ANS Nuclear Cafe

Introducing the Nuclear Literacy Project

Posted on April 16, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

By Suzy Hobbs Baker

The Nuclear Literacy Project is a new website and outreach initiative geared toward reaching young, non-technical audiences with information about nuclear energy. You can check out the site at http://www.nuclearliteracy.org/.

The nonprofit organization PopAtomic Studios has teamed with a committee of nuclear communications and technical experts, as well as Atomic Insights, American Crane, and StratusFX, to develop an innovative and effective approach to energy education.

The website is just the beginning. We are also working to create new apps, games, and quizzes to reach young people through venues that they already know and enjoy using. You want to learn 10 important facts about nuclear energy in about 1 minute? No problem! Just check out our Fast Facts page. Want to test your nuclear knowledge on your smart phone? Try one of our Quizzes.

We are also very excited to offer a first hand look into the lives of young nuclear engineers through our “Nuclear All Stars” blog. Click on the picture to read about Anagha, a California girl who is headed to the southeast to pursue her education in nuclear engineering and make the world a better place.

We invite you to visit the new website and to get involved. You can support this effort in many ways:

Share this article with friends and colleagues.
Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter.
Make a tax-deductible donation to the Nuclear Literacy Project.
Ask your company or organization to make an annual contribution to NLP.

You can read more about the history of the NLP at http://nuclearliteracy.org/about/history/

______________________

Hobbs Baker

Suzy Hobbs Baker is the executive director of PopAtomic Studios, a non-profit organization dedicated to using the power of visual and liberal arts to enrich the discussion on nuclear energy. Hobbs Baker is an ANS member and a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Education, Nuclear Literacy Project, PopAtomic

100th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Posted on April 14, 2012 by dyurman| Comments Off

Commitments kept across time and space result in recognition of a growing number of voices

The 100th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Atomic Power Review

This is a remarkable achievement based on the voluntary collaboration of the pro-nuclear bloggers of North America. Also, it is the occasion of the launch of the Nuclear Literacy Project.

Two industry leaders wrote congratulatory messages to mark the 100th Carnival. See the complete messages at Atomic Power Review which is run by Will Davis. Here are some highlights.

Eric P. Loewen, President
American Nuclear Society

“Congratulations to the nuclear bloggers and advocates on the occasion of the 100th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers. This milestone is a testament to the energy and passion of the nuclear community to share information on the benefits that nuclear energy holds for humanity. You are the people with the knowledge and passion to talk with friends, neighbors, policy makers, teachers and students about these issues.”

* * *

Eric McErlain
Nuclear Energy Institute

“As we celebrate the 100th Carnival of Nuclear Energy, I’d like to take a moment to salute all of the nuclear bloggers, a group that’s just about too large to count these days, for the great work they do every day.”

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

Comments Off

Posted in News

ANS Friday Nuclear Matinee triple feature

Posted on April 13, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

A triple feature for your viewing pleasure! Here we go:

1. Those atomic clocks can really come in handy! “GPS, Relativity, and Nuclear Detection” from Minute Physics:

2. This video regards Einstein’s mathematically proving the existence of atoms (and their size) in 1905. For more detail, see this Nuclear Pioneers post from the ANS Nuclear Cafe. Here’s the video “Albert Einstein: The Size and Existence of Atoms” from Minute Physics:

3. The ANS Student Conference in Las Vegas is now well underway. Here is one of the many beautiful videos shown during ANS President Eric Loewen’s keynote address at the conference, courtesy of Suzanne Hobbs Baker of PopAtomic Studios. Full-screen mode recommended:

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, ANS Student Sections, Education, Nuclear pioneers, PopAtomic

The ANS Student Section of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Posted on April 12, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

American Nuclear Society President Eric Loewen visited the ANS student section at the University of Illinois on Tuesday, March 27, followed by dinner with the Central Illinois ANS local section. This event was part of Loewen’s “March Madness” speaking tour, building toward the 2012 ANS Student Conference (which begins today in Las Vegas). The occasion gave ANS Nuclear Cafe a chance to catch up with Valentyn Bykov, president of the ANS student section at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to discuss the section and its activities.

