Category Archives: Electricity generating capacity

Responding to System Demand

Posted on February 14, 2013 by Will Davis| 9 Comments

by Will Davis

Significant discussions have occurred recently on various internet venues about “load following”—that is, the capability of a generating source to adjust its power output to match variable demands. There is a myth spreading that nuclear power plants cannot load follow, and today’s ever-changing discussion about low-GHG generating sources demands that this myth be dispelled.

One might immediately ask this question: “Haven’t we been saying that nuclear plants are best for base load power generation?” That’s a valid question. Baseload generation can be thought of as that degree of electric demand below which you never go. When compared to other generating sources, nuclear power plants have a relatively high construction cost—but a relatively low operating cost—and thus are often referred to as baseload generating assets. Nuclear power plants make steady power and steady income for the utility at a low and controlled fuel cost that isn’t subject to rapid market fluctuations or interruptions in supply—and they do this all day and night.

However, today’s energy world is evolving. We now have under consideration small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear plants that may be ’off the grid’ and required to supply variable loads at all times instead of  baseload power as part of a larger distribution network. Further, as high-GHG generating assets are retired, nuclear will become a larger percentage of the generating mix (all else held constant) and load following becomes part of the energy mix discussion.

From a utility perspective, operating today’s large commercial nuclear power plants at reduced load isn’t economically sensible, since the same staff  is paid the same money whether the plant is at 30-percent power or at 100 percent. Of course, the overall impact is much larger than just what you’re paying the staff,  considering all the other operating expenses—that’s just a simple example. Since renewable energy sources—which have a highly intermittent output—are now being seriously discussed, the capability of nuclear energy facilities to integrate with renewable sources, which would require load following, is important to address.

The Shippingport Atomic Power Station (seen in the lower part of this photo as a longish, red, left-to-right building in front of the much larger Beaver Valley nuclear station built years later) was the first large-scale commercial nuclear plant in the United States.  Shippingport was designed not only for load following but for remote load dispatching while operating in its normal power range (the plant was originally rated 265 MWt/60 Mwe, and ‘normal’ power was considered anything over 20 MWt).  The plant was designed to accommodate the following thermal power changes while in automatic control mode:  1. +15 MW or -12 MW at a step change rate.  2. ±15 Mw at a rate of 3 Mw/sec.  3. ±20 Mw at a rate of 0.417 MW/sec.

While today we don’t allow remote dispatching to control the power level of reactors, it’s important to know that they can accommodate power changes as well. Let’s take a look at some other nuclear plant design data for plants presently in service in terms of allowed power change rates, and then we’ll compare that to published data about today’s new-build AP1000 nuclear plant.

Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor: This design of nuclear plant was advertised in the 1980s as being “able to follow repetitive load changes automatically throughout the range of 15 percent to 100 percent of rated power consistent with the cyclic nature of the utility system load demand.” The Westinghouse PWR was designed at that time to accommodate step changes of 10 percent rated power and ramp changes at 5 percent per minute. Further, the plant was designed to operate, if required, on the 12-3-6-3 daily load cycle; 12 hours at 100 percent power, then three hours to reduce power followed by six hours at 50 percent power, then another three hours to ramp back up to full power. Finally, the plants were designed to accept up to a 50 percent rated power load rejection without reactor trip and full load rejection with reactor trip but optionally could be equipped with extra steam dump capacity in order to accept full load rejection with no reactor trip. The plants adjust both primary coolant boron concentration and control rod position as required to follow load.

Combustion Engineering PWR: Data are at hand for early generation C-E plants like that at Palisades; design criteria for this plant included the ability to accept step changes of 10 percent rated power, or ramp changes at 5 percent per minute.

Babcock & Wilcox PWR:  B&W large commercial plants were advertised as able to accommodate transients of 10 percent step changes, or ramp changes of 10 percent per minute between 20 percent and 90 percent rated power; above 90 percent rated power, the ramp change permissible was 5 percent per minute. Load reduction rates were the same without steam dump; with steam dump, load reductions of 40 percent in a step could be handled. According to B&W literature, “The turbine bypass system and safety valves permit a 100% load drop without turbine trip or reactor trip.”

GE Boiling Water Reactor: Data on hand for the late-generation BWR/6 shows that the design originally accommodated up to a 25 percent change in rated power automatically by recirculation flow control change, with no control rod motion, “thus providing automatic load following capability for the BWR.”

As we can see, these plants are responsive in varied degrees to changing system loads—and system loads don’t generally swing wildly unless there are storms in the area. What about new build nuclear plants?

Westinghouse advertises their AP1000 as having the following characteristics pertaining to variable system load: “The plant is designed to accept a step-load increase or decrease of 10 percent between 25 and 100 percent power without reactor trip or steam-dump system actuation, provided that the rated power level is not exceeded. Further, the AP1000 is designed to accept a 100 percent load rejection from full power to house loads without a reactor trip or operation of the pressurizer or steam generator safety valves.”

The Westinghouse SMR site offers a thorough description of that reactor design’s load following scheme which is also applied, according to the site, to the much larger AP1000 just described.  Click here for details. 

The competitive Generation mPower SMR is also designed for load following. In an interview on Atomic Power Review about the mPower SMR, Generation mPower LLC’s Matt Miles said of the mPower: “Traditionally, nuclear power plants have been used for base load generation. Our plants are designed for more segmented or off grid applications and are capable of load following to accommodate this type of deployment.”

As we can see, light water cooled and moderated nuclear power plants, whether of PWR or BWR type, and whether large commercial plants or SMR designs, are capable of adjusting power output to match variable system demand. Many years’ worth of operation on many various demand schedules have proven out the technology. While today, for many considerations, large commercial plants aren’t used as load followers, there is nothing inherent in the technology that precludes them from doing so; further, it is expected that SMR plants will normally behave as load followers. I hope this article clears up the spreading misconception about light water cooled and moderated reactor plants, in order to help level the discussion about applicability of technologies to a new age in which renewables will play a larger role on the grid.

(Sources consulted for this article include “Shippingport Pressurized Water Reactor, US AEC / Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1958; advertising material from Combustion Engineering, Inc. and Consumers Power for Palisades Nuclear Power Station; “The Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor Plant,” Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1984; “Steam / Its Generation and Use,” 38th ed. Babcock & Wilcox 1975; “General Description of a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR/6)” General Electric 1978; Westinghouse AP1000 advertising materials, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power advertising materials.)

_______________________________________

Will Davis is a consultant to, and writer for, the American Nuclear Society. In addition to this, Davis is on the Board of Directors of PopAtomic Studios, is a contributing author for Fuel Cycle Week, and also writes his own blog Atomic Power Review. Davis is a former US Navy Reactor Operator, qualified on S8G and S5W plants.

→ 9 Comments

Posted in Electricity generating capacity, reactor designs, Small modular reactors

Tagged ,

ALERT: NRC Public Meeting on San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Issues

Posted on October 8, 2012 by lscheele| Comments Off

AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY (ANS)
COMMUNICATIONS & OUTREACH ALERT

NRC Public Meeting on San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station Issues

WHEN:

Tuesday, October 9
6:00-9:30 P.M. Pacific Time
Click HERE for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) news release with schedule information

WHERE:  

St. Regis Monarch Beach Hotel
One Monarch Beach Resort
Dana Point, California
Click HERE for Local Area Directions and Map Links

WHY:

The NRC is holding a public meeting that includes a facilitated roundtable discussion regarding the safe operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Click HERE for a collection of background information and data from Southern California Edison, the majority owner/operator of the San Onofre station.

