Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

( By Mike Bullard )

With heavy emphasis placed on the use of natural gas for complimentary energy capacity in the recent American Clean Energy and Security Act, it is necessary to question if the use of natural gas delivers as a “green” energy. If the goal of this bill is to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, why are we relying on natural gas for base load or mid-load capacity with this bill?

Natural gas produces half the CO2 emissions of traditional coal and no trace amounts of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, mercury, etc.  For comparison, clean coal with carbon capture has only 15% of the CO2 emmissions of a traditional coal plant, so natural gas produces over 3 times more CO2 emissions than clean coal technology would.  Why aren’t we seeing anti-natural gas ads on TV?

Furthermore, there aren’t enough natural reserves of natural gas in the United States to rely heavily on natural gas, but this is what’s happening.  Natural gas power plants are quick and inexpensive to build, but the natural gas is an expensive fuel to burn.  Natural gas has had a history of regulatory ups-and-downs which have recently skyrocketed its price.  Many plants have been sitting idle for years because of the high cost of natural gas.

Additionally, many utilities, depending on state regulations, are not permitted to pass capital costs (the costs of building the power plants) on to the consumers, but they are allowed to pass fuel costs to consumers.  It’s in the consumer’s best interests for the utility to provide the cheapest energy possible, but conflictingly, it’s in the utility’s best interest to keep capital costs as low as possible, even at the expense of high energy production costs which they are allowed to pass to the rate payers.

This is related to what happened in Missouri recently, AmerenUE was planning to build a new nuclear power plant in the state, but a State Senate filibuster stopped the ban on passing capital costs to rate payers from being lifted.  Extreme environmentalists thought this was a good thing.  I wish them luck getting solar and wind power built in Missouri if capital costs can’t be passed on.

A nuclear plant would have been much greener and more cost effective to the rate payers in the long run (~9-10 years) than would natural gas.  The nuclear plant would have created a lot more high-paying jobs as well.

Eventually, domestic natural gas reserves will run low.  We will spend billions creating ways to transport natural gas from foreign countries (Russia and the Middle East), just to put ourselves at the mercy of our foreign suppliers–a story that is eerily familiar.  All of this for an energy source that is neither cheap nor “green.”

( By Mark Stewart )

Rep. Henry Waxman (L) and Rep. Ed Markey (R)

As you’ve probably heard by now, The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday by a relatively thin margin.  While the bill throws the nuclear industry a bone with an exclusion of new nuclear from base generation targets, the bill as a whole misses the mark when it comes to real solutions.

While there’s nothing wrong with pursuing renewables like wind and solar energy, these  technologies have yet to prove that they can be reliable, competitive in the energy market, and adequate to meet the ever increasing energy demand.  If the U.S. is serious about cutting CO2 emissions, New Nuclear Power is the only feasible CO2 free power solution that is ready TODAY.

Leave it to Congress to overcomplicate what could be a simple issue.  By drafting legislation that funds and promotes only “renewable” energy instead of all “clean” energy, the House missed a chance to solidify emission-free electricity supply in the U.S. as well as set the framework for thousands of high-paying skilled construction and engineering jobs.

This marks the second such missed opportunity this year as President Obama’s stimulus package failed to include any nuclear provisions.  The ACES bill still has to go through the Senate and I am hopeful that Senators Bennett, Alexander, Bunning, Voinovich, and others can stand up for clean, CO2 free, nuclear energy while debating this bill.

( By Carrington Dillon )

I found this poll (courtesy of Zogby International) a while back while searching for material to stash in my Favorites for this website.  After seeing some polling data previously, I thought that most of the polling data was typical and to be expected.  However, something just came off the screen and really hit me in the face.  One piece of data… 18-24 year olds were the least supportive age group for nuclear power!

Only 47% of 18-24 year olds were supportive of building new nuclear plants.  67% of adults are supportive of nuclear power and 78% of those over the age of 65 are supportive.  The technology generation is against one of the most advanced technologies that the human race has ever created.  Is it popular culture, video games, rap music?

There are so many things that went through my head for a couple of days after I saw this.  But instead of telling you what I think is the reason for this trend, I’d like to try something new.  I’d like for my fellow NA-YGN members to comment and let me know what they think the cause is.  I would also like for them to come up with some ideas on how we can reach this college-aged group.

We may be able to use some of these ideas for our advocacy efforts in the future.  Recently, I have been working with others in NA-YGN on ideas to reach school-aged kids with nuclear advocacy.  This will go along perfectly with those efforts and hopefully create some good ideas in the process.  Feel free to let loose with the discussion.  Let’s see what you can come up with.

