music from the random disintegration of radioactive isotopes and provides MP3 files and videos of the process.

Also, she reports that the National Research Council released a report this week on nuclear technologies NASA needs, including nuclear rocket propulsion, nuclear reactors for power in space, and radioisotope power systems. Susan Voss presents the details.

# # #

 

Czechs temper expectations at Temelin

Europe’s biggest nuclear project is chopped down from five reactors to two

By Dan Yurman

An ambitious plan to build five nuclear reactors in the Czech Republic worth an estimated $28 billion has been scaled back to just two units. The Czech Republic won’t build the other three anytime soon, even though Germany and Poland may have been counting on those units to supply electricity. Germany has closed eight of its oldest nuclear reactors and will close another nine by 2022.

In an unrelated move, Poland just delayed the start date of a new nuclear power station by five years to 2025 three years after Germany has closed its last reactor.

Power that Europe thought it could buy from Czech state-owned utility CEZ has evaporated before it lifted off  the drawing board. The real winner in the short term will be Russia’s natural gas supplier Gazprom.

Newly installed Czech Industry & Trade Minister Martin Kuba down shifted CEZ’s ambitious plans calling the five-reactor plan “unrealistic,” but he did not say what energy mix would be used in its place to meet growing demand for electricity in central Europe. The primary problem likely is how to finance the combination of two new units at Temelin, one at Dukovany, and two more at the Jaslovske Bohunice site in Solvakia.

The Czech government proposed that reactor vendors provide a complete turnkey solution, including up to nine fuel reloads for the new units. As part of the financing, the Czech government would guarantee rates and provide loan guarantees to CEZ as lures to investors.

What may be “unrealistic” is the expectation that investors and reactor vendors would be willing to pump $28 billion into a nuclear power project spread across five new units at three sites.

However, a plan for two reactors worth $10 billion at one site, Temelin, seems more likely to fly, especially since the United States just last week licensed two new reactors planned for the Vogtle site in Georgia said to cost $14 billion.

The Czech energy plan under Kuba’s predecessor, Martin Kocourek, called for up to 80 percent of the nation’s electricity coming from nuclear reactors by 2060 and being a net exporter of electricity to Germany. Kocourek, however, quit in a financial scandal unrelated to his government job. While Kocourek was a stalwart supporter of the five reactor plan, he got into legal trouble in a complicated divorce proceeding in which he hid assets sought by his now former wife in the settlement agreement.  It’s not clear where the money came from. This revelation in his private life made it impossible to continue in a role of public trust.

What’s realistic now?

Now at the helm so to speak, Kuba believes it is realistic to build the next two reactors at Temelin where power transmission infrastructure is already in place. It has approximately 2000 MW at a site near the Austrian border.

Also, Kuba wants to extend the life the reactors at Dukovany, which are four Russian-built VVER designs of about 470 MW each. They were completed in the mid-1980s. The two units at Temelin that are currently in service are also Russian-built VVERs at 963 MW each. These reactors are relatively new, having been completed in 2000 and 2003.

So, where will the money come from for even just two new reactors? CEZ chief financial officer Martin Novak thinks that some form of shared risk with investors will draw them in. Although Novak claims that CEZ is solvent enough to build two units in the range of 1000 MW each out of cash flow, he’d like to leverage other people’s money for about half of the costs.

At a hypothetical cost of $4,000/Kw, the two units would require $8 billion for which CEZ would have to come up with half and then offer the other half to investors. Leveraging support from investors for the nuclear plants will allow CEZ to build other power plants including natural gas.

Another sweetener would be for the government to offer CEZ guaranteed rates of return for the plants. CEZ chief executive officer Daniel Benes said that the way the model would work is that the government would step in with payments if the market price of electricity dropped below a certain level. On the other hand, if the rates increased on their own, the utility might wind up paying the government the difference. In effect, the government would subsidize the rate of return without directly impacting rate payers.

There isn’t agreement on any of these ideas across the government. Some ministers are opposed to any financial support for new nuclear plants.

And here’s a few more ideas

Vaclav Bartuska, the man in charge of the Czech government’s drive to see the plants built, said that having guarantees for power prices in turnkey projects is the only way such massive investments are possible.

Neither CEZ nor the government have explained in detail the extent to which loan guarantees would also be part of the financial package, though Bartuska has mentioned them. If the government offers loan guarantees, it would make the two Temelin reactors more attractive.

Given the shadow of sovereign default that has spread across Europe, however, a government loan guarantee is no longer a punched ticket to financial success. There still would be a risk premium based on how solvent the Czech government is or how well it can convince investor and rating agencies that it is solvent.