There is public interest about the steam generator tube degradation issues at San Onofre Units 2 and 3. Nine participants have been named to represent public interests in the roundtable discussion. Two of the nine are ANS national members (but are not representing ANS on the panel):

  • Ted Quinn, representing Californians for Safe and Clean Nuclear Energy
  • Ken Schultz, PhD, representing himself as a local citizen

ANS members and other nuclear professionals play an essential role in providing credible information in a public setting to increase public awareness and to put relative risks into context. If you live in the area, your presence and participation in this meeting will help to ensure that a credible scientific and technical perspective on this important issue is conveyed in a public setting.

VIRTUAL ACCESS:

The meeting will be webcast live at: http://video.nrc.gov.

A phone bridge will be available by calling: 1-888-989-4359 and entering pass code 1369507.

The webcast and phone bridge will be one-way only.

SOCIAL MEDIA ACCESS:

ANS will live-tweet the hearing at @ans_org using hashtag #SanOnofre. Please note that the person(s) doing the live-tweeting will be watching via webcast.

Click HERE for social media coverage by Will Davis of Atomic Power Review of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station steam generator issues, including a roundup of helpful links at the end of the entry.

For further information, ANS members can contact Laura Scheele, Communications & Policy Manager, ANS Communications & Outreach Department.

Comments Off

Posted in Center for Nuclear Science & Technology Information, Communications & Outreach Alert, Electricity generating capacity, News, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Southern California Edison

Tagged , , , , ,

Replacing nuclear with wind power: Could it be done?

Posted on May 10, 2012 by pbowersox| 10 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.

→ 10 Comments

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

4th Annual Texas Atomic Film Festival

Posted on April 26, 2012 by rmichal| 1 Comment

The 4th annual Texas Atomic Film Festival (TAFF) is being held April 26 to May 3, 2012. The festival attracts short films (3 to 5 minutes) produced by students in nuclear engineering courses at the University of Texas at Austin. A public screening of the films, which focus on nuclear and energy related topics, is being held on April 26 at 12:30 pm at the UT Student Activities Center auditorium.

The goal of TAFF is to provide an opportunity for students to take creative approaches to convey scientific information through short films. Griffin Gardner and Alex Fay are this year’s media judge and technical judge, respectively, and awards will be given in four categories:

  • Best Film
  • Technical Content
  • Editing
  • Audience Award

The Audience Award is based on the number of “likes” accumulated by each film through the Facebook social plugin available on the TAFF website for the 2012 entries.

Please visit the TAFF website, view some of the films in the 2012 Entries section, and vote for your favorites by clicking on the “like” button. You can also follow TAFF and make comments through Twitter by using the hashtag #TAFF2012.

TAFF includes 11 films this year:

  1. How Dangerous is Low Dose Radiation?
  2. An Outlook on Future Energy Solutions
  3. The Legend of HP-Man
  4. Radon—Hazards in the Home: Myths and Facts
  5. The Chicago Pile: A History
  6. The Influence of Nuclear Events on the Public Perception of Nuclear Science
  7. U.S. Electrical Power Production:  A Comparison of Energy Sources
  8. REYOLOGY
  9. Special Report: Nuclear Terrorism
  10. From War to Peace: Non-Proliferation 101
  11. Nuclear by the Numbers

Other schools are invited to participate in next year’s TAFF. If you are interested, please contact Steve Biegalski.  Special thanks to Juan Garcia and Matt Mangum, of the Faculty Innovation Center at UT, for their continued support of TAFF.

____________________________

→ 1 Comment

Posted in college colleges university universities, Economic benefits of nuclear, Education, Electricity generating capacity, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, News, nuclear technology, physics, Radiation, Renewable Energy, Social Media

Kudankulam hot start within reach

Posted on April 5, 2012 by dyurman| Comments Off

Tamil Nadu provincial government support pulls rug out from under protest groups

By Dan Yurman

Tamil Nadu map

The long running controversy over the start of NPCIL’s Russian-built twin 1,000-MW VVER reactors at Kudankulam, in India, may be coming to an end.

The provincial government of Tamil Nadu, India’s southern-most state, said on March 20 that it was dropping its opposition to hot start and also withdrawing support from local anti-nuclear protests.  The decision follows more than six months of fence sitting despite pleas for support from the protest groups and counter pressure from the central government.

In return for supporting the nuclear plant, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha wants political air cover, and she named as her price the control of distribution of 100 percent of the electrical power from the plant. She’s not likely to get all of it and she knows it.

Jayalalitha’s demand carries political weight with the locals, however. It helps  preserve her position that is newly energized as a purveyor of political patronage in the form of access to electricity.  The region is ravaged by electricity shortages, so having some to allocate puts the Tamil Nadu government in a much more influential position than hanging with the protest groups.

Work resumes at reactor

What has happened as a result of the new-found support in Tamil Nadu is that work has resumed at the plant that is 95-percent complete. More than 1,000 local Indian workers and about 100 Russian technical staff re-entered the plant. The combined action of restart of work at the plant and the provincial government’s acceptance of a hot start date to take place in about two months generated spontaneous protest demonstrations of about 500 people on March 23, of which several hundred were arrested by police.  The protests then fizzled out, however.

The central Indian government had said in February that the protests were coming from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by supporters in the United States. The BBC reported on March 23, however, that among those arrested was the leader of a Tamil nationalist political party.

While it may be that separatist political groups had seized upon the reactor issue as a way to mobilize support for their causes, there is no way to assess how much of an influence they really have. In the world of politics, however, even the appearance of influence can have consequences.

The central government’s crackdown on the protest started within a few weeks of an official notice by the Russians that they were not happy with the delay of the start of the Kudankulam plants. Success there is the key to new deals and the credibility generally of Rosatom’s export program.

Handing out the juice

The transition of the Tamil Nadu central government from a position of neutrality regarding the protests to becoming a supporter of the reactors may have as much to do with political self-preservation as it does with political reality.

As it turns out, Tamil Nadu, like many other places, suffers from severe power shortages with frequent blackouts, with some areas having no electrical power. Nationwide, about 40 percent of the Indian population has no access to it, which is why the Indian government is committed to building about 20 Gwe of new nuclear power generating capacity over the next 15–20 years.

Having control over who gets the new electricity from the plant is a huge source of leverage relative to keeping political allies in line and is an effective method for demonstrating the lack of political power of the protesters and any separatist movement. This light bulb appears to be the one that lit up in the minds of the provincial government leadership, which is why they climbed down off their “neutral” position and endorsed the reactors over the protests of many of their constituents.

The Indian government’s Union Minister of State for Power K.C. Venugopal said on April 2 that a policy with regard to sharing of power from nuclear energy was in place and that the agency would not change it.

The minister’s response came as a result of media questions over Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha’s staking claim to the entire projected generation of 2,000 MW power from Kudankulam nuclear plant.

Venugopal said that there is a policy in which 50 percent of power from these plants would go to the home state where it is located. These norms have not been changed so far, he said.

As it turns out, NPCIL has already allocated 925 MW of power from the two reactors to Tamil Nadu. In the meantime, the central government has continued its crackdown on leaders of the anti-nuclear groups. The intensification of the government’s action came as the protests themselves were winding down and life was returning to normal.

