Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

According to the World Nuclear News, mining company White Canyon Uranium is nearing production at one of its mines in Southeastern Utah.  The Daneros mine is Utah’s first new uranium mine in 30 years.  Hopefully, we can see more of the same job and energy production elsewhere.  Here is a link to the Bureau of Land Management’s environmental impact study on the mine in case you are interested.  And here’s a link to the article, or continue reading below:

New Mine in Utah Nears Production

29 July 2009

Australia-based White Canyon Uranium expects to start shipping ore in September from its Daneros mine in southeast Utah.  The company has been developing the deposit since receiving a mine permit earlier this year.

In late May, the US federal Board of Land Management (BLM) issued the final approvals for the company’s mine permit for the development of the conventional mine. This was the first new uranium mine permit issued in Utah for 30 years. The Daneros mine is expected to produce some 500,000 pounds U3O8 (227 tonnes U3O8) per year.

The Daneros deposit is in close proximity to major past producing uranium mines of the Red Canyon mining area, near Blanding, Utah. It is 100 kilometres by road from the White Mesa uranium mill owned by Denison Mines.

White Canyon began underground development immediately upon receipt of the BLM and State of Utah approvals. Site earthworks commenced prior to the transport of infrastructure and the decline portals were surveyed and mining commenced within one week of receiving the approvals.

The company reported that the portals have now been completed and, by the end of June, the declines had advanced 30 metres. Daneros will utilise a twin decline development with an access decline and a ventilation decline. Ventilation fans and the attendant generator are in place and operational ahead of requirement. Both declines are expected to be completed by the end of September.

White Canyon said it has the option of selling any production from the Daneros mine into the Denison Ore Buying Schedule in operation and open to third parties at the White Mesa mill. The company is negotiating with Denison for an alternate toll treating agreement, under which White Canyon would pay a contract rate to have Denison process ore from the Daneros mine and then White Canyon would receive the U3O8 produced at the end of the milling process. White Canyon could then negotiate for an offtake agreement or long-term contract for the sale of the product.

The Daneros deposit was discovered by Utah Power and Light in exploration that concluded in the 1980s with an historical “reserve” calculation. The deposit was not mined due to a fall in the uranium price.

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Policy Analyst Drew Thornley posted this on National Review’s “Planet Gore” today.  Feel free to comment and add to Drew’s critique the Environmental Leader’s shortcomings on their interpretation of the data.  Thanks for the catch, Drew.

It Depends on What the Meaning of the Word ‘Exceed’ Is [Drew Thornley]

Today, in a piece entitled “U.S. Renewable Energy Exceeds Nuclear Power,” Environmental Leader writes, “According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s latest report, renewable energy accounted for 11.1 percent of U.S. production in April 2009, exceeding nuclear power.”

EL must be confusing capacity (i.e. energy-production potential) with generation (i.e. actual energy output). EIA data reveals that, in April 2009, nuclear power generated 59,129 thousand megawatthours of electricity (or 20.45 percent of the total electricity produced in April 2009), while hydropower and non-hydro renewables (like wind and solar) contributed 25,224 (8.73 percent) and 12,252 (4.24 percent) thousand megawatthours, respectively. Oh, and for the first 4 months of 2009, nuclear generated 263,755 thousand megawatthours (21.04 percent), while hydro and non-hydro renewables generated 87,799 (7 percent) and 46,038 (3.67 percent) thousand megawatthours, respectively.

You can subsidize costly capacity all you want, but, at the end of the day, capacity doesn’t keep the light on. Generation does. And, when it comes to actual electricity generation, much-maligned nuclear power is still miles ahead of renewables.

( By Christina Haviland ) [Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

What better way to capture the attention of our nation’s elected officials than with a room full of women with zeal?  Last week approximately 500 women came together for the 2009 combined U.S. Women in Nuclear (WIN) and WiN Global conference in Washington, D.C.  The theme of the conference was Enhancing Our World Through Nuclear Technology and was a message unmistakably demonstrated throughout the week.

The global event started out with educational tours of various nuclear power plants and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Operations Center.  The official conference began with welcoming introductions by Cheryl Boggess, President of Win Global, and other industry leaders.  General speaker sessions highlighted diverse topics ranging from “Perspectives on Nuclear Technology” to “Ensuring Nuclear Safety Around the World” and “Managing Nuclear Risks.”  Breakout sessions gave participants the opportunity to focus on technical subjects such as used fuel management and developing new nuclear technologies, as well as topics such as career development, communication, and leadership roles.  All in all, there was something of interest for everyone.