( By Adam Johnson )
The most vital resource to nuclear power is the nuclear fuel which is used to drive the nuclear reactions and generate heat.  Currently the most common way uranium nuclear fuel is produced, is by mining it from the earth and processing it so that it is suitable for use in nuclear reactors.  There are some estimates that predict the land-based sources of uranium will be depleted in a few hundred years.  Therefore, it is time we start investigating alternatives for obtaining nuclear fuel.

Japanese researchers are considering harvesting uranium from the largest available resource on earth–the oceans.  The idea is to construct large underwater sponge farms with specially designed sponges capable of absorbing uranium.  The article states that there are approximately 4.5 billion tons of uranium suspended in the world’s oceans.  To put this into perspective, Japanese nuclear reactors process 8,000 tons of uranium each year.  Although the concentration of uranium in seawater is around 3 parts per billion, the proposed sponges are designed to absorb this low level concentration.

The sponges are made from irradiated polyethylene fabric developed by Dr. Masao Tanada of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency.  Dr. Tanada claims that the technology could be commercially available in as little as five years.  He suggests conducting a pilot project that would cover an area of 400 square miles.  This size sponge farm could absorb enough uranium to meet a sixth of Japan’s annual uranium needs.

“Other countries are conducting similar research, but none as advanced as we are,” states Dr. Tanada.   It is estimated that the uranium “just floating around” is worth in the neighborhood of $720 trillion.  If this technology proves to be successful, you can bet that others will soon attempt to soak up the benefits as well.

Here is a link to the original article(s):

http://inventorspot.com/articles/undersea_uranium_farms_could_be_goldmine_29171

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/5550284/Japan-plans-underwater-sponges-to-soak-up-uranium.html

( By Carrington Dillon )

We posted an article a week ago on Duke Energy and AREVA’s plans to negotiate the construction of a 1,650 MW EPR in Piketon, Ohio.  Since then, Ohio Senator George Voinovich wrote this letter to the people of Ohio in support of the deal.  For the past eight years, Senator Voinovich has been either the Ranking Member or Chairman of the Senate Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee.

In the letter, Senator Voinovich expresses his enthusiasm for two nuclear industry projects slated to take place in Ohio. First, the Duke/AREVA announcement of the possible EPR and Nuclear energy production center in Piketon, Ohio.  Second, the Babcock & Wilcox announcement of their new mPower Modular Nuclear Reactor manufacturing centers slated for Euclid and Barberton, Ohio.

[ I wanted to write about the B&W mPower reactors earlier in the week, but Rod Adams over at Atomic Insights has done a great job following that story.  See here. ]

Senator Voinovich then states an interesting statistic.  It is widely known in the nuclear industry that nuclear power accounts for over 70 percent of emission free energy in the United States.  However, Sen. Voinovich brings up that wind and solar energies account for only 1.4 and 0.08 percent, respectively, of our nation’s emission free energy.

The next interesting topic that Sen. Voinovich covers is his previous conversation with President and CEO of Westinghouse, Dr. Aris Candris.  Dr. Candris cited an important fact to Sen. Voinovich; approximately 12,000 jobs are created for each new nuclear plant when you include manufacturing jobs.

I’d like to clarify that statement a slight bit.  The number is correct from recent economic impact studies done by energy utilities who plan to build new nuclear reactors.  However, those 12,000 jobs will be jobs that are either created or supported from the construction of the new plant.  I would hope that that technicality doesn’t  take away from the economic importance or magnitude of that number.  That is still the largest and most realistic job promise than any other energy industry has been able to make to date.

Here is the rest of Sen. Voinovich’s letter:

“We don’t want to be left behind. Now is the time for Ohio to take a leadership role on the nuclear stage with the vast amount of industrial talent in our great state, and to become a manufacturing center for nuclear components.

Organized labor gets it.

They understand expanding nuclear power will create a lot of well-paying jobs.

Everyone is starting to get it – nuclear is a three’fer: Without it, we will not be able to reach our goal of reducing carbon emissions; Without it, we will not be able to provide the base-load electricity our growing country will demand; And, without it, we will not be able to rebuild our manufacturing base.

Ohio is poised to be the heart of it all during the nuclear renaissance. Let’s seize the moment.”

Thank you, Senator, for standing up and publicly extolling the industry as an engine of job creation and growth.  We get it here at Clean Energy Insight.  Hopefully, the rest of your colleagues will follow.  When Clean Energy Insight starts our letter-writing campaign, we will be sure to send Sen. Voinovich a sincere Thank-you and post it here on the blog.