Protests over but crackdown continues

The Indian government is furious with the delays of the hot start of the two reactors. NPCIL told the Hindustan Times on March 12 that the fact that the two units were postponed from hot start last August has cost the government US$50,000/day in lost revenue from new rate payers. While this may not seem like a lot of money to American eyes, in a developing nation like India, $50,000 a day in losses is more than enough to give government officials high blood pressure. It also sends them looking for someone to blame.

On April 2, the home ministry in the national government demanded that one of the leading organizers of the Tamil Nadu protests surrender his passport. S.P. Udayakumar, of the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), told the Times of India that he will not do so despite the government’s assertion that there are charges pending against him and his organization for misappropriation of NGO funds to pay for the anti-nuclear protests.

The home ministry also raided two more NGOs alleged to have diverted funds from education and rural development programs to fuel the protests over the past six months. Subsequently, the government dropped charges against 178 people, while opposing bail for another 30 of those arrested. The government still has not revealed the names of the U.S. NGOs alleged to have provided funds to the protest groups.

Confidence building for India’s nuclear markets

As these developments were unfolding the government announced, perhaps buoyed with new confidence at having “defeated” the protests, that it planned to ink a deal with the Russians for two more 1000-MW reactors at Kudankulam. Overall, India plans to add 64 Gwe of power to its grid by 2032 to reduce the gap in rural electrification.

The United States remains locked out of the market by a supplier liability law that is orbiting in a kind of political limbo. The law is in the books, but the central government has so far not issued implementing regulations to give it operational status.

The Indian nuclear reactor market is said to be worth $150 billion. So far, the only firms making inroads are the Russians with projects at Kudankulam and the French with two planned reactors at Jaitapur, south of Mumbai on the country’s west coast.

________________

Yurman

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

Comments Off

Posted in Economic benefits of nuclear, Electricity generating capacity, engineering, India, News, NPCIL, nuclear opponents, reactor designs, Russia

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

Posted on March 20, 2012 by dyurman| 1 Comment

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.

__________________

→ 1 Comment

Posted in BWRs, Economic benefits of nuclear, Electricity generating capacity, Entergy, lawsuit, licensing, News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, spent fuel

Ballot initiative to close California’s nuclear plants

Posted on January 30, 2012 by lscheele| 6 Comments

By Jim Hopf

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

The Initiative

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

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

Response from Legislative Analyst

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

Diablo Canyon

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

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

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

Other Reactions

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

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

My Perspective

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

Initiative’s Purpose?

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

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

California Plants’ Safety

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

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

San Onofre

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

Economic Impacts of Plants’ Closure

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

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

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

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

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

Employment Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Impacts

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

________________________________________

Hopf

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

→ 6 Comments

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

Priorities for 2012 in Vermont Politics

Posted on January 24, 2012 by lscheele| Comments Off

By Howard Shaffer

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

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

The Legislature and Governor

Shumlin

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

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

Another Lawsuit

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

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

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

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

Keeping the Money Flowing

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

Dry cask storage

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

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

Re-greening the Green Mountain State

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

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

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

Meanwhile the Vermont Yankee plant has been operating very well.

___________________________________

Shaffer

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

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

Comments Off

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

Small Modular Reactors on Military Installations?

Posted on January 23, 2012 by rmichal| 1 Comment

By William J. Barattino

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________

Barattino

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

→ 1 Comment

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

GE-Hitachi proposes to burn U.K. plutonium stockpile

Posted on December 22, 2011 by dyurman| 4 Comments

An advanced reactor could be used to consume 112 tonnes of weapons grade material

By Dan Yurman

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy has proposed to the U.K. government to build an advanced nuclear reactor that would consume the country’s stockpile of surplus plutonium.

The technology is called PRISM, which stands for Power Reactor Innovative Small Module. If accepted, it would be very different than the other proposals to process plutonium, including those that would turn it into mixed oxide fuel (MOX).

According to GE Hitachi, the PRISM reactor disposes of a great majority of the plutonium as opposed to simply reusing it over again. This process takes it out of circulation forever.

PRISM cutaway (Source: GE Hitachi)

Fuel for the PRISM reactor is created by converting the plutonium from powder form mixing it with uranium and zirconium to make a metal fuel. The resulting spent fuel contains plutonium in a form that cannot be used to make nuclear weapons.

Eric Loewen, chief engineer on the project (and president of the American Nuclear Society), said that the waste form is much the same as what comes out of light water reactors. Once the plutonium has been in the PRISM reactor for five years, it is mixed with other nuclear materials that make it nearly impossible to retrieve the metal for the purpose of making a weapon.

The PRISM reactor is a so-called “fast reactor” because it uses liquid metal sodium rather than water to cool the system. The sodium allows the neutrons to maintain higher energies and to cause fission in elements such as plutonium more efficiently than light water reactors.  (large image)

Heritage of EBR-II

Based on the design of the Integral Fast Reactor (EBR-II) developed at the Argonne National Laboratory in Idaho, the PRISM reactor uses passive safety features that cause it to shut down automatically. In the event of a complete loss of electrical power, it simply stops working and passively dissipates residual heat. EBR-II was canceled in 1994, but not before a safety analysis showed that there were no technical barriers to getting a license and safely operating one.

The Argonne National Laboratory as it appeared in the 1990s when work was stopped on EBR-II.

According to a fact sheet from GE Hitachi, the PRISM reactor’s relatively small size and simpler design would allow it to be built in modules and transported for assembly on site. Another benefit of the reactor is that while it is disposing of weapons materials, it is also generating electricity.

According to the proposal, there would be two PRISM reactors each generating 300 MW of electrical power. It would take about five years to burn through the 112 tonnes of material. The reactors could be used for up to 60 years.

The UK government had considered building a MOX plant at the Sellafield site where the plutonium is stored, but it canceled those plans as the Japanese government stopped orders for MOX following the Fukushima earthquake.

Total life-cycle costs

GE Hitachi contends that the PRISM reactor will cost less to build than a new MOX plant. It is costing the U.K. government £2 billion (about $3.1 billion) a year to maintain the plutonium inventory.

In the United States, the government is building a MOX plan that will process 34 short tons of plutonium, turning it into the equivalent of 1,700 PWR MOX fuel assemblies for light water reactors at a cost of $4.5 billion.

MOX fuel burnup process. (Image: World Nuclear News)

If an assumption is made that the delivered cost of the PRISM reactor is $4,500/Kw, then 600 MW of power would cost $2.7 billion or about the cost of one year of storing the plutonium in its current form.

Additional costs would include a fuel fabrication facility, the fuel itself, and spent fuel disposal. Life-cycle costs would have to be taken into account to get a true comparison.

The U.K. government hasn’t said what it thinks of the GE Hitachi proposal, but it has talked about what it needs to know to make a decision.

Feasibility and safety issues

In addition to financial feasibility, U.K. energy minister Charles Hendry told parliament that the government needs to know the work can be done safely and securely. He said U.K.’s Department of Energy & Climate Change would examine the PRISM proposal. He also said that the government is considering converting 28 tonnes of foreign-owned plutonium at the Sellafield site into MOX.

GE Hitachi VP Danny Roderick

GE Hitachi vice president Danny Roderick told financial wire services that while the government is looking at the plutonium as a security risk, his firm sees it as an asset that can be burned to make electricity.