The speaker series came to it’s conclusion with a special appearance from AREVA’s Chief Executive Officer and Forbes 2009 ninth-most powerful woman in the world, Anne Lauvergeon.  Bringing together all the key messages of the conference, Lauvergeon expressed her outlook on the future of the nuclear industry and the steps we all must take to ensure the advancement of nuclear power on a global scale.  Eager to take those first steps, WIN members made their way Thursday afternoon to the Capitol to meet with their state elected officials and discuss the important role nuclear technologies will play in our nation’s future carbon-free energy generation!

As a fourth time attendee, I can say with experience that each year WIN is making a larger and longer lasting impression on the industry as a whole.  So what did I learn from a week filled with technical discussions, networking galore, community outreach, and a whole bunch of estrogen?  It just goes to show you that the most important role we play as advocates to enhancing our world through nuclear technology is being present for the discussion!

Women In Nuclear (United States)

Women In Nuclear (Global)

( By Lakshmi Pendyala ) [Approx. Read Time: <1 minute]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized Exelon and Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), together with Raytheon for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions under its Climate Leaders program.

Exelon, one of the nation’s largest electric and gas utilities, joined Climate Leaders in 2003 and set a goal of reducing its total annual GHG emissions by 8 percent from 2001 to 2008. Exelon surpassed its goal by reducing its total GHG emissions by 38 percent as of the end of 2008.

Public Service Enterprise Group, PSEG pledged to reduce its U.S. GHG emissions intensity by 18 percent from 2000 to 2008. The company exceeded its goal, achieving a 31 percent reduction.

Raytheon Company, a charter Partner in Climate Leaders, pledged to reduce GHG emissions from its U.S. operations by 33 percent between 2002 and 2009, normalized for revenue and adjusted for inflation. Raytheon not only met, but exceeded its reduction goal one year ahead of schedule. Climate Leaders is an EPA industry-government partnership that works with companies to develop comprehensive climate change strategies.
For more details, follow the link.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

We talk a lot about how safe domestic nuclear power plants are, but this point really hit home for me when I saw the following in a blog post comparing wind turbine safety to nuclear power plant safety.

“How about wind power? How does it fare compared to the perfect record of the American nuclear power industry?  Believe it or not, there is an organization, the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, that keeps data on wind-power-related accidents and/or design problems. Caithness is based in Great Britain, where homeowners have already grown tired of the noise and other wind-turbine-generated problems. Their “Summary of Wind Turbine Accident Data to 31 December 2008” reports 41 worker fatalities.  Most, not unexpectedly, were from falling, as they are typically working on turbines some thirty stories above the ground. In addition, Caithness attributed the deaths of 16 members of the public to wind-turbine accidents.”

As this blog details, wind power is especially unreliable in freezing temperatures, where the threat of ice formation on the turbine blades can cause operational problems and the dangerous phenomenon known as ice throw. Nuclear power isn’t a seasonal technology. Nuclear power plants provide safe CO2 free energy year round, even in harsh winter climates.

While it can’t be denied that wind turbines need to be a part of our domestic energy solution, it is clear that the industry still has several issues to overcome. This New York Times report outlines how the transportation of wind turbine parts to their assembly areas has caused numerous problems. One of the issues is that the oversized wind turbine loads are causing “alligator cracking” of roadways. Repairs to damaged roadways are, of course, left up to the taxpayers.

( By Lakshmi Pendyala ) [Approx. Read Time: 1.5 minutes]

As Nuclear energy is gaining momentum worldwide, the world’s largest democracy and the world’s oldest democracy, India and the United States have announced co-operation in building nuclear plants and exchanging of technology.

Being originally from India, it is particularly pleasing for me to note that Indian government has welcomed US reactors. This announcement is an outcome of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s recent discussions with Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh. India has picked two sites for nuclear plant construction, one in Andhra Pradesh and other in Gujarat. (See: Link)

[On a personal note, Andhra Pradesh is my home state and it warms my heart to learn that it is one of the first state governments to make an offer to the centre.]

India has been largely excluded from nuclear trade for about 34 years for being outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  This has hindered its development of civil nuclear energy. The new agreement with US and France to welcome nuclear trade is a phenomenal step which will aid substantially in meeting the country’s ever increasing demand for electricity.