Social events

: Bykov

Valentyn Bykov: “During their first two years, our students take general science and engineering classes along with students from all the other engineering disciplines. Since we are a small department (the Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering/NPRE), we don’t see many of our fellow nuclear engineers during these two years. Therefore, ANS organizes many social events, providing opportunities for students to become better acquainted and to get to know each other. This also allows underclassmen to meet the upperclassmen, who often pass down advice based on their experience.”

Excursions

: Dr. Loewen addresses the Illinois ANS Student Section

“We take many engineering classes, most of which are highly technical. So, it’s very difficult to keep in mind the overall big picture. During the more difficult semesters, we all need to be reminded why we’re doing all this in the first place and recharge our motivation. So our ANS section organizes numerous trips to nuclear power plants and national labs, where students can see what kind of work nuclear engineers can do after they graduate, as well as understand how all these individual components come together, forming the big picture. It’s also a good opportunity to get industry insight on various topics,” said Bykov.

Outreach

“We also make sure to stay in touch with people outside of the NPRE Department and the nuclear industry, mainly through outreach events,” he said. “When we ask people what do they think when you say nuclear engineering, we often hear about nuclear weapons, cooling towers and (more often than you’d think) the dangerous health effects of the microwave oven radiation. Our goal is to inform and educate, but also share why we think that industry nuclear is an interesting and exciting career choice. We organize and assist with several
Boy Scout merit badge events, in which young scouts learn about the science behind nuclear power and related career choices. Every March we hold a series of presentations and demonstrations during our university’s Engineering Open House, a two-day event during which over 20,000 people visit campus to see various engineering demonstrations created by students. We also try to be present during various non-engineering events; for example, we have a table next to other student organizations in an event organized during ‘Mom’s weekend,’ in which students and their visiting moms can see what various student organizations do on campus. Being usually the only engineering organization present at this event, our interactive demonstration of radiation sources is very popular. Many of the visitors want to talk to us about the nature of our organization, potential careers, details about Fukushima, and nuclear power in general.”

The future

: Valentyn Bikov, Arthur Talpaert, Jason Peck, Eric Loewen, Thomas Dolan, Rizwan Uddin, Barclay Jones

“As for long-term goals for our student section, at this point our membership is composed almost entirely of nuclear engineering majors, most of whom are undergraduates,” he said. “One of our long-term goals is to get more people involved, especially from other departments. We believe that the nature of our trips and many of our other events would be relevant to other departments. We are also trying to extend our involvement with other departments (i.e., by cooperating with other students organization on joined events) and non-engineering events (like the aforementioned Mom’s weekend interactive presentation).”

“I feel like our ANS section is an extension of the students,” he added. “At times various students have an idea for an interesting event or a trip, and instead of leaving the organization up to the (already very busy) NPRE Department, the ANS student section will step in and handle everything. This gives more power to the students, as we can spread the word about the idea and, if there’s sufficient interest, organize the whole event without the need for the department to get involved.”

“This also works the other way around, when the department asks or encourages us to set up an event to address an issue they hear about in student feedback forms,” Bykov said. “For example, our university no longer has an operating research reactor (our TRIGA was shut down in the 1990s for political reasons), and many students feel they are ‘missing out’ on the related experiments. Therefore, our department suggested—and our student section is currently in the process of organizing—a visit to a university that has a working reactor, during which we would perform experiments to gain experience with research reactor operation. The goal is to first organize the visit and offer it simply as a trip for interested individuals, then in the future hopefully make the visit more frequently than once in a semester, and offer some kind of course credit in return. The whole effort is currently organized primarily between our ANS student section and the ANS student section at the Missouri University of Science and Technology.”

: The Illinois ANS student section board. top row: Michael Cunningham, Robert Geringer, Cody Morrow; bottom row: Talisa Chambers, Valentyn Bykov, Molly Bilderback; not pictured: Carlos Altamirano

In closing

“Our ANS student section provides many ways in which to get involved, whether it’s getting advice on what class to take next semester, meeting nuclear power plant workers and talking to them about their job, practicing one’s teaching abilities with children and the general public, or one of the many other ways for nuclear engineering students to get involved in the ‘big picture,’” he concluded.

___________________________________

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, ANS Student Sections, college colleges university universities, Education, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Local Sections, News

INPO certifies Southern operator training

Posted on April 11, 2012 by dyurman| Comments Off

Digital control room simulator at US NRC

With all the justifiable excitement about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s granting licenses to Southern Company to build two 1,100-MW Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors, it also is worth noting the progress the utility is making to train operators to run the new plants.