The plutonium was created as a result of nuclear spent fuel reprocessing, which took place at the Sellafield site starting in the 1950s.

In October 2010, GE Hitachi signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site to investigate the feasibility of constructing a prototype of the PRISM reactor there.

Coincidentally, the proposal to use the technology from EBR-II comes almost 60 years to the week that electricity was first generated on the Idaho desert in its predecessor EPR-I.

At 1:23 p.m. on December 20, 1951, Argonne National Laboratory director Walter Zinn scribbled into his log book, “Electricity flows from atomic energy. Rough estimate indicates 45 kw.” At that moment, scientists from Argonne and the National Reactor Testing Station watched four light bulbs glow, powered by the world’s first nuclear reactor.

________________

Yurman

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

 

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Department of Energy, Electricity generating capacity, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, integral fast reactor, National Laboratories, News, Nonproliferation, Nuclear Energy Narrative, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear pioneers, physics, PRISM reactor, PWRs, reactor designs, Small modular reactors, spent fuel, Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, United Kingdom

60 years ago in Idaho

Posted on December 20, 2011 by rmichal| Comments Off

Sixty years ago on December 20, scientists and engineers in Arco, Idaho,
successfully used nuclear energy from the EBR-1 to power four 200-watt light bulbs, laying the groundwork for decades of clean electricity and a strong U.S. nuclear energy industry.

The first production of usable nuclear electricity occurred in December 20, 1951, at Idaho National Laboratory when four light bulbs were lit with electricity generated from the EBR-1 reactor.

The Department of Energy’s video (and blog post at its site) looks both at the history and the future of nuclear energy in the United States.

The following is excerpted from the DOE’s blog post:

At 1:23 p.m. on December 20, 1951, Argonne National Laboratory director Walter Zinn scribbled into his log book, “Electricity flows from atomic energy. Rough estimate indicates 45 kw.” At that moment, scientists from Argonne and the National Reactor Testing Station watched four light bulbs glow, powered by the world’s first nuclear reactor to generate electricity.

Fifteen years later, in Arco, Idaho, President Johnson stood at this same site and designated the reactor a national historic landmark. He said, “We have moved far to tame for peaceful uses the mighty forces unloosed when the atom was split. And we have only just begun. What happened here merely raised the curtain on a very promising drama in our long journey for a better life.”

Please visit the DOE’s site here for the entire blog post and for a video on nuclear energy.

_______________

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Electricity generating capacity, engineering, Nuclear pioneers, physics, reactor designs

The Dispatch Queue – An Alternative Means of Accounting for External Costs?

Posted on September 28, 2011 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

by Jim Hopf

Without much going on recently that hasn’t been covered by other blog posts, I’d like to explore a topic not specifically tied to nuclear power or to activities currently going on in Washington, D.C. It involves an idea I have about a possible alternative means of having the electricity market account for the public health and environmental costs of various energy sources, and encouraging the development and use of cleaner sources (including nuclear) without requiring legislation. Given the failure of Congress to take action on global warming, as well as environmental issues in general, non-legislative approaches to accomplishing environmental goals may be necessary.

The Problem

While most people express a desire to use cleaner, lower-CO2-emitting power generation sources, there is still no tangible mechanism in the electricity market that encourages their use over dirtier, highly-emitting sources. There are regulations and requirements for pollution controls, but once these minimum requirements are met, there is no incentive to use a cleaner source over a dirtier one.

The external (public health and environmental) costs of generation sources such as coal and oil are very significant, and if they were fully accounted for by the market, it would almost double their price. Some have called the fact that external costs are not accounted for the largest “market failure” within our energy economy. Given that these external costs are as real as the “normal” economic (or internal) ones, the current market is warped, in that it effectively subsidizes dirty sources by having a significant fraction of their real overall cost not be reflected in the market price.

One may say that the best response would be to significantly tighten pollution regulations, perhaps to the point where no sources have significant external costs. There are problems with this approach, however, above and beyond the fact that the energy industry has (and will?) successfully blocked the legislation that would be required. Significant tightening of regulations raises issues such as how expensive compliance will be, and whether or not viable alternative (cleaner) sources would be available. The beauty of simply placing a cost (or tax) on pollution that reflects its costs to public health and the environment is that those issues need not be addressed. The market just decides between sources based on the true, overall cost of each, resulting in the minimum overall (economic + environmental) cost-generation portfolio.

The above reasoning is what led to policies like cap-and-trade or a CO2 emissions tax being proposed as a solution for the global warming problem. This has not flown politically, however. Policies that attempt to have external costs included in the market cost of energy have been labeled a “tax increase.” This is particularly true given that the associated pollution taxes (or emissions credit costs) would have largely gone to the government.

Well, if we can’t tax pollution, how about encouraging the use of clean sources by giving them subsidies? This has proved to be more popular so far, but this idea has also recently run into trouble, given the current situation with the budget deficit and national debt. Events like the Solyndra bankruptcy have put government clean energy subsidies even more on the defensive. Thus, it seems that neither policies involving money flowing to the government nor policies involving money flowing from the government are politically viable at this point.

One final idea, which does not involve money going to or from government, is simply requiring that cleaner sources provide a certain fraction of our overall power generation. The many state Renewable Portfolio Standards (that do not include nuclear) and the Clean Energy Standard being considered by Congress and the Obama administration (which does include nuclear) are examples of this policy. While better than nothing, such policies are not ideal in that they are crude, and don’t involve a quantitative incentive based on real external costs. An energy source is either defined as “clean,” or it is not. Note that the definition of “clean” would be decided politically, as opposed to objectively based on tangible external costs determined by scientific studies (nuclear’s exclusion from state Renewable Portfolio Standards policies being one outrageous example). Finally, there is the fact that any such policy would require legislation.

All of the above begs the question whether there is a policy available that will encourage the use of cleaner energy sources that is revenue-neutral (i.e., does not involve money flowing to or from the government), does not involve the outright (political) selection of certain energy sources over others, and does not require legislation.

Enter the Dispatch Queue

There must be enough power plants in a given region to meet the maximum load (or demand) expected to occur. In fact, total generation capacity must exceed maximum demand by a specified “reserve margin,” to address the possibility of a plant going offline, or other possible considerations. Due to the fact that demand varies significantly with time, a significant fraction of the generation capacity remains offline, some or most of the time.

The dispatch queue is a means by which utilities, or independent regional grid operators, decide which power plants will operate in order to meet demand at any given instant. A good discussion of dispatch queues and how they operate can be found in this Department of Energy report.

The general goal of the methodology used to set the dispatch queue order is to minimize overall generation cost, while staying in compliance with all federal or state laws (environmental rules, etc.). This is done by placing the power plants with the lowest “variable” cost first in the queue. Plants with the highest “variable” cost are placed last. The “variable” cost of a plant represents how much more it costs to operate the plant than it costs to leave it idle (i.e., it includes the fuel cost and maintenance costs that arise from operation, but does not include the plant capital cost, personnel costs, or any fixed maintenance costs). Thus, one starts with the least expensive plants, and moves up (in cost) until generation meets demand. The remaining, more expensive plants are not fired up. This ensures that the lowest-operating-cost set of plants is used to meet demand at any given time.