And Bartuska isn’t done with ideas about how to get the other three reactors built. His latest brainstorm is to use decommissioned military bases as sites because the government still owns them. He added that the government could use the sites also as interim storage locations for spent nuclear fuel. In any case, the government is worried about a public backlash if it starts demolishing privately held sites for new reactors.

It may get a backlash anyway with its idea for using decommissioned military bases. Now some of the abandoned sites have reverted to the status of de facto nature preserves with wildlife. Green groups are said to want to protect them. However, the military reservations are also contaminated with chemicals and unexploded ordinance. Contracts to clean up the sites are being offered for bid.

Meanwhile, the bidders for the now downsized Temelin project are going ahead with their proposals, which are due next July. These three short-listed bidders are Westinghouse, Areva, and Atomstroyexport. CEZ hasn’t changed the date for the award of the contract, which is early 2013.

All three vendors are inking memorandums of understanding with local manufacturing firms to improve their localization scores with the selection board. CEZ has said that local manufacturing content, and the jobs that come with it, will be an important element of the evaluation regardless of the size of the project.

Poland pushes back plant start dates

Polish state-controlled energy group PGE announced last week that it will delay by five years completion of the first of two new nuclear plants to 2025. The utility did not state a reason for the change in schedule, which was announced as part of the rollout of a larger energy strategy plan. A second unit would come online in 2029. PGE is reported to be aiming at 3000 MW for each site. Each power station could be composed of two to three reactors.

The sites for the reactors tentatively selected include Choczewo, Gaski, and Zarnowiec. Local support for any of the sites may be thin as the country has considerable anti-nuclear sentiment stemming from the Chernobyl accident.

Later this year, Poland will issue a request for proposals for the first unit. So far, GE-Hitachi and Westinghouse have been gearing up their supply chains as part of their planned response. PGE is looking for equity investors in the plants and plans to hold a 51-percent share for each of them.

# # #

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

91st Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Yes Vermont Yankee

Nuclear abstract

This week it is titled “The Vogtle Edition” after the historic decision Feb 9 by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant combined operating and construction licenses for two Westinghouse 1100 MW AP1000 nuclear reactors.

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 Next Big Future. Yes Vermont Yankee, NuclearGreen, Atomic Power Review, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Idaho Samizdat, 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.

# # #

NRC issues licenses for Southern’s Vogtle project

By a 4-1 vote, the agency opens the door to $14 billion in new construction of two Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors

By Dan Yurman

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on February 9 in a 4-1 vote cleared the way for its Office of New Reactors to issue a combined construction and operating license (COL) to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company for two 1100-MW Westinghouse AP1000 model reactors to be built at the company’s Vogtle site, in Waynesboro, Ga. (NRC final order) NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko made the one dissenting vote.

The Vogtle site is already home to two existing nuclear reactors owned by Southern that started commercial operations in the late 1980s.

In a statement, Jaczko said that he wanted the COL issued only on the condition that Southern implement the agency’s Fukushima safety agenda. Said Jaczko:

I cannot support the issuing of this license as if Fukushima had not happened.

NRC Commissioner Kristine Svinicki, speaking for the four commissioners who voted in favor of issuing the COL, said that Jaczko was mistaken if he thought that his peers on the NRC had disregarded the Fukishima crisis. In a statement that cut through Jaczko’s dissent like a samurai sword,  she said:

There is no amnesia individually or collectively regarding the events of March 11, 2011, and the ensuing accident at Fukushima.

Svinicki added that there was no recommendation by the NRC staff to amend the COL to take Jaczko’s requirements into account. Said Svinicki:

We found that it would not improve our systematic regulatory approach to Fukushima nor would it make any difference to the safety of operating or planned reactors.

Paradoxically, in December 2011 when the NRC approved the amended design for the AP1000, Jaczko said that he voted for it based on the “enhanced safety margins” provided by “innovative safety and security functions.”

In dissenting against the COL on February 9, however, Jaczko went against the recommendations of his own agency.

New Part 52 process comes in on time

The original application under the new Part 52 rule for the Vogtle site’s COL was submitted in March 2008, followed by a supplemental document submitted in October 2009. True to its word, the NRC reached a decision in just under 48 months. Along the way, the NRC had considered safety and environmental issues and held multiple public hearings to get testimony on them.

An independent review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was submitted in its report in January 2011. The NRC’s final safety evaluation report was completed August 9, 2011.

The NRC previously certified the amended Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design on December 30, 2011.

Economic impacts

NRC spokesman Scott Burnell told financial wire services that the agency will issue the COL immediately, which will kick off a huge construction boom in Georgia. The Shaw Group, which will be building the two units, announced plans to hire 3500 workers for the $14-billion construction phase that is expected to take until 2016 for the first unit and an additional year for the second.


When operating, each reactor will employ about 800-1000 people. The supply chain for components will stretch across the entire United States.