In March, the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) granted initial accreditation of the Vogtle-3 & -4 operators training program. This enables reactor operator candidates to apply for NRC licenses to operate the new AP1000 units.

Steven Kuczynski, president and chief executive officer of Southern Nuclear, wrote in an e-mail message to all employees that it is a “very significant and positive achievement for the project.”

He added that the milestone was achieved 18 months prior to the first docketed operator exam and four years ahead of the first fuel load at Unit 3.

ANS Nuclear Cafe talked with Southern Nuclear’s Katherine Melvin in the public affairs office about the training program. Here is the interview:

What is the significance of the certification?

The accreditation allows the station to train operators in an NRC-approved training program [accredited by the National Nuclear Accrediting Board]. This facilitates industry best training practices, and the station has the flexibility to continuously improve performance (instead of training operators to meet NRC inspection criteria only).

What did Southern Nuclear have to do to earn it?

Southern Nuclear hired instructors for the operations training programs up to three years prior to accreditation so they could work with the plant vendor to train the instructors. We also:

Built a training facility
Installed two simulators in the building
Implemented procedures to support training and qualification of operators
Hired operator candidates and initiated training
Produced plans for the next five years to ensure a sufficient number of operators for two plants
Staffed operations management to provide support and oversight
Implemented an entire training organization.

A year prior to the board review, a comprehensive self-assessment using industry peers was conducted to check readiness for an accreditation team visit. An accreditation team assessed the ability of the station to train operators in the fall of last year, and then an accreditation board reviewed the accreditation team report along with an Initial Accreditation Utility Report written by Southern Nuclear. The accreditation board asked questions of executives and staff and reviewed documentation to grant accreditation.

Who will be trained at Southern Nuclear in the certified program?

Operators in all six programs:

Non-licensed operators
Reactor operators
Senior reactor operators
Licensed operators
Shift technical advisers
Shift managers

What will they be able to do as a result of the training?

The operators will safely and efficiently run the plant. Licensed operators will operate or supervise the operation of the controls of the reactor.

__________

Comments Off

Posted in licensing, training, workforce

The Nuclear Debate On the Road

Posted on April 10, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

By Howard Shaffer

Plymouth, Massachusetts, “America’s Home Town,” is the place where the pilgrims landed, and is also the home of the Pilgrim nuclear power plant. On March 29, a forum was held in Plymouth to discuss a non-binding ballot question for the town election in May. The question is whether or not to freeze the plant’s relicensing process until all the Fukushima fixes are completed.

The political setting

The town of Plymouth has a Nuclear Matters Committee (NMC), which keeps informed on plant issues and advises the town’s Selectboard. In New England, towns are governed by the town meeting, where all voters who wish can convene to become the town legislature. The executive is a group chosen by the voters, now called the Selectboard. Many towns now also have a town manager reporting to the Selectboard.

Massachusetts is known as a very liberal state, and proud of this tradition. In the 1988 election, a referendum required shutting down both nuclear power plants in the state—Pilgrim and the Yankee Rowe nuclear power station. This referendum was defeated, thanks to 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 voting margins in the towns along Massachusetts’ high tech beltway I-495 (how this was done is a story for another time).

There is a virulent anti-nuclear movement in the Plymouth area, spearheaded by an individual from the nearby town of Duxbury. This person is able to be an intervener, and has filed numerous motions in Pilgrim’s relicensing. She is expected to continue to file motions in hopes of delaying relicensing (the plant’s 40-year license expires in June). The law for all federal regulatory agencies, however, provides for continued operation of the plant if an agency has not completed action on an application for extension/renewal filed more than five years beforehand.

Arranging the forum

The Plymouth NMC arranged a forum to discuss the ballot question. It wanted to have both the “Vote Yes” and “Vote No” positions represented. The obvious underlying issues were nuclear power itself, and the Fukushima–Daiichi accident’s effect on the Pilgrim boiling water reactor with Mark I containment. To speak in favor of “Yes,” the committee obtained Arnie Gundersen, of Fairewinds Associates, Burlington, Vt. To speak in favor of “No” it first contacted Professor Gil Brown of the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Gil is a long-time American Nuclear Society and ANS Northeastern Section member. However, he is on sabbatical and working at the State Department, and could not make their date. Gil called me and put me in touch with the panel organizer. When Arnie found out that I was to be on the panel, he said that he would withdraw! But eventually he changed his mind (this made an interesting lead-up story in the local paper).