As far as who makes the decisions is concerned, in many cases the local utility itself runs the dispatch for its own service territory. In most of the United States, however, there is a large regional grid (covering several utilities) that is operated by an Independent System Operator (ISO) or Regional Transmission Organization (RTO), and those organizations, which are independent of the utilities, set the dispatch queue for the region.

The Idea

As discussed above, a plant’s place in the dispatch queue is based upon variable cost, with the lowest variable cost plants being first in the queue. As discussed in the DOE report, all the dispatch queues in the country base the dispatch order almost entirely on variable cost, with the only possible exceptions being issues related to maximizing grid reliability. What if the plant dispatch methodology were revised so that environmental costs were also considered?

Ideally, the public health and environmental costs would be objectively and scientifically determined and cast in terms of an equivalent economic cost (as has been done in many scientific studies such as the ExternE study referenced earlier). The calculated external cost would be added to a plant’s variable cost, and its place in the dispatch queue would be adjusted accordingly. The net effect would be that dirtier plants would be run much less often, resulting in greatly reduced pollution.

This could have a huge impact in the United States, especially at the current time. Currently, natural gas prices are so low that the variable costs of combine-cycle natural gas plants are not much higher than those of coal plants, even without considering environmental impacts. Also, there is a large amount of natural gas generation capacity sitting idle. The current situation is almost tragic, where we could replace a huge amount of old, dirty coal-fired capacity with modern gas-fired capacity, which would result in a huge reduction in both air pollution and CO2 emissions, and could do so at little cost. This would, in fact, occur if the electricity market put even a small weight on environmental considerations, but alas it places none.

More specifically, if dispatch queue ordering methods were revised to even place a small (economic) weight on environmental costs, there would be a large switch from coal to gas generation, with coal plants (especially the older, dirtier ones) moving to the back of the dispatch queue, and only running very rarely (at times of very high demand). The specific idea of putting gas plants ahead of coal plants in the dispatch queue is being discussed by others.

The beauty of this idea is that it does not involve any type of tax or government subsidy. It is revenue neutral. Also, depending on the specifics of how it’s implemented, it can be quantitative in nature, with environmental costs of various power plants being objectively weighed, as opposed certain sources simply being chosen, by government/political fiat, over others. It also may not require legislation (see below). Finally, dispatch queues and their policies and methods are a rather arcane subject and are generally below the political radar (many folks haven’t even heard of them). Thus, this approach may allow the nation’s environmental goals to be (quietly) met without causing a political uproar. It could allow policy makers to do the right thing without paying too high of a political cost.

Questions/Issues

The DOE report does mention some examples of dispatch queue methods factoring in issues other than just the variable cost. It is fairly common for issues of grid reliability to be considered. Also, compliance with federal or state environmental requirements can have some impacts. Examples of such laws include limits on the hours of operation for certain polluting facilities, or state requirements that a “renewable” facility generate a certain amount of power over the year. The report also discusses the possibility of favoring more fuel efficient gas plants over less efficient ones in the queue, even if using the less efficient plants at that moment would have cost less, in order to save natural gas. Thus, the report does discuss deviations from the pure cost model, to consider things like environmental impact and resource conservation.

I could not ascertain from the DOE report, however, what legal authorities govern the entities that make the plant dispatch decisions (i.e., the ISOs and RTOs), and what types of action would be required in order to change the dispatch methodology (e.g., whether legislation would be required). The DOE report was a study that was called for by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which implies that its conclusions would be considered in future congressional legislation. I could not tell from reading the report if the lowest cost (only) method of dispatch is actually enshrined somewhere in state or federal law. If so, the changes I’m proposing would require legislation, of course.

The DOE report states that in some regions the local utility runs the dispatch queue itself. In the case of the larger grids run by the ISOs and RTOs (which cover most of the country), the report implies that those entities are heavily influenced, if not governed, by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which is part of the executive branch of the federal government.

In the case of utility-run dispatch queues, it seems that nothing short of new regulations (on pollution limits, or direct guidance on dispatch queue ordering) would result in a change in dispatch policy. Whereas reducing cost and maximizing grid reliability would be directly in the utility’s interest, favoring cleaner generation sources in the queue would not, unless it is driven by regulations. Thus, in this case, legislation would probably be necessary, although it’s conceivable that the EPA could act (like it’s about to on CO2).

In the case of the large grids run by ISOs and RTOs, it’s possible that such a change in dispatch methodology could be made by the federal executive branch, if indeed the FERC has the power to mandate such a change. In the current political situation, where the executive branch favors market-based mechanisms for reducing emissions (e.g., CO2) but doesn’t have sufficient support in Congress, this approach could be an alternative means for the administration to meet its objectives, without legislation being required. It must be noted, however, that although legislation would not be required, it is not clear how much direct influence the administration has over the FERC, which is an independent regulatory body. It may not be in FERC’s nature to initiate such a significant policy change by itself.

Effect on Nuclear

With respect to the impacts of including environmental costs in plant dispatch order determination, I’ve mainly discussed the effects on gas vs. coal. Indeed, a switch from coal to gas would be the main impact of such a policy change.

As for nuclear, as well as renewables, the direct/immediate impact would be minimal. That is because both nuclear and renewable sources have high capital costs but very low variable costs. They also have very low environmental impacts; much lower than those of coal or gas. Thus, they will remain at the front of the dispatch queue, ahead of both coal and gas. Nuclear and renewable generation sources will be put into service whenever they are available, and this proposed policy change would do nothing to change that. It is likely, however, that such a change in dispatch policy would have indirect impacts, further down the road, that would benefit nuclear as well as renewables.

Given the political opposition to new coal plants, as well as looming air pollution (and perhaps CO2) reduction requirements, most observers believe that there will be few, if any, new coal plants built in the United States. Meanwhile, renewables will provide a specified fraction of overall generation in the future, mostly based on state or federal government mandates. For most of the rest of our new generation needs, many expect nuclear and gas to be the primary competitors.

Given the future competition between nuclear and gas for bulk baseload power generation in the future, the future price of natural gas is one of the primary factors that will affect nuclear’s future growth. In addition to reducing air pollution and CO2 emissions (which would result in tremendous environmental and public health benefits), a change in dispatch policy that results in a shift from coal to gas will help correct the current imbalance between natural gas supply and demand (i.e., alleviate the current gas glut) and firm up natural gas prices. This in turn would result in at least some increase in nuclear generation.

________

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.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in DC Perspective, Department of Energy, Economic benefits of nuclear, Electricity generating capacity, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, financing, News

Areva to complete TVA’s Bellefonte

Posted on September 22, 2011 by dyurman| Comments Off

The French nuclear giant will get its chance to show what it can do with an American reactor

By Dan Yurman

TVA's Bellefonte plant envisioned as complete by Suzy Hobbs with colorized cooling towers. Source: Popatomic Studios.

Areva will serve as a key member of the team of contract partners to complete the 1260-MW Bellefonte nuclear reactor owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Located in Scottsboro, Ala., work on the plant was halted in the late 1980s due to low electricity demand. In August of this year, the TVA board voted to finish it. The decision followed a two-year engineering and cost evaluation.

Areva’s scope includes engineering, construction, and replacement of many of the components that were removed from the plant when work stopped more than two decades ago. TVA estimates that the plant, which includes a reactor pressure vessel, is about 55-percent complete.