The agreement will also pave path for export of India’s indigenous nuclear technology. Due to the trade bans and shortage of uranium, India has uniquely been developing a nuclear fuel cycle to exploit its reserves of thorium.

During the inauguration of India’s first indigenous nuclear submarine on 26th July 2009, Director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) Sreekumar Banerjee said, “India has to go for atomic energy along with non-conventional sources of energy like wind power and solar energy as more dependence on thermal power would result in excessive carbon dioxide emission. India can’t do without nuclear energy.”

For further news, follow the links:

http://www.newsday.com/news/world/india-may-allow-u-s-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-1.1308110

http://www.yournuclearnews.com/sites+for+us+nuclear+in+india_36025.html

( By DGM ) [Approx. Read Time: 1.5 minutes]

The current horizon for most business investments to payoff is 3 to 5 years.  This stands in contrast to what is required for investment in a nuclear power plant.  Is it short attention span or the pressure to make profit on every quarterly earnings report, hard to say?

The competing CO2 emitting sources of electricity can be built much quicker and turn a profit much faster.  The good news is that nuclear power is very profitable; it just takes longer to get the ball rolling.  The risks that used to be associated with nuclear plant startup have been somewhat mitigated with the new one step licensing process and loan guarantees, so my question is what is everyone waiting for?  I think the answer is the culture clash.  If it won’t turn a buck next quarter the likelihood of getting investment dollars is low, especially when the credit markets are just barely thawing out.

To provide some encouragement to any big time investors out there, see my spreadsheet on what the timeline and returns would be if you were to invest in a nuclear power plant.  The calculations are very conservative and likely would be more profitable than what would actually be realized.  The net present value (NPV) of the investment is positive which really all that matters is.  The rest of the info is just nice to have.

If Wall Street had more patience in their big time earnings and used their lobbying power to help the nuclear energy industry we probably would have built Yucca Mountain 10 years ago and our grid would be supplied with more than 50% nuclear power right now.  Too bad we feel we need to turn a buck every quarter so CNBC has something good to say about us every 90 days.

In other news, T. Boone Pickens abandons plans for wind farms in West Texas because it is not profitable even with government aid.  Well T. Boone, if profit and clean energy is your objective you should have gone with nuclear, see this spreadsheet for a nickel of free advice.

( By Logan Dernoshek ) [Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

In an article published Thursday, July 23rd in the Columbia Daily Tribune, journalist T.J Greaney described his tour of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. For those of you who don’t know, Oak Ridge is the modern day Nuclear Mecca. Cutting edge research is happening there everyday. As Mr. Greaney explains it, “Basically, Oak Ridge is Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory for nerds.” One major project occurring at Oak Ridge currently is finding better ways to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The point of the plant tour was to demonstrate the cutting edge research and technology coming out of Oak Ridge. However, Mr. Greaney makes some interesting observations in his piece.

“Suddenly, instead of thinking about the energy breakthrough, we were all picturing mushroom clouds.”

“This, I’ve realized, is the curse of nuclear power. The nuclear industry has a safety record over the past 30 years that, by most accounts, has been stellar. Nuclear power is the most potent carbon-free power source on the planet in an age when everyone is worried about carbon footprints.”

“The specter of meltdowns and weapons use hangs darkly over the science.”

“But my reaction shows just how fearful many of us still are of nuclear power. We just don’t understand it. If a nuclear renaissance is ever going to occur, we’re going to have to work hard to educate ourselves, and the industry is going to have to keep setting the bar for safety higher and higher.”

Mr. Greaney is correct. If the Nuclear industry is to win the good fight, we must continue to educate the public about its benefits while consistently exceeding safety standards.

( By AQG ) [Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Florida Power & Light (FPL) has revealed its intentions of building two of Westinghouse’s AP1000 reactors at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant through the submittal of a combined construction and operating license applications with the NRC.  If approved, the units will join two other pressurized water reactors as well as two gas/oil units and a combined cycle natural gas turbine.  The sixth and seventh power units at the site could reach an operational state around the end of 2017 and 2019.  Here’s an excerpt from the World Nuclear News website:

“The application was made some three weeks ago but FPL and the NRC both decided not to tell anyone about the $12 billion project. Documents relating to the application can all now be found in the New Reactors section of the NRC public website.

Details in the documents reveal FPLs cost projections for the new build. Based on three cases with varying owner scope and transmission costs, the total estimated project cost including escalation and additional funds for the construction period varies from $12.1 billion to $17.8 billion.