Then the chair of the NMC took over organizing and moderating the forum. Entergy, the plant’s owner, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose Region I staff were in the same room up to a half hour before the forum for their annual plant review meeting, could not participate (this article covers both events).

Before the forum we had a briefing with Jack Alexander, who does the Pilgrim public outreach; Paul Smith, retired Pilgrim staff and now consulting; and Chuck Adey, now retired and living in Plymouth, who has worked at the plant, done public outreach, and is an ANS Northeastern Section member.

The forum

The forum was held in the Selectboard meeting room in the town hall. This was formerly the high school, so the meeting room was originally a large classroom or small assembly hall. The NRC’s public meeting to report to the public on the plant’s prior year performance was held in half the room. Its meeting was informal and reception style, with no formal presentation. There were tables with displays, and Region I staff circulating to talk with attendees.

After the NRC meeting, the accordion wall dividing the room was folded, and chairs set up. The Selectboard members table was at one end of the room, on the floor with the audience, with microphones. The room had built-in TV cameras. The local public access station (PAC-TV) recorded for rebroadcast and on-demand viewing. A local radio station broadcast the program live, which necessitated one commercial break. A local newspaper had on-line coverage with a twitter stream, including many comments from Japan. Documentarian Robbie Leppzer had his camera set up in front of the first row of chairs, which unfortunately blocked my view of some of the audience. Meredith Angwin provided next day coverage at Yes Vermont Yankee.

There was standing room only. The members of the NMC were in the first row. The first several rows were filled with plant opponents. The moderator announced the program, and we began by introducing ourselves for 45 seconds, followed by our 20-minute presentations (see my presentation and the ANS report on Fukushima). Questions and answers followed for the balance of the two hours. The moderator, Jeff Berger, maintained strict control, including telling a person who raised a sign saying, “No Dose is Safe” that it was not permitted. The NMC members, now with a majority of technically oriented citizens, including Paul Smith who was on the plant staff and is still consulting, were given preference in asking questions. (The committee had recommended that the Selectboard not put the question on the ballot.) Then citizens of Plymouth were called, and when there seemed to be no more questions from them, people from other towns were called.

The content

The two-hour recording of the forum from PAC-TV Plymouth can be seen on demand.

My presentation and answers put the question of nuclear power in the context of a national policy to replace coal and its adverse health effects. I discussed the Fukushima-Daiichi accident and history of the Mark I containment as part of the development and learning process common to all technologies.

For his part, Arnie Gundersen continued his relentless attack on the Mark I Containment, saying it is too small, can’t contain, and must be vented. He dragged out references to Stephen Hanauer’s 1972 memo and other staff statements referring to Mark I as having serious problems. Additional claims by Gundersen:

A reactor produces 5-percent decay heat, which doesn’t stop.
NRC commissioners are vetted by the Nuclear Energy Institute. The NRC is cozy with the industry.
NRC Chairman Jaczko has said that people will have to be restricted from evacuation zones forever.
Fukushima will result in a million cases of cancer over 30 years.
Service water systems are vulnerable to sabotage, so reactors could lose all cooling. Gundersen referred to an incident in the recent past where a foreign sailboat got inside the buoy line around the plant’s intake.
The Chernobyl accident resulted in the demise of the Soviet Union, per Mr. Gorbechev.
Moving as much used fuel as possible to dry casks is important for safety.
The NRC is now concerned with drone attacks on a plant.

Most questions from the audience were also along the lines of these statements.

Members of the NMC and a few others did raise cogent points and dispute some of the statements made by Gundersen and others.

Aftermath

The local newspapers reported the forum, but the Boston newspapers and TV did not. Jack Alexander took this as a good sign, observing that these media specialize in only negative stories about the plant.

Supporters were satisfied that their position had been defended.

_____________________

: Shaffer

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

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

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Entergy, licensing, nuclear opponents, View from Vermont

99th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Posted on April 9, 2012 by dyurman| Comments Off

This week’s carnival is up at NEI Nuclear Notes

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

Comments Off

Posted in News

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

Posted on April 9, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

Part II: Electric propulsion and fission power generation in space

(Part I, “Space nuclear reactor safety,” is here)

By Wesley Deason

Ever since man set foot on Earth’s moon, explorers have envisioned traveling out of Earth’s orbit and into space beyond. To do so, however, will require a propulsion device capable of traveling farther than any used before. These devices will be powered by nuclear energy. In this post, I will discuss nuclear electric propulsion, one of the two primary nuclear propulsion concepts considered by engineers for near-term space travel. Nuclear thermal propulsion, the other primary concept, will be explored in a later post.