Areva will supply a digital reactor instrumentation-and-control system, a completely modernized control room, and a plant simulator to train reactor operators. In addition, Areva will supply fuel design and fabrication. What makes it possible to complete the plant is that the reactor pressure vessel, containment building, and cooling towers are already in place.

$1 billion in work scope

Mike Rencheck, U.S. Areva COO

In a conference call with nuclear energy bloggers on September 16, Areva chief operating officer Mike Rencheck said that the value of the work scope for TVA is about $1 billion out of the estimated $4.9 billion that it will take to complete the reactor, which is scheduled to enter revenue service in 2020.

Rencheck said that Areva has signed contracts for the nuclear island and the steam system. Balance-of-plant components, such as turbines and generators, are still in the procurement process and will most likely come from other suppliers.

“It looks like a great facility to operate,” Rencheck said. “It is built for maintenance. There’s lots space to work and lay parts out.”

The original containment building is in place, with three-and-a-half foot thick walls, as are cooling towers. Along with these assets, and the reactor pressure vessel, Areva estimates that about $2 billion of the $4.9 billion in costs are already built.

TVA is completing the plant by using the old Nuclear Regular Commission Part 50 two-step licensing process, which first grants a license to construct a reactor and then one to operate it. Rencheck pointed out that this is the same process being used at TVA’s Watts Bar-2, which will be completed and will enter revenue service in summer 2013.

Digital control room

Areva is particularly proud of earning NRC certification of its software for the digital control room. Bellefonte will be the second digital control system that Areva will install; the first being at Duke Energy’s Occone plant in South Carolina.

Rencheck emphasizes that the B&W “177 reactor design” is a “proven technology,” and called Areva’s plans to modernize the plant “an evolution, not a revolution.”

Areva CEO visits TVA

The kick-off of the contract work is an important milestone for Areva, which has been frustrated by setbacks in its efforts to ink a deal for one of its 1600-MW EPR reactors in the United States.

Luc Oursel, Areva CEO

The significance of the new TVA work was underscored by the visit of newly installed Areva chief executive officer Luc Oursel to the Bellefonte site last week.

Oursel called the Bellefonte project one of the largest that Areva is involved with anywhere and he said that when completed it will be “one of the most modern and safest facilities in the world.”

He added that Areva’s work at TVA is similar to a project in Brazil where the firm is completing that nation’s third nuclear reactor.  See fact box below.

Areva COO Rencheck told the blogger conference call that construction-related employment at the Bellefonte plant will be about 2800 people, and that once completed, staffing plans indicate 650 permanent high-paying jobs will be needed to run it.

TVA’s decision to complete Bellefonte is part of its 20-year Integrated Resource Plan. That document lays out a future where the utility will be removing greenhouse gas-emitting coal-fired plants and replacing them with clean energy technologies including nuclear reactors.

Areva in Brazil a model for TVA?

Brazil has two nuclear reactors at the Angra site near Rio de Janeiro—Angra-1 (626 MW, commissioned in 1985) and Angra-2 (1270 MW, commissioned in 2001). Areva constructed Angra-2 and supplied a large portion of the Angra-3 equipment (1394 MW).

In December 2008, Areva and the Brazilian utility company, Eletronuclear, signed a draft agreement relating to the industrial collaboration of both groups. Areva and Eletronuclear also signed maintenance agreements for Angra-1 and -2 in June 2008, as well as a service agreement for the Angra-1 reactor in late 2008.

In 2009, the local building permit was issued to recommence the Angra-3 project and the civil works were begun. Areva signed an addendum to its contract for the engineering services, and also received an order to provide project management services for the operation.

In May 2010, the National Nuclear Energy Commission granted a license for construction of the third reactor at Angra. Construction of the reactor—with capacity of 1270 MWe—begun in June 2010 and it should be operational by 2015.

According to the World Nuclear Association, Brazil is considering the Westinghouse AP1000 and Areva’s Atmea reactor for possible future power station developments. Both designs come in at 1100 MW.

____________

Yurman

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

 

Comments Off

Posted in Areva, cooling towers, Electricity generating capacity, News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, PopAtomic, reactor designs

Japan’s search for nuclear export deals

Posted on September 1, 2011 by dyurman| 2 Comments

The hunt is on in Vietnam, Turkey, and elsewhere

By Dan Yurman

Yoshihiko Noda, new prime minister of Japan (Photo: Wikipedia)

The Japanese government, in close cooperation with some of the nation’s largest heavy industrial manufacturers, is seeking to export Japan’s nuclear technologies, products, and services despite the loss of six reactors on March 11 to a combination of a record earthquake and massive tsunami. The replacement of Prime Minister Naoto Kan with 54-year-old Yoshihiko Noda, a career politician and the current finance minister, may play a key role in achieving success.

Prime Minister Kan ended his term with a strong call for the nation to retreat from dependence on nuclear energy. At one point he also tried to shut down efforts to continue exports even though he had played a leading role inking a deal with Vietnam in October 2010 for two reactors.

When this policy tilt became apparent on August 5, Japanese Foreign Minister Takeaki Matsumoto and Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano prevailed on Kan to back off. The country’s industrial exports are needed to pay for its lack of agricultural self sufficiency, and it depends on high value deals like new reactors. According to the Wall Street Journal, Japan produces only 40 percent of the food it needs to feed its population. Basic economics demands that the country sell finished goods abroad to pay for food imports at home.

The problem of supplying the baseload power for manufacturing at home remains a major issue. Platts reported that as of September 1, 2011, only 11 (10 GWe) of Japan’s 54 (49 GWe) reactors were operating. The rest were closed for maintenance and safety checks. While some have completed those tasks, provincial officials are adamant about not letting them restart without assurances that they are safe. Politics, not technology, is pushing the country’s electric utilities into plans for rolling brownouts and possible blackouts.

Noda has said that the stable supply of electricity is the lifeblood of the economy.  A combination of arm twisting and economic incentives may convince provincial officials to relent.  Jobs associated with nuclear exports may be one of the tools in Noda’s hands.   As a result, it appears that in addition to getting the reactors back online, the government is also focused on the multi-billion yen needed to build new reactors overseas.

For now, a key factor in Japan’s favor is that Japan Steel Works (JSW) is one of the world’s few companies capable of producing large forgings for new nuclear reactor pressure vessels.  However, the multi-year backlog of orders has made the work an attractive target.

Mitsubishi plans to build its own large forgings plant so that it won’t have to wait in line at JSW. International competition comes from South Korea and Russia. The United Kingdom is said to be planning a large forgings plant, as is India.  Both countries should be able to produce them within the next five years if their respective governments provide the necessary financial support.

Vietnam deal back on the front burner

Prior to the March 11 events, Japan had inked a deal with Vietnam to build two of its planned eight 1000-MW reactors. Japan has been training Vietnamese nuclear engineers for years in preparation for the project. Japan, however, is in second place in Vietnam when it comes to nuclear deals. Russia is building the first two plants and will provide all of the fuel for them as well as taking back the spent fuel at the end of each cycle.

Talks with Vietnam to execute the provisions of the deal and begin construction will restart this month. Government officials from both countries are scheduled to meet September 8 and 9 in Tokyo to layout project plans.

For its part, Vietnam pronounced itself happy the deal is back on the table. Vietnam’s ambassador to Japan Nguyen Phu Binh told the Manichi News on August 31 that he wants to see construction get underway in his country’s southern province of Ninh Thuan. He told the Manichi News, “I believe Japan will use the [Fukushima] crisis to learn important lessons and develop great technology.”