( By Carrington Dillon )

Take a look at this bit of information.  This news article goes along perfectly with one of the counter-points from our Debate Tools page that deals with power uprates over the lifetime of a plant.

Exelon plans upgrades to Clinton nuclear reactor

Exelon Corp. is planning on spending $3.5 Billion in power uprates to their nuclear fleet over the next eight years.  The announcement was made at the Clinton Nuclear Plant near Springfield, Illinois, although Exelon currently has a fleet of 17 reactors online–one of the largest in the world. Power uprates involve installing upgrades that will increase the maximum power level at which a power plant can operate.  All power uprates must be approved by the NRC. Click here to learn more about the nuclear power uprate process from the NRC.

The upgrades will increase Exelon’s power output by approximately 1,300 to 1,500 MW–the equivalent of adding a new generation reactor.  The uprates will provide and sustain thousands of jobs for in-house and contract design engineers (like myself), as well as currently employed site staff at all 17 reactors.

This may seem like a lot of money up-front, but successful companies like Exelon don’t just throw money down the drain.  This is a sign that Exelon believes that the nuclear power business will be profitable for years to come.

Out of curiosity, I traveled over to Exelon’s website to find a map of their reactors in the United States.  Instead, I found some very impressive information shown below:

“Charles “Chip” Pardee is the President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Exelon Nuclear. He leads Exelon Nuclear’s 17 generating units, which produced a record of 132.3 million net megawatt-hours of electricity in 2007.  The fleet also achieved an average capacity factor of 94.5 percent, the seventh year in a row the capacity factor was more than 92 percent.

Safety and environmental statistics at Exelon Nuclear plants increased along with production in 2007. The 10 plants recorded their lowest industrial safety accident rate and number of unplanned shutdowns ever.

At the same time, the plants prevented 121 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by eliminating the need for an equivalent amount of coal-based generation.

When compared with natural gas generation, Exelon Nuclear prevented the release of 63 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. The carbon avoided by the Exelon Nuclear fleet in 2007 is equivalent to the emissions of more than 23 million passenger cars, nearly double the number of cars in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey combined.”

I recently had the pleasure to listen to Mr. Pardee speak at the NA-YGN National Conference in Washington, DC.  After reading this I’d just like to say, keep up the great work, Chip.

( By Lakshmi Pendyala )

Energy ministers of the Group of Eight industrialized nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the USA), G8 met in the last month to define joint strategies to address growing energy needs and climate change. Their joint declarations made with the European Energy Commissioner were strongly in support of nuclear energy.

The three objectives of the Energy Ministers Meeting were:

1. To define common strategies to cope with global climate change
2. To promote energy investment for security and sustainable development
3. To determine measures that will help reduce energy poverty

From the following notes in the joint declaration, it is clear that they recognize the role of nuclear energy in meeting the objectives.

“We note that, in the opinion of a growing number of countries, the use of nuclear power can diversify the energy mix, contribute to energy security while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that three guiding principles should be followed while designing the proposed energy technology platform, as follows. Focus on a limited group of key technologies during the starting phase of the platform such as solar and wind energy, smart electrical grids, low-carbon vehicles, modernization of coal-fired power stations and CCS and considering the interest of a growing number of countries, nuclear power;”

In the above statements, a clause of particular interest is, “in the opinion…and in the interest of a growing number of countries”. It affirms the increasing support for nuclear power from the industrialized nations. In sequence, International Energy Agency released a document, The Impact of the Financial and Economic Crisis on Global Energy Investment, the background paper prepared by the IEA for the meeting. One of its many statements endorsing nuclear energy reads as follows:

“Nuclear technology is the only large-scale, base-load electricity production technology with a near zero carbon footprint, apart from hydro power (where potential is often limited).”

Let’s hope that the prominence gained at the G8 Energy Ministers Meeting sends the message to the climate dialogue at the G8 Summit in July.

( By Michael Bloom )

Here at Clean Energy Insight we promote nuclear energy because it is safe, great for the environment, and less expensive than other environmentally friendly alternatives. We know producing cheap clean energy is great, but we also want to battle America’s energy needs with energy conservation. We will be adding many posts on conserving energy but to get you started we will begin with one of the largest energy consumers in your home “Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning”.