Electric propulsion, also commonly referred to as “ion thrust propulsion,” uses electrical power to accelerate ions to very high speeds to provide thrust for a spacecraft. Nuclear electric propulsion is electric propulsion whose power source is fission reactor based, or radioisotope decay based. Electric propulsion is not a new technology, and is well understood. Currently, solar powered electric propulsion devices are used at a small scale to keep satellites in their correct orbit. For operation at a larger scale, however, where much higher thrust values will be needed, or operation at a distance from the sun where solar power is incapable of providing the necessary energy intensity, nuclear electric propulsion will be required.

Aside from the ion thruster used to provide thrust for a nuclear electric propelled spacecraft, its other defining characteristic is the type of nuclear electric generator needed to provide power. Nuclear electric generators used for power production in space can come in many shapes and sizes, depending on the power requirements and spacecraft dimensions. For small power production needs in missions requiring a low thrust, radioisotope power systems can be used. In these systems, the radioactive decay heat from a radioisotope is converted to electricity through the use of a heat-to-work conversion device, or a heat engine. The most common of these are Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) and Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generators (ASRGs). You can find out more about these systems by reading my previous post on plutonium-based radioisotope power systems.

SNAP 10-A, fission-based space power system launched in 1965

For larger thrust requirements, however, fission-based power systems become a necessity. Missions requiring such high thrust will be manned and/or carry a large onboard capacity for conducting science. These mission requirements are also often outside the capability of chemical (or even nuclear thermal) propulsion. Individually, the previously stated requirements are not difficult to meet. For example, earth-based power reactors generate enough power to light a large city, but the thought of launching them into space to produce power is absurd. Alternatively, fission power systems have been proposed that are about the size of a small car, which is a relatively small payload to put into low earth orbit. Unfortunately, these systems can produce only a fraction of the electric power that could be produced by that same small car. The ideal space nuclear electric generator would meet both requirements of size and power. To evaluate competitive designs for nuclear electric propulsion systems, engineers seek the smallest system mass possible for a given power production level.

SNAP 10-A

To meet these system requirements, engineers must consider different technologies from those used in earth-based nuclear reactors. For example, the first and only fission-based space power system to be flown by the United States, the SNAP-10A spacecraft, used thermoelectrics, which is the same power conversion technology used by RTGs to produce electricity. Thermoelectrics, however, while dependable, are very inefficient, and excess heat produced by the reactor must be rejected away from the spacecraft. In space, this heat rejection can only be in the form of radiative energy. For those unfamiliar with methods of heat transfer, radiative heat transfer is how heat lamps heat food at a local fast food restaurant, how heat is lost from a vacuum sealed Thermos, and even how the earth is heated by the sun. This may seem unintuitive at first but if you think about it, there are no lakes or rivers of water in space to sweep away excess heat like earth-based power systems. In space nuclear power systems, large panels are heated to high temperatures in order to reject this excess heat. Thus the size, and accordingly the temperature, of these radiator panels drive the power system to be as efficient and high temperature as possible.

Many technologies have been discussed as being capable of achieving such power production goals, with some being invented primarily for this purpose. One of the simpler systems may use a combination of helium and xenon gas as coolant, which can spin a turbine to produce electricity. This was the system designed and proposed for use in the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO), a space exploration program under serious consideration only a few years ago. More complicated systems propose boiling potassium to spin a turbine, although the zero gravity environment of space makes the task more difficult to accomplish. Lastly, some propose suspending the fuel in a gaseous form, allowing it to flow through a magnetohydrodynamic generator (MHD), which uses the ionized fuel particles to produce electricity. The best way to explain an MHD generator is to think of it as a reverse ion thruster, where charged particles induce a current to produce electricity.

Prometheus nuclear electric Deep Space Vehicle, incorporating JIMO Mission Module

Nuclear electric propulsion has great potential. Its ability to provide propulsion to anywhere in the solar system makes it a viable competitor when the human race decides to explore beyond the gravity well of earth. Like most nuclear technologies, research will continue and technological advancements will continue to be made in the meantime.