Turkey swaps negotiating tables, but keeps talking

Japan has been involved in off-and-on negotiations with Turkey to build that nation’s second nuclear power station at Sinop, some 440 miles east of Istanbul on the Black Sea coast. Paradoxically, Turkey’s first nuclear power station, a 4.8 GWe monster, is being built by the Russians at Mersin, about 600 miles southeast of Istanbul on the country’s Mediterranean coast. The Sinop site will be a similar size in terms of power generation capacity.

One would have thought that in terms of delivery of large components by sea, Turkey would put the Russians on the Black Sea and the Japanese on the Mediterranean, but that’s not how it worked out. The Japanese were never in the running for the first tender, which went to the Russians as the sole bidder.

Toshiba was involved in the first round of negotiations for the second site with Turkey last December, with TEPCO as its partner. Since March 11, that bid team has had to withdraw. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is now taking a crack at closing a deal by teaming up with Kansai Electric. It turns out that Turkey wants pressurized water technology, which makes Kansai a competent competitor due to its operational experience with this type of reactor in Japan.

The Toshiba/TEPCO team also withdrew from the South Texas Project in the United States, forcing NRG to stop all work on the development of twin 1350-MW ABWR reactors at a site south of Houston, Tex.

Lithuania looms in the future

Meanwhile, Hitachi, another industrial giant, is negotiating to build new reactors in Lithuania. Last July, Hitachi President Hiroaki Nakanishi said while traveling to promote the sale that his view is that the demand for new reactors will remain steady in foreign markets over the long-term. He noted that winning deals requires help from the government. There are opportunities for new reactors, fuel, operations and maintenance, and reprocessing of spent fuel.

The Russians view Lithuania as their provincial backyard and may put up a stiff fight to win the project. A similar battle is expected over the Czech Republic’s five-reactor Temelin new build, where Toshiba is competing against the Russians and Areva.

Middle East opportunities?

An interesting development is that Hitachi told Kyodo News in July that the company will keep to its goals for developing new nuclear reactor business in Asia and the Middle East, despite fears that the Fukushima crisis might deter some nations from going in this direction.

The business plan was drawn up prior to the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. The company says it sees no reason to change it.

Tatsuro Ishizuka, Hitachi vice president for business development, told the news service on July 20 that the company hopes to get orders for 20 new reactors in Asia and the Middle East.

“We will give priorities to negotiations with India, Vietnam, the U.S., and other countries with growing energy demand,” he said.

In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is reported to be planning to build 16 nuclear reactors by 2030, with the first two operational by 2021. According to wire service reports, it plans to have 20 percent of its electricity come from nuclear reactors.

Forgoing uranium enrichment to fuel them would help tamp down the Middle East’s volatile politics by preventing the massive nuclear new build from setting off an arms race with other countries.

____________

Yurman

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

# # #

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Areva, Earthquake, Economic benefits of nuclear, Electricity generating capacity, Export Control, Fukushima, India, Japan Steel Works, Natural disasters, News, reactor designs, Russia, spent fuel, Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, Vietnam

Profiles of Exceptional Women in Nuclear Energy

Posted on August 24, 2011 by dyurman| 1 Comment

Editor: Dan Yurman

Nuclear energy, like many other highly technical science and engineering fields, was led in the post World War II era by men. In the decades that followed, many women entered the field. An indication of how much that presence has grown is that the Women in Nuclear (WIN) organization now lists 4,500 members, according to a press release from the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is a sponsoring organization for WIN.

The latest crowd sourced blog post here at ANS Nuclear Cafe is a series of profiles of exceptional women in the nuclear energy field. ANS asked for brief profiles for publication and we are very pleased to present them here.

These are  first person stories, e.g., “How I become a nuclear professional and the importance of what I have achieved” in terms of career satisfaction, work-life balance, career ladders, technical mastery, or meeting a management challenge.

We published these profiles  because we think that they tell interesting stories, and we hope you agree.

________

Susan Hoxie-Key
Nuclear Fuel Services Manager
Southern Nuclear Operating Company

Susan Hoxie-Key

I grew up following the space program and knew by the time that I got to high school that I wanted to study engineering in college. I wanted to be one of the people who knew how complicated things worked and who made complicated things work. The colleges that I was applying to required a choice of major. I literally looked down the list of engineering majors and passed judgment on each option. When I got to “nuclear” on the list, it sounded interesting and hard. I picked nuclear engineering, and have never looked back.

In college, I joined the cooperative education (co-op) program, which meant that I alternated work and school semesters to earn money and gain work experience. Co-op was also a wonderful opportunity to live away from home and school and to test myself in the real world.

In 1989, after 12 years at Savannah River Site, I joined Southern Nuclear as a core designer for the Vogtle 2 nuclear power plant. I worked in core design and fuel-related licensing until 2006, when I moved into nuclear fuel procurement. More recently my responsibilities have expanded to include characterization of burned fuel for dry cask storage, burned fuel inspection activities, and new fuel fabrication oversight—all in addition to fuel procurement.

I love seeing my ideas put into action. I love the idea that I help make electricity, which has such a profoundly positive impact on peoples’ lives.

________

Kate Jackson
Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer
Westinghouse

Kate Jackson

My mother was an English teacher and my father was an engineer. They seldom agreed on politics or religion, but they always agreed on the importance of education and personal values. Growing up, family time was an opportunity to learn and practice open debate, with the most valuable lesson being that I learned to ask really good questions.

I’ve had exceptional opportunities to study and manage large, complex technological and natural systems to understand energy, environmental, and political intersections. These inextricably integrated systems require our continued stewardship and trade-off solutions by our best scientists, engineers, and social scientists.

As a parent, consumer, engineer, and global citizen, it’s important to me that we evaluate all energy options. As science and technology innovations lead us to review new trade-offs, we must continue to question and weigh options. Our social and economic stability depends on a flexible and diverse energy portfolio. Most of my career I’ve advised policy, business, and industry decision makers. And, it’s clear to me that nuclear energy is an essential component of a sustainable, emissions-free energy system.

I’m proud to be part of the Westinghouse tradition of excellence and innovation in science and technology. The AP1000® is the safest and most efficient nuclear reactor ever designed and licensed. In addition, I’m confident that our small modular reactor will offer an equally safe and efficient choice that customers can rely on in an increasingly carbon-regulated world.

I’ve never been one to plot my career path. Instead, I’ve gravitated toward work that makes a lasting contribution to the world that our children will inherit. We’ll never have all the answers, but we have an ethical responsibility to be fearless about asking all the questions.

________

Amanda Maguire
Engineer, LOCA Analysis & Methods
Westinghouse

Amanda Maguire

I arrived at Westinghouse as a new college graduate two years ago. My first days provided an impressive perspective on the level of responsibility available for young engineers in the nuclear industry. With a growing number of engineers approaching retirement age and the rapid changes around new nuclear technology, there are numerous opportunities to learn and advance. My first months at Westinghouse were spent immersing myself in learning about loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) long-term cooling analysis for the entire Westinghouse C-E reactor (Combustion Engineering) fleet of plants. The expectation was that, over time, I would amass enough knowledge to serve as the new subject matter expert.