FPL has asked the NRC for permission to conduct certain work towards construction before a COL is actually issued. The company wants to clear and excavate the site and lay foundations for the reactor and plant buildings.”

( By Michael Bloom ) [Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

The world is in the midst of a “Nuclear Renaissance” where a large number of new nuclear energy projects are under way. Currently, new nuclear plants are being designed to be larger and larger in order to take advantage of economies of scale and offset the large capital cost of construction. Large reactors are reliable, clean, and produce safe energy to the masses, but they do have some limitations.

Large plants are limited by the infrastructure of the power grid, the difficulty to finance, and the long construction timeline. Nuclear plant designers could address these limits by building much smaller reactors and also making them more cost effective. Doing so would create a strong catalyst for continued growth and diversification in the nuclear industry.

Several decades from now there might be a bright future for a small class of nuclear reactors known as (STAR) short for Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor. Currently in development by a team that includes the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of California, the goal of STAR is to make small scaleable power plants that can compete with the cost per output of the larger plants.

In order to do so, STAR reactors will be manufactured in a plant similar to commercial airliners. After being manufactured, STAR will be shipped safely to a construction site determined by a utility. At any point in time, the utility could increase capacity of their plants by adding more modules of STAR. The flexibility and scalability would make financing much easier and in turn, give utilities the ability to constantly add new plants to their nuclear fleets.

“In addition to those pioneering efforts, small-size reactors are employed in training, isotope production, research, naval propulsion, and in some space applications.

But what role could small-scale nuclear reactors have in generating central station power? The International Atomic Energy Agency indicates that more than 50 new concepts and designs for advanced small or moderate-size reactors are under development in more than 15 IAEA member states. Proponents of such designs believe they have the potential to meet such needs as providing energy for islands that are not served by a national grid or for regions lacking the infrastructures and grid capacity needed for large plants. Small reactors could also power such energy-intensive industrial activities as water desalinization or the extraction of oil from tar sands.”

STAR reactors may also mitigate any existing concerns, real or make-believe, about nuclear material proliferation.

“One frequently cited drawback to widespread use of nuclear power is the risk of fissionable material being diverted to produce weapons. In the 1990s, researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory began looking at reactor system designs intended to minimize the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation. The initial research effort concluded that this goal could be met by a sealed reactor that was transportable and autonomous in operation and that would have a very long reactor core lifetime. Such a reactor would eliminate the need for handling or processing fresh or spent nuclear fuel and otherwise minimize the potential for any possible misuse of the reactor.”

Currently, the power grids in many developing nations are unable to transmit large quantities of electricity over long distances making it pointless to construct a large plant. STAR would make it possible to spread nuclear power to developing countries, increasing the standard of living all over the globe.

STAR might be the next big thing in nuclear industry but it will be a while before it is ready. Several technological advances are still needed as seen below.

“One of those technologies is a yet-to-be-developed and qualified advanced cladding and structural materials that will enable service in lead for the 15 to 30 years core lifetime at peak temperatures of up to about 650 °C. Other technologies that need to be developed are qualified transuranic nitride fuel meeting performance requirements, a whole-core cassette refueling system, and a means for in-service inspection of components immersed in lead coolant.”

Hopefully, for the sake of global energy needs and environmental concerns, STAR will have a bright future.

For more information and a link to this story featured in ME’s July Magazine follow this link.

( By AQG ) [Approx. Read Time: 1.5 minutes]

French nuclear giant AREVA and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding to break ground this evening on the first full-scale manufacturing facility dedicated to supply heavy components to the nuclear industry.  Click here to see the webcast live beginning at 6:00 p.m. EST.

AREVA and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, a sector of Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC), have joined forces to build a new manufacturing and engineering facility in Newport News, Va., to supply the growing American nuclear energy sector. AREVA Newport News will be the first full-scale manufacturing facility dedicated to supply heavy components, such as reactor vessels, steam generators and pressurizers to the U.S.U.S. nuclear power plants to be built in 35 years. AREVA has been manufacturing quality heavy components for the global commercial nuclear industry for more than 30 years at its Chalon/St. Marcel plant. Industry experts have viewed limited production of heavy components positioned against rising demand as a constraint on nuclear energy’s expansion. The joint venture aims to establish a facility for manufacturing heavy components for the U.S. EPR, AREVA’s Generation III+ nuclear reactor. nuclear energy industry. These components will supply the first new

Together with Northrop Grumman’s experience, AREVA Newport News will provide a secure domestic link in the supply chain for deploying the U.S. EPR and supporting a diverse energy mix that will mean safe, clean, affordable electricity for Americans.