_________________________

Deason

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

→ 5 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Professional Divisions, Space Applications

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

NAS study of cancer risks near U.S. nuclear facilities

Posted on April 4, 2012 by radams| 6 Comments

By Rod Adams

The National Academy of Science (NAS) has released phase one of a study titled Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities. The release officially opened a 60-day public comment period in which stakeholders can provide their inputs to help guide the next phases of the study. The project email address that should be used for submitting comments is crs@nas.edu.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission tasked the National Academy of Science to perform the study. The expenditure was considered to be a prudent investment because the existing study on the risk of developing cancer based on proximity to nuclear facilities in the United States is more than 20 years old. In the intervening years, there have been a number of attempts internationally to determine if there is a link between radiation released from nuclear energy facilities and cancer risks; the results of those studies have been inconclusive.

In cases like the announcement of a discovery of a cluster of childhood leukemia cases near the Sellafield facility in Great Britain, the news of results that seemed to indicate a problem received a great deal of publicity. News of the cluster’s discovery was broken during a television program that aired in November 1983. The careful science required to more fully understand the cause of the higher than expected rate of childhood leukemia took decades.

It is likely that few of the people who formed opinions about the radiation-related risk of cancer from the television story or the numerous repetitions of that story have heard anything about the study titled Childhood leukaemia, nuclear sites, and population mixing, which was accepted for publication in the British Journal of Cancer in October 2010. That study showed that there was a strong correlation between population influx in a formerly isolated rural area and the risk of childhood leukemia. That relationship has been found in populations near expansive facilities that had nothing to do with nuclear energy or radiation.

The effort to find out if there is a risk associated with living near a nuclear energy facility is full of scientific obstacles. Many of the challenges that are inherent in the task are detailed in the summary that the NAS released as part of the phase one scoping effort. The listed challenges include the difficulty in finding accurate data that relates cancer incidence to physical addresses, lack of any records related to population mobility in areas of interest, some uncertainty about radiation release data, and the expectation that any increases in cancer related to the measured levels of radiation will be so low as to be statistically hidden in the noise of normal variations.

Of course, scientists who have been tasked with finding ways to perform a study can almost always recommend several methods that might provide useful information—if provided with enough resources. This effort is no exception to that rule; the summary provides no fewer than four potential study designs, each with its own set of limitations and strengths. Not surprisingly, the summary also includes a recommended course of action that would involve a substantial effort in data gathering, modeling, and analysis—assuming that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission decides to proceed with the study.

The final recommendation in the summary is the development of processes for involving and communicating with stakeholders “to achieve effective collaboration with local people and officials and increase social trust and confidence.”

Dr. Arjun Makhijani, a man with a long history of opposition to the use of nuclear energy, strongly supports the effort and expects the NAS to find evidence of risk, especially to children. He intends to provide a substantial input during the comment period. I expect that other professional antinuclear activists will provide their comments and demand to be a part of the stakeholder engagement process.

A number of experts in the field of radiation biology are also preparing to provide comments. Here is an example comment from an e-mail list inhabited by people who have studied radiation health effects for decades:

If the U.S. NRC and these radiation protection folks would only look at the (20-year-old) cell biology evidence instead of their LNT [linear no-threshold] ideology and epidemiology, they would realize that they are trying to measure a cancer risk (radiation-induced DNA damage rate) that is six million (6,000,000) times lower than the spontaneous risk of cancer (i.e., natural DNA damage rate).

The numbers in that comment relate to the fact that the dose rate from licensed nuclear facilities in the United States is less than 1 mSv/year to the most exposed person. There is zero probability that a population exposed to such a dose will exhibit any increase in expected cancer risks. It is always possible, however, to expend a large sum of money and time performing studies and involving a number of stakeholders, many of whom tend not to reveal their actual stake in the matter.

The American Nuclear Society includes experts in the field of radiation biology who should take the time to read the phase one scoping summary, learn more about the proposed study methods, and provide informed comments. The most reasonable decision would be that there are any number of higher priority ways to spend the money and the scientific resources that would be needed to perform the proposed phase two study; it is unlikely to provide any new or useful information.

A more likely decision will be to perform the study, but perhaps a sufficient number of informed comments will prevent initial assumptions about risks from producing yet another study that seems to support the notion that radiation risk is always some number greater than zero—no matter how low the dose.