I was initially overwhelmed by the high expectations of the nuclear industry. Getting up to speed with the volumes of knowledge was no small feat. Most knowledge transfer on older technology occurred in one-on-one information sharing sessions. I spent weeks meeting with previous experts, documenting everything they told me.

Now I feel light-years away from where I started. LOCA long-term cooling analysis is a current Nuclear Regulatory Commission focus. As a result, I’ve faced several difficult questions from the staff. I’ve learned to rely on my peers and other resources because an accurate answer is more important than an immediate answer. The biggest lesson learned, however, is to never try to do everything on your own!

This experience has been highly rewarding. I’ve recently presented in front of the NRC, traveled to several plants, and spoken with customers about my work. Although I’ve only worked in the industry for two years, I can now consider myself a subject matter expert!

________

Kathryn A. McCarthy
Deputy Associate Laboratory Director
for Nuclear Science & Technology
Idaho National Laboratory

Kathryn McCarthy

I was going to major in music. I played clarinet in the Phoenix Youth Symphony and in my high school band. I loved it. But the music programs in high schools were being cut as state budgets were reduced. I’m practical, so I considered other options. I had grown up around engineers and scientists. My father was a chemical engineer and worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for many years. I was good at math and science, and I enjoyed it. So I decided to look into engineering, which was a good combination of math, science, and practicality.

My high school physics teacher would often talk about nuclear energy. It sounded interesting, so I decided to major in nuclear engineering. I received my B.S. in nuclear engineering from the University of Arizona (where I had a wonderful mentor in Norman Hillberry, one of the designers of the first nuclear reactor, Chicago Pile), and my M.S. and Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from the University of California, Los Angeles. My area of research was fusion energy. Research in fission was limited then, and fusion energy had lots of interesting research options.

After graduate school, I worked for six months at the Kernforschungszentrum, Karlsruhe, research institution in Germany and then for a year in the Soviet Union, before coming to the Idaho National Laboratory, where I’ve worked for 20 years, first in fusion and then in fission technology.

My husband of 25 years is one of the main reasons that I’m successful. He’s an engineer with a Ph.D., and he has always been supportive of my career. We’ve raised two wonderful boys (my most important job), and I’ve been able to balance work and family most of the time.

My current role at INL is Deputy Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science and Technology, where I’m responsible for the execution of about $250 million worth of research and development programs.

I miss playing clarinet, but began taking piano lessons several years ago, so I still have my foot in that door, too.

________

Gail H. Marcus
Former President, American Nuclear Society

Gail Marcus

Whenever I talk to students about careers, I always tell them that careers are like snowflakes—no two are alike. Even if someone goes to the same university or takes the same first job, the landscape changes over time, and a second person can never follow the identical path.

Therefore, I tell them not to put too much emphasis on a career model. Instead, I emphasize the value of broad skills, diverse experiences, flexibility, and networking. And of how volunteering in one’s professional society can help career progression.

When I first joined ANS, I really didn’t have any expectation of getting involved in Society governance. But ANS ticked me off by issuing a pink badge, used for spouses, to my husband (really!), and then one thing led to another.

At some point, I realized that being involved in Society activities was benefiting me in many ways. Early in my career, it gave me opportunities to learn and exercise skills I later applied in my workplace. Throughout my career, it also gave me a chance to get to know many people outside my own field and my own organization.

If this sounds like an ad for ANS, so be it. The opportunities within ANS are numerous and diverse, so there is something for almost every interest. I encourage every member of ANS, but particularly the younger members, to get involved. Volunteering in ANS will not lead everyone to the same path I followed, but it will almost certainly prove a valuable experience.

As for me, I always wonder how my career would have evolved if ANS had not handed my husband a pink badge. In retrospect, I guess I’m grateful they did.

________

Kelle Barfield
Vice President, Advocacy
Entergy Corporation

Kelle Barfield

Kelle Barfield says that she became a nuclear professional through first
receiving an undergrad degree in journalism from the University of Texas, a graduate degree in communications management from Syracuse University, and
by working in the publishing world in Manhattan and Birmingham, Ala. But all
roads led her home, back to her roots in Vicksburg, Miss., where she married
an engineer who worked in nuclear at Entergy’s nearby Grand Gulf Nuclear
Station.

Beginning her Entergy career 25 years ago as a technical editor at Grand
Gulf, Barfield has successfully navigated the organization chart from
nuclear to utility positions back to nuclear, giving her a unique breadth
and competency in the nuclear sector. Leading national efforts and
considered a respected, knowledgeable thought-leader, Barfield’s passion for
the nuclear industry is noteworthy.

When Toni Beck was hired by Entergy as a new corporate communications group vice president at the New Orleans headquarters, she saw the opportunity to weave Entergy’s nuclear advocacy efforts into the broader public awareness that Entergy tries to instill about all aspects of energy policy.

Barfield is now shaping a new position created at Entergy: Vice President for Advocacy Communications. With bold thinking for the corporate giant, Beck is
leveraging Barfield’s management and industry expertise, moving her from the
nuclear headquarters in Jackson, Miss., to the New Orleans office
overlooking the Louisiana Superdome.

Barfield commented that the shape of the Superdome reminds her of a short,
fat cooling tower. “Once a nuke, always a nuke,” she remarked as she
packed boxes for her new office. This nuke isn’t going too far, only
up.

________

Michaele (Mikey) Brady Raap, Ph.D.
Chief Engineer, Battelle Northwest Division
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
ANS Treasurer and Chairman of the Professional Divisions Committee

Michaele Brady Raap

How does a kid (especially a girl) who attended high school in the same small Texas town that her mother grew up in end up with a PhD in nuclear engineering and an officer of an 11,000 member organization like the American Nuclear Society?

I often wonder myself, how did I get here? Most of my family (still in rural Texas) think I’m stubborn enough to do anything, but they wonder what DO I do?

In high school, I wrote a research paper on nuclear power. It was totally awe inspiring to think of the amount of energy that is released from something you couldn’t even see. After all the work (grades, testing, essay writing, etc.) associated with applying for colleges and scholarships (my only option for college), I decided I should be pursuing something that really excited me…so I checked a box that said “nuclear engineering.” I spent my first four years of college trying to figure out exactly what an engineer was!

By the time I finished my B.S., we were just getting to the good stuff. I stayed for my M.S., which included spending time at the university’s TRIGA reactor, and then for my PhD, which culminated in a three-year graduate research opportunity at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Wow, was I a long way from home!

I found a lot of support in my early involvement in ANS—both as a student and as a professional. That experience gave me confidence and provided opportunities for me to grow as a professional. ANS was also where I learned that nuclear is so much more than an academic study, a lab experiment, or electricity generation. It’s a powerful science with applications in medicine, space exploration, agriculture, food processing, etc. There are endless opportunities to support and improve current applications and to identify new uses of nuclear science and technology. For many developing countries, nuclear is the option that most effectively enables them to increase the standard of living for the masses.

After more than 25 years, I’m still jazzed by the potential of nuclear and thankful that I have the opportunity everyday to learn something new.

________

End Notes

The editors at ANS would like to thank these contributors for sharing their stories with our readers. We hope that you find them inspiring.

# # #

→ 1 Comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Education, Electricity generating capacity, Entergy, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, grants, lessons learned, Meetings, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Advocacy Network, Nuclear Energy Narrative, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Small modular reactors, spent fuel