Ways to Save

1. Install a programmable thermostat to control the temperature while you’re away from home and you could save well over $100 a year.
2. Replace your air filter at least once every 3 months.
3. Perform regular maintenance on your HVAC system (check list).
4. If you have an old HVAC system consider replacing it with a more efficient system.
5. Insulate doors and windows with weather stripping.
6. Insulate any place where air or heat could escape like your attic.
7. Using ceiling fans in the summer instead of turning the thermostat down.

For more detailed information on “Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning” check out this guide.

Tax Breaks

Taking steps to make your home more energy efficient can also provide you with up to $1500 in tax breaks due to the recent economic stimulus bill. The tax credit will cover 30% of improvements like installing energy efficient air conditioners, furnaces, and heat pumps. The stimulus also covers adding more insulation and installing energy efficient doors/windows. The tax credit has a lifetime cap of $1,500 and expires after 2010. For more detailed information click here.

Rod Adams over at Atomic Insights sent me this exchange today.  It is absolutely one of the most impressive online comment exchanges I have ever seen.  Rod brings up a great point about coal mining in Virginia.  Coal mining is one of the most accepted forms of industrial energy activities in the United States, although almost 100,000 people have died in the industry in the past 100 years.

Feel free to add to the exchange if you’d like, although it looks like Rod is holding his own.  I’d like to applaud Rod for not using the hyperbolic hate-speech tactic that is commonly used by the opposition.

To all the NA-YGN members working on this blog, this is a great example of the mindsets that we are up against in this debate on clean energy.  It is also related to one of our current issues–Virginia Uranium.

Rod, I call for a podcast debate on the issue!

Here is the exchange:

http://www.grist.org/article/virginia-oks-uranium-mining-study/

One of the issues that Clean Energy Insight is supporting at the moment is the opportunity to mine the biggest Uranium deposit in US history in Pittsylvania County, VA (www.virginiauranium.com).  Two of the people on our team are from this area and have seen the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost during their lifetimes in the textile and furniture industries.  By mining this deposit in Southwest Virginia, we can provide high-paying jobs and energy for our future.  It sounds like a good idea to me.

Aaron Ruby of the Virginia Energy Independence Alliance (www.virginiaenergy.org) has submitted a letter to CEI to provide more information on this issue.  Thanks a lot, Aaron.

America is too dependent on foreign uranium

The Virginia Energy Independence Alliance has a solution

America is too dependent on foreign sources of uranium.  The Virginia Energy Independence Alliance (VEIA)—a broad-based coalition of more than 500 concerned citizens, industries, associations and academia from across Virginia and beyond—wants to develop Virginia’s abundant, untapped uranium supply to break America’s dependence.

Nuclear energy supplies 20% of America’s electricity and 37% of Virginia’s.  Nuclear energy is cheaper than wind and solar, cleaner than coal, oil and natural gas, and the most efficient energy source in the world—bar none.

While America and Virginia are undergoing a nuclear renaissance that promises to vastly expand our nuclear power generation, America is increasingly dependent on unreliable foreign countries for our supply of nuclear fuel.  How could this possibly make sense? America imports 92% of the uranium we use each year to fuel nuclear energy.  Virginia imports 100%.  Where do we get our uranium?

We import anywhere from 30%-50% of our uranium from Russia.  By 2013, all the uranium we import from Russia will come from the Kremlin-run uranium enrichment company, Techsnabexport.  How will America fuel our nuclear power if the Kremlin cuts off our supply of uranium - as it did to Eastern Europe’s natural gas supply in early 2009?  This dependence is dangerous, and puts our national security and future energy supply at risk.

One solution to our dependence is right under our feet in Southside Virginia’s Pittsylvania County.  Pittsylvania County is home to the largest untapped uranium deposit in the United States.  The Coles Hill deposit—as it is known—could contain enough uranium to supply Virginia’s current nuclear power demand for the next 65 years.

As one of the most economically distressed regions of the Country, with unemployment reaching almost 15% in some areas, Southside Virginia desperately needs economic opportunity.  Mining and milling the deposit will create as many as 500 new, local jobs, generate millions in local tax dollars each year and stimulate job creation in other related local industries.<

A decades-old moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia is the only obstacle standing in the way of developing this vital resource and reaping its abundant rewards.  Fortunately, science is on our side.  Modern nuclear energy and uranium mining are safe.  The National Academy of Sciences is conducting an 18-month study of uranium mining in Virginia that will lead the way to energy independence and 500 new jobs in Southside Virginia.

To find more information and join the VEIA, visit their Web site, www.virginiaenergy.org.  You may also show your support by signing the VEIA petition at www.virginiaenergy.org/support-the-cause/sign-the-petition or by joining the Virginia Energy Independence Alliance Facebook fan page.