_________________

Adams

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

→ 6 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, News, Radiation

ANS Vice President Corradini discusses ANS Fukushima report

Posted on April 3, 2012 by lscheele| 2 Comments

American Nuclear Society Vice President/President Elect Michael Corradini—co-chair of the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima—discusses the findings of the ANS Special Committee report and other Fukushima-related matters in this news clip, filmed in conjunction with a March speaking engagement at an Oak Ridge/Knoxville ANS Local Section dinner meeting.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Fukushima, general media, lessons learned, Local Sections, News

ANS President Eric Loewen submits testimony on FY 2013 energy appropriations

Posted on April 2, 2012 by lscheele| 2 Comments

On Friday, March 30, American Nuclear Society President Eric Loewen submitted outside written testimony on behalf of the American Nuclear Society to the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. The testimony addresses on Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other relevant agencies under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction—in particular, funding for nuclear programs under DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy.

The testimony is below and can be downloaded in .pdf format by clicking HERE.

Testimony by Eric P. Loewen Ph.D.
President, American Nuclear Society
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
On the FY 2013 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill
March 30, 2012

Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Visclosky, members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the 12,000 members of the American Nuclear Society, I am pleased to provide testimony on FY 2013 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy and other relevant agencies under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

As you know, ANS represents a diverse cadre of nuclear professionals. As such, our members’ opinions on nuclear issues are often wide-ranging, and perhaps sometimes different from the Subcommittee. The ANS, however, truly appreciates the thoughtful and deliberate manner in which the Subcommittee approaches issues related to nuclear energy, science, and technology.

ANS believes the United States must maintain its nuclear energy technology capabilities, both from an energy and national security perspective. While we recognize that US demand for new nuclear reactors has cooled recently because of our economic downturn and historically low natural gas prices, the ANS knows nuclear energy is still an indispensable part of our long-term energy policy in the US.

The administration has set forth a plan to address the current set of nuclear challenges: a targeted research and development program to promote sustainability of our current light water reactor fleet; a program to accelerate development and licensing of light water Small Modular Reactors (SMRs); research programs focused on the nuclear fuel cycle, advanced reactors, and developing simulation and modeling tools that have broad application across the nuclear sector.

We are puzzled however by the President’s FY 2013 budget request for the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE NE), which is clearly insufficient to maintain progress on the administration’s own announced priorities.

Administration’s budget documents show a net increase of 0.7% over FY 2012, which on the surface would seem to be a reasonable request given the current fiscal pressures. Upon closer inspection, however, the administration proposes moving $95 million in funding for “Idaho Sitewide Safeguards and Security” into the main DOE NE budget from Other Defense Activities account. Without this clever piece of accounting, the actual FY 13 DOE NE budget would be cut by 11.7%, while the overall funding level for DOE would increase by 3.2%.

It is apparent that the president’s budget request for DOE NE is more a product of internal budgetary “goal posting” than a deliberate attempt to reduce the scope of the administration’s initiatives in nuclear energy science and technology.

The ANS believes it is extremely important to maintain funding for the DOE NE at consistent levels, and urges the subcommittee to base its FY 2013 recommendations on FY 2012 enacted levels. As such, our specific program recommendations for DOE NE assume “flat funding” in FY 2013.

We urge the Subcommittee to support the continuation of the Integrated University Program. Specifically, we request that the Subcommittee to restore the full $15 million in funding for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s portion of the IUP program and the $5 million FY12 appropriated level for DOE-NE. While we are pleased that the current leadership of the DOE NE has reestablished its commitment as the primary steward of university-based nuclear education programs, we believe it is critically important for NRC to continue its activities in this area. As you may recall, it was the House Energy and Water Subcommittee that originally precipitated the transfer in funding for universities from DOE to NRC several budget cycles ago. If these activities are not funded, several very important activities will be terminated, including support for younger faculty awards, and collaboration on curriculum between two-year and four-year institutions of higher learning.

ANS recommends funding the SMR licensing technical program at $95 million, which represents an increase of $30 million over the President’s FY 2013 budget request level. Our recommended funding level would put the DOE SMR program on a sustainable trajectory to meet its budgetary milestones of $452 million over a 5 year period. The subcommittee should recognize that the US is in a full scale race with other nations, such as Russia, China, Korea and India, to develop and deploy SMR technology. SMRs offer an opportunity for improving the attractiveness of the US nuclear export portfolio and create manufacturing jobs in the US. The president’s budget request level is
simply insufficient to meet the program’s objectives.