The Vogtle project will be seen as a major test of the ability of Westinghouse and its contractors to bring in the two reactors on time and within budget. Westinghouse is already building four of the new reactors in China, with the first one expected to enter revenue service in 2013.

Tenacity wins

Southern Company chief executive officer Thomas Fanning said in a statement that “this is a historic accomplishment,” and Georgia Power CEO Paul Bowers told the Atlanta Constitution, “We never wavered.”

Marvin Fertel, head of the Nuclear Energy Institute, focused on the historic nature of the decision, the first of its kind in more than three decades. Said Fertel:

Today’s licensing decision sounds a clarion call to the world that the United States recognizes the importance of expanding nuclear energy.

Instant opposition

A coalition of nine anti-nuclear groups announced plans to challenge the NRCs decision. The groups, echoing the views of the NRC’s Jaczko, said that the NRC is violating the law without taking the safety issues associated with Fukushima into account. They said that they would file a lawsuit in federal district court.

The groups also plan to challenge the safety certification of the AP1000 design, and one of the groups plans to challenge the Department of Energy’s $8.3-billion federal loan guarantee for the Vogtle project.

The legal challenges pose a near-term risk to the project as the groups plan to ask the courts to issue an order stopping construction until their case can be heard, which, if granted, could take many months.

What’s next for the nuclear renaissance?

Within the next month, the NRC is expected to issue two more COLs for construction of Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at South Carolina Electric & Gas Company’s (Scana) V.C. Summer nuclear plant in South Carolina. That project is expected to cost about $10 billion. Scana did not apply for a federal loan guarantee. If the license is approved as expected, Scana would complete both of its reactors by 2018.

South Carolina and Georgia have in common a regulated rate structure and the ability of the utilities to request new rates to cover the costs of the construction of the reactors while they are being built. The measures save millions in interest charges.

In related news, the Tennessee Valley Authority said in a financial document issued this week that it expects to complete the Watts Bar-2 reactor in 2014 and that it has issued a construction contract to complete the Bellefonte reactor by 2020. It will start work on Bellefonte once Watts Bar-2 is done. In 2007, TVA completed a reactor at Browns Ferry.

Plans to build new nuclear reactors in states using the merchant model—where costs cannot be recovered until the plant is in revenue service—have faltered, including Calvert Cliffs-3 in Maryland.

Exelon CEO John Rowe said of the Maryland project that the expected long-term low cost of natural gas makes such a nuclear energy investment there “inconceivable” given the speed at which a combined cycle gas plant can be brought online.

Constellation previously walked away from a loan guarantee for Calvert Cliffs-3, citing the high cost of the credit risk premium calculated by the federal government. The risk premium for the Vogtle plant is said by industry sources to be very low in comparison.

Yet, there may be policy changes in the future. In Ohio, for example, the government is reviewing fracking practices after fluid injected in a waste disposal well set off earthquakes near Youngstown. And, at a national level, a future U.S. president and congress may revive carbon taxes.

Nothing is certain today except for the NRC’s vote.

____________

Yurman

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

90th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The 90th weekly edition of the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Atomic Power Review.

Tag cloud for Atomic Power Review

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,  Next Big Future, 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.

# # #

Japan stressed out over future of its nuclear reactors

Safety checks by the IAEA haven’t boosted public confidence

By Dan Yurman

An International Atomic Energy Agency expert mission team to Japan arrived there the last week of January to check on so-called “stress tests” of the nation’s 54 reactors. While preliminary responses from the team are generally favorable, a final report, including proposed corrective actions, is still forthcoming.

In the meantime, the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), as well as Japan’s other nuclear utilities, find themselves tied up in knots about how to restart shut down reactors.

Japan’s nuclear energy industry continued a domestic downward spiral in January with only three reactors remaining on the grid. At the rate things are going, all of the country’s nuclear reactors will be closed by May. Japan gets 30 percent of its electricity from them. The lack of power, and fuel replacement costs, contributed in January to the nation’s first balance of payments trade deficit in more than three decades.

The IAEA team said in its preliminary report that the comprehensive safety assessments that are being carried out are generally consistent with the agency’s international standards. Japan’s nuclear utilities are conducting the reviews based on instructions from the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), which is soon to be reorganized as an independent agency.

An incomplete grade?

Two areas of vulnerability highlighted in the IAEA preliminary report as missing pieces in Japan’s stress tests are seismic safety margins and severe accident management. In the diplomatic language of a United Nations agency, the IAEA wrote that NISA should address these topics in greater depth and soon.

James Lyons, leader of the eight-member IAEA team, told the New York Times on February 1, “there is room for improvement.”

IAEA spokesman Greg Webb clarified to the newspaper that the agency was not certifying the safety of Japan’s nuclear reactors.