The 300,000 square-foot facility is estimated to bring more than 500 skilled hourly and salaried jobs to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 1.5 Minutes]

The Tennessee Valley Authority has decided to continue its plans to spend $2.5 Billion and continue employing almost 1,900 workers in order to finish construction of a second reactor at their Watts Bar nuclear plant.  The plant will be one of the first nuclear reactors constructed in the United States in decades.

This article gives light to some of the anti-nuclear groups protesting the decision to proceed with plans to finish constructing the reactor.

“Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the risk to too great to license Watts Bar, in part, because of the vulnerability of its ice containment design. Although used in nine other reactors including two at Sequoyah and the other Watts Bar reactor by TVA in Tennessee, Mr. Lyman said the risk from a hydrogen explosion within the reactor containment building is much greater than at other plants.

“There could be thousands of deaths from a major accident at Watts Bar II,” he said. Mr. Lyman is expected to soon testify before an NRC judicial panel, known as the Atomic Safety and Licensing Panel, which will try to decide if the Watts Bar reactor should be licensed.”

It’s interesting that Mr. Lyman is concerned about a hydrogen explosion at Watts Bar.  Currently, I am working on one of TVA’s ice containment reactors and personally completed engineering work on ensuring that there were no risks of a hyrdogen explosion as a result of engineering work being completed there.  I also did work on the containment structure and took a look at some of its staunch design aspects that prevent hypothetical explosions from even reaching the outside environment.  So, I can personally assure Mr. Lyman that he has nothing to worry about.  My career is dependent upon it.

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Watch/Read Time: 5.5 minutes]

In case you haven’t turned on the TV or visited an online media outlet, today is the 40th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 visit to the Moon.  I’d like for everyone to watch these videos and really let the depth of this human achievement sink in.  I don’t really feel that any commentary is necessary.  Neither is it appropriate to relate this accomplishment to nuclear power and try to make a point in any way.  I feel that younger generations don’t realize how important this feat was to the entire world.  Hopefully, this post will spark someone’s interest and make a change in the perception of the Apollo 11 Mission.  Enjoy.

First, here is the remastered video that NASA released earlier this week courtesy of the AP:

Here are some really great pictures from the Apollo 11 Mission:

( By Carrington Dillon )  [Approx. Read Time: 0.5 minutes]

I’m going to give DGM credit for getting me thinking about this one.  Recently, he brought up his frustration with titles of nuclear news articles in the media.  It’s true that subtlety, the media has a lot of power on the way we conceive certain subjects.  One of those is Nuclear Power.  For example, check out the NY Times’ “Nuclear Energy” news wire.  The insult to your intelligence immediately hits you as soon as you scroll down the page.  There are actually articles about terrorism, dirty bombs, etc. that are being related to Nuclear Power.

Who is for a petition, letter writing campaign, or some other form of persuasion to get the NY Times to fix this blaring problem with their categorization of Nuclear Energy?  Please feel free to comment.  As always, your ideas are welcome, no matter how small or insignificant they seem to you.

( By Eric Danner ) [Approx. Read Time: 1.5 minutes]

It is always refreshing to see a large publication raising questions about why nuclear power is not a larger part of the discussion of America’s energy future.  It is a reassuring feeling to believe that there are journalists, other media outlets, and members of the general public who are starting to discover and embrace the facts about the current climate of the energy industry in America, and nuclear power’s place in its immediate future.

This article is from the Chicago Tribune and quite simply raises fundamental questions about why something that seems so obvious to some is not obvious to others.  It becomes increasingly frustrating when the individuals who make the decisions which affect our country’s future are the same individuals who seem to be the least aware of the critical role that nuclear must play in the power-generating and economic future of the country.

The following is a short excerpt from the article:

“Refusing to build or use existing nuclear plants here in Illinois and across this nation could result in a substantial loss of this country’s standard of living, while keeping us overly dependent on foreign countries for oil, which is the exact opposite from what the Waxman-Markey bill promises.”

It is particularly interesting that the creation of additional nuclear power in Illinois to support the future energy need is not obvious to the state politicians there.  Perhaps it has simply slipped their minds that their home state has the most commercial nuclear reactors of any state in the country.