The solutions to our challenges are right under our feet - right here in Virginia.  Let’s use them to cure America’s dependence on foreign energy.

American Energy Independence from Jason Phillips on Vimeo.

( By Carrington Dillon )

Before we get ahead of ourselves with this blogging venture, I’d like to thank some people for helping us get started.  Mark Flanagan of NEI Nuclear Notes and Rod Adams of Atomic Insights gave us some great advice for starting this thing up.  It is obvious from the quality of their nuclear advocacy blogs that they are both very busy.  So, I’d like to sincerely thank these two pros for reaching out and taking the time to answer some questions we had about blogging.  It was nice to get such a warm response from you two.  We hope to continue working with you to successfully save the world for a long time to come.  Thank you both.

It’s being reported today that AREVA and Duke Energy will enter exclusive 18-month negotiations to build AREVA’s new generation EPR reactor in Ohio.   It must be true that when you can build a nuclear plant that can gross $2 million per day, an economic slump can’t do much to deter your operations.  Keep on trucking, AREVA. 

Check out the wire:

Areva, Duke To Sign Negotiation Deal Over US Nuclear Plant

AREVA in talks for EPR reactor deal in Ohio-report

More news to come…

( By Lakshmi Pendyala )

The Partnership for Public Service released its fourth “Best Places to Work” survey last week. The study started in 2003 and conducted every two years, tracks employees’ satisfaction with their agencies. (PPS) looked at working conditions in 278 federal agencies and bodies, evaluating the satisfaction levels of some 212,000 US government employees.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission emerged a clear winner scoring 80.7 percent in ratings for employee satisfaction, up from 76.2 percent last year. The agency’s mission is given as “to ensure the safe handling of nuclear materials and to oversee nuclear facilities.” It led the pack in 2007, as well. NRC is deservingly proud of it.

To add, Department of Energy stands at 22nd position in the Top 25 Ideal Employers per the 2009 Universum USA’s annual ranking survey.

The above facts prove that nuclear industry offers clean energy for the future through the services of some of the finest employers and happiest employees in the country.

Saving the best for last — The Obama administration plans to use this biennial survey of employee satisfaction and morale to shape the 2011 budget process, according to Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

– Happiness begets benefits!

( By DGM )

Harry Reid tries to stop Yucca Mt. and waste 15 Billion in tax dollars.

Lately, when I watch the news about congress debating a new Nuclear Waste Policy Act I feel like I should be watching “Really?” with Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers. So, really, taxpayers have spent more than $15 billion over 25 years and we want to start over? Really?

The site has been studied, selected, validated, approved, and is in the process of applying for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Congress wants to start over from the very beginning? Really? There is absolutely nothing useful that was produced in the last 25 years with all of that money and we’re going to throw it all away and start over? Really? Square one, really?

I can’t figure out if this is a ploy by Harry Reid to kill the Yucca Mountain Project or by the anti-nuclear special interests to remove the end of the fuel cycle so we can’t build new plants, despite 70% of Americans being for building new Nuclear Plants. Who is writing this legislation anyway? Really.

( By Carrington Dillon )

Welcome to Clean Energy Insight.  We are a group of nuclear industry professionals volunteering our time to advocate nuclear energy.  Clean Energy Insight was born out of discussions between members of NA-YGN (North American Young Generation in Nuclear) on how to better encourage political action in favor of nuclear energy.

NA-YGN is a national not-for-profit organization for nuclear industry professionals to develop professionally, share their passion for nuclear technology, and give back to the community.

Here at Clean Energy Insight, we believe that the time has come for the nuclear industry to quit taking a backseat and become proactive in the public debate on clean energy.  The goal of Clean Energy Insight is to give you the tools you need to become advocates for the most environmentally friendly, affordable, and reliable form of energy.

We created and will operate this website in our spare time, with our own financial backing.  We hope our efforts create a genuine and effective website to join the existing online nuclear advocacy movement.  There are no corporate special interests at play here. Our special interests include scientific research and realistic solutions to the issues that affect our daily lives.

As the newest generation of nuclear industry professionals, we will take control of this debate and force science, not politics, to be the judge in the debate on clean energy.  We have the tools, intellectual capital, and youthful initiative to take control of this debate and enlighten the American public on what nuclear energy can do for them.

We will be the ones to “put science back in its rightful place.”  We will move energy forward.

Sincerely,
Carrington Dillon