Critics of the stress tests quickly latched on to this language. They said that the reviews ignore the potential for multiple natural disasters occurring simultaneously, which is what happened on March 11, 2011. Also, critics said that the tests don’t take into account the age of the reactors.

What’s significant about the criticisms is that they come from nuclear experts inside the industry. Masashi Goto, who says his expertise is in design of nuclear reactors, and is an adviser to NISA, told wire services that the stress tests are computer simulated and do not take into account operator errors and multiple failures of equipment causes by a cascade of natural disasters.

Hiromitsu Ino, a professor at Tokyo University, said that neither NISA nor the nuclear utilities updated the test protocols to take the Fukushima accident into account.

TEPCO responded that the comments from the advisory committee are valid and agreed to revise the simulation. However, according to Japanese English language media reports, TEPCO’s calculation aren’t comprehensive enough to satisfy critics who say that they also don’t take into account damage from hydrogen explosions, the resulting debris, leaking radioactive water, and other issues that hampered the emergency response for multiple reactors at Fukushima.

Rebuilding public confidence

Japanese nuclear utilities have hoped that the visit by the IAEA team would bolster public confidence in the restart of the reactors. Local communities around the reactors, which benefit from work force payroll, taxes, and other economic benefits, are anxious for the reactors to restart soon. However, the further away you get from the plants, the more anxious the population becomes about them. While provincial government officials have no legal power to stop the reactors from restarting, Japan Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has said that he will take community feelings into account in his decision.

As part of his effort to boost public confidence in the government’s oversight role, Noda is reorganizing the nuclear safety function. Until the Fukushima disaster, NISA was located inside METI, the trade ministry. Many felt that this proximity created role ambiguity with both the promotion and regulation of the nuclear industry reporting to the same politically appointed minister. Under the new plan, NISA will be established as an independent agency with beefed up technical staff.

Another step in the direction of plant safety is to impose a cap on the duration of reactor operation. A cabinet draft legislative proposal issued this week could impose a 40-year life on reactors from their commissioning date. It would also allow for an extension of 20 years. Japan has no regulatory limit on how long a reactor can remain in service.

The cost of replacement fuel

As Japan pursues a race to the bottom in terms of having no reactors generating electricity, driven by public angst, fossil fuel costs are rapidly rising and contributing to economic stress. In December and January, Japan’s imports of crude oil and natural gas increased significantly according to the Federation of Electric Power Companies.

Fossil imports have pushed the Japanese economy into its first annual trade deficit in three decades. The primary reason is a 33-percent increase in oil imports from the Middle East. Japan’s need for oil also contributed to its tepid response to a U.S. call for an embargo of crude oil buying from Iran over its uranium enrichment activities.

Japan relies on high-value manufacturing exports to pay for its energy and food imports. When the lights go out at its factories, the trade deficit is the result. As this trend is accelerating, TEPCO is proposing a 17-percent increase in electricity rates, to take place in April, largely to cover the cost of replacement power as the reactors remain shut down.

Steelmakers have protested the steep rate increase saying it will force them to move production offshore. A spokesman for the Japanese Iron & Steel Federation said on January 28 that the electric furnaces used by its members can’t be kept running in Japan under the new rates. He said that the new rates would cost an additional 20 billion yen ($2.2 billion) a year.

Restructuring TEPCO

The Japanese government is trying to keep TEPCO afloat financially with a $13 billion bailout to cover cleanup, decommissioning, and compensation costs. In return, TEPCO will give the government a two-thirds equity stake, effectively nationalizing it.

Meanwhile, TEPCO is seeking to restructure its massive debt with the Japan’s leading banks. For their part, the banks have refused to accept a request from the government to forgive some or all of TEPCO’s loans. They want the firm to become profitable, pay off its debts to them, and issue new bonds to pay off the government loan.

TEPCO’s financial plan to return to profitability hinges on the restart of its nuclear reactors including the units at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, the largest nuclear reactor complex in the world. In addition to a whopping 17-percent increase for industry, TEPCO is proposing a 10-percent rate increase for households.

In summary, proving the reactors can operate safely, so that they can be restarted, requires new and bigger stakes than just electricity supply. The country’s economy needs the electricity to avoid further negative impacts of fossil fuel replacement costs. Getting there isn’t going to be easy or quick.

The government’s action to effectively nationalize TEPCO offers a hint at its next action, which may be—taking national interest into account—to override provincial officials opposed to restarting the reactors. If it doesn’t, it will be a long, hot, and expensive summer in Japan.  Provincial officials will want to be assured that the reactors are safe. They may be willing to put up with some summer heat which could be peanuts compared to the political heat if they act without this confidence.

# # #

Yurman

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