The Advanced Reactor Concepts program should be funded at the FY 2012 enacted levels. ANS recognizes that the administration has de-prioritized the development of socalled Generation IV reactor designs. However, its proposed 43% cut in funding for the Advanced Reactor Concepts program will essentially relinquish US global leadership in an American technology and throw away previous US investments. Forgoing this leadership directly impacts our ability to promote US safety and nonproliferation standards around the world for these technologies.

The Next Generation Nuclear Plant project should be funded at its authorized amount in EPAC of 2005 in FY 2013. ANS believes that DOE should fund the NGNP project for success and near-term results rather than settle for a slower pace of licensing “framework” activities. Developing a licensing “framework” does not establish technology leadership, rather it concrete foundations of this first-of-kind project that will establish the US as technology leaders.

Sadly however, the 47% percent cut proposed by the administration would not allow DOE to even pursue its stated “framework” course, and would also continue to cause irreversible losses to a program established in EPAC 2005. For instance, several samples of advanced fuels currently being tested in the INL Advanced Test Reactor would have to be prematurely removed, thereby destroying valuable scientific data (that took years to create), and not keeping with Congresses vision of the project established by law in 2005.

Finally, we urge the Subcommittee to provide such sums as may be necessary for the preservation of all scientific and technical documents and predictive modeling licensing codes related to the Yucca Mountain license application. The ANS membership has been deeply disappointed that the administration has essentially chosen to value politics over sound science in withdrawing the license application. We recognize that the Administration efforts with the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC), and their recommendations to Congress. ANS provided input to the BRC. Prudence dictates that the technical fruits of nearly $10 billion worth of utility rate payer investments should be preserved for future repository efforts regardless of the location in the US.

In closing, our goals is to provide the Subcommittee with the views of our society as it assembles the FY 2013 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, and we stand ready and willing to provide additional technical assistance based on this information. At this moment in the life of our industry, I call for more attention to the need for our nation to have the courage of commitment to live up to our historical leadership role in nuclear technology. Unless we step up, we will be left behind.

Thank you.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, U.S. Congress

98th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Posted on April 1, 2012 by dyurman| Comments Off

Nuclear renaissance picks up steam with NRC approval of twin AP1000s at Scana’s V C Summer Station

The 98th Carnival is up at Idaho Samizdat.

Ted Rose painting of the New York Central 20th Century Limited in Chicago. Image: U.S. Postal Service commemorative stamp

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

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

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

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

# # #

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Carnival of nuclear bloggers, nuclear technology

NRC approves two new reactors in South Carolina

Posted on March 30, 2012 by lscheele| 5 Comments

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 30 voted to clear the way for its Office of New Reactors to issue two licenses for two new AP1000 reactors at the V.C. Summer site in Parr, S.C. This marks the NRC’s second approval of nuclear units to be built in the United States in two months. In February, the NRC approved a license for Atlanta-based Southern Company’s Vogtle project, in Waynesboro, Ga. The NRC had not issued any new reactor licenses since 1978.

The five-member commission approved the license for the Summer project in a 4–1 vote, with NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko dissenting. Jaczko was also the lone dissenting vote for the Vogtle license. The NRC’s news release on the Summer approval can be found here, and the NRC staff is expected to issue the combined operating license for the project within 10 business days.

The vote clears the way for SCANA subsidiary South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) and Santee Cooper to build and operate the two new reactors at Summer. A SCANA spokesperson was quoted in The Augusta Chronicle as saying that about 1,000 workers have already been engaged in early site preparation for the project. The project will peak at about 3,000 long-term construction workers over three to four years, and the two units are expected to add as many as 800 permanent jobs when they start generating electricity. The Summer units are expected to begin operating in 2017 and 2018.

Soon there will be four new reactors with operating licenses in place under construction in the United States, and—with the Tennessee Valley Authority’s ongoing completion of Watts Bar-2 in Tennessee—five reactors total under construction. Stay tuned to the ANS Nuclear Cafe for more coverage of the licensing decision.

_________________

→ 5 Comments

Posted in licensing, Nuclear Regulatory Commission