[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

On July 15, 2010, North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) won the competition to host the International Youth in Nuclear Congress meeting in 2012. 

“NA-YGN is proud to host our international colleagues in what could be the largest ever gathering of young professionals in nuclear.  We are overwhelmed with excitement to welcome IYNC and return the same hospitality we have been shown over the past decade” says NA-YGN President, Elizabeth McAndrew-Benavides.

Founded in April 2000, the International Youth Nuclear Congress is a global non-profit organization that seeks to connect students and young professionals engaged in all areas of nuclear science and technology.  IYNC meets at a biennial conference in various international locations.  Previous Congresses have met in Slovakia (2000), South Korea (2002), Canada (2004), Sweden (2006), Switzerland (2008) and South Africa (2010). 

July 12^th-16^th, IYNC met in Cape Town South Africa with over 200 participants from over 20 different countries.  The agenda included an address from South Africa’s Department of Energy Minister, Ms. Dipuo Peters, and included technical paper presentations from over 30 academics.  The IYNC Board of Directors met on July 15 and considered three proposals for the 2012 host country, North America, United Kingdom and Japan. 

NA-YGN’s proposal included a strategic planning themed conference to be held in conjunction with NA-YGN’s annual professional development conference.  IYNC 2012 will be held August 2012 in Charlotte, NC. 

For more information about NA-YGN, please visit www.na-ygn.org/ or contact Morgan Davis, Public Information Chair, pi@na-ygn.org.

For more information about IYNC, please visit http://www.iync.org/.

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

How was the Cape Town International Youth in Nuclear Conference (IYNC) meeting?  

To quote Kansas State student and attendee Sam Brinton– “Amazing.”

Nothing compares to breaking free from the northern hemisphere for the first time to attend your first global youth in nuclear conference. South Africa was a wonderful host for this international meeting which focused on building international collaboration and understanding for young professionals and students in nuclear science and technology.

Many of the North American delegates arrived to Cape Town on Sunday, July 11th. That’s right World Cup fans… We were in South Africa for the World Cup finals. What could be a better way to begin a week long international journey, than by joining together with global visitors to watch the final game from the massively populated “fan centers” that were placed in Cape Town for everyone who didn’t actually have tickets for the final game. For those of us who were less than diligent with keeping up with the World Cup, the Vuvuzela horns stole the show.

After the excitement died down from the World Cup, the North American delegates were able to bond with the rest of the international delegates during a day of team building. The team building consisted of a series of IYNC games developed to make diverse teams compete on a physical, intellectual and on a teamwork levels. Teams competed in six competitions that included a very competitive 3 step jump, a wicked variation of jacks that used marbles, a nuclear themed knowledge game, learning and executing the uniquely South African Diski dance, blowing the Vuvuzela, team jump roping, and puzzle solving.

Little did the North American delegates know that the Diski Dance would not only become a center point of cultural awareness for the entire conference, but our own Communication Chair and USA Representative to IYNC, Misha Swanson would become an expert. Representing the North American bid to host the 2012 conference, Misha performed a dance-off of the Diski dance against the Japanese and UK bid leads during the opening reception.

Wednesday nights’ cultural event was dinner at a South African winery. Attendees were stuffed full of traditional African cuisine including Springbok Antelope, Ox and Ostrich. The evening’s cultural awareness included an introduction to Zulu cultural. Attendees were all adorned with traditional Zulu face painting and were introduced to traditional Zulu dancing. Once the educational portion of the evening was complete, North American delegates led the Diski dance kick-off to the night of dancing.  Craig Albers (Fluor), Rick Molenhouse (Exelon) and Sam Brinton (Kansas State) all danced like mad men along with European Young Generation Chairman, Edouard Hourcade.

For me, Thursday was the big day… Technical presentations and workshops continued during the day, but I was waiting for the IYNC board meeting. During the board meeting, I helped to co-present the North American bid to host the 2012 IYNC conference in Charlotte North Carolina. I can honestly say I am glad I didn’t have to decide between the three bids. The Japanese’s suggested conference theme of “Young professionals dedicating themselves to a lifetime of non-proliferation and technical tours of the memorial at Hiroshima” and the UK’s fantastic cultural prospects of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London were tough pitches to follow.  In the end, Charlotte’s unique bid feature of embedding a professional development track of strategic planning into the normally technical IYNC schedule won the board’s favor. Once the decision was official, the North American delegation proceeded to stay-up into the wee hours of the night face book posting, emailing and skyping with colleagues all through North America to  tell them the news.

I do not want to leave out the most important aspect of our free time in Cape Town. What most of us North American’s did with our free time was shop, shop, shop.  And what did we shop for, we were shopping for Vuvuzelas. I’m pretty sure the North American delegates can open a Vuvuzela store with the number of those horns we brought back with us. These horns make a lot of noise and go perfectly with the Diski dance and the conference theme song of Waka Waka by Shakira.

The Charlotte planning team will have to work hard to make the international delegates feel as warm and welcomed as the South Africans did this year.  The conference truly was “Amazing” and I cannot wait to attend the 2012 joint IYNC/NA-YGN conference in Charlotte.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

I wanted to share this article from Bradley Blakeman, professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown, on the United States’ need for more nuclear energy.  Blakeman hits all of the key points–nuclear power is clean, safe, reliable, and cheap.

Duke Energy's Oconee Nuclear Power Units 1, 2, and 3

Nukes, Baby, Nukes

By Bradley Blakeman

Published June 23, 2010 | Foxnews.com

Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.

With regard to our energy independence, the BP oil disaster should be a call to action. Everyone knows we are dependent on fossil fuels coming from foreign sources yet; no one to date has the will to do anything serious and credible about it.

Nuclear energy is the Holy Grail of clean, safe and affordable energy that America can produce and exploit without detriment to the environment.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting Glen L. Mc Cullough, Jr., the former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Glen wrote a terrific paper entitled, “Five Smart Energy Steps for America.” This is what Glen said with regard to nuclear power:

“Build advanced nuclear energy plants. Nuclear energy provides 20 percent of the nation’s electricity but comprises 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity with no nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury or particulate emissions. Nuclear plants are online 91 percent of the time making nuclear the most reliable source of electricity. Nuclear energy is affordable with an average cost of around 1.9 cents per kWh.”

Nuclear energy is safe. The U.S. Bureau of Labor reports that it is safer to work in a nuclear power plant than in a bank. Nuclear energy is also sustainable: ample uranium supplies exist and the U.S. should begin to recycle used fuel, which can power our nuclear plants for centuries.

But we must close the fuel cycle — the U.S. Department of Energy should comply with the Nuclear Energy Act of 1982 and utilize the more than $24 billion paid by ratepayers to build a secure, national repository like Yucca Mountain.

Nuclear energy can be an economic boon. According to one of the largest U.S. electric utility companies, building 1,000 megawatts of advanced nuclear energy provides more than twice the amount of jobs than wind and six times more jobs than solar. What’s more nuclear power plant employees earn high average salaries — yet another reason 74 percent of Americans favor nuclear energy.

America today has approximately 100 operating nuclear power plants. For the past 30 years America all but put a complete halt to construction of new nuclear power plants in spite of the fact that the U.S. was the pioneer of this technology. Today the U.S. Navy operates over 150 nuclear powered ships and submarines.  The Department of Defense has relied heavily on nuclear power while the private sector has been shut down by government regulation and environmental objection.

France is about the size of Texas and primarily relies on nuclear power for its electricity needs. In addition, France is the world’s largest exporter of electric power.

So, not only is France providing adequately for its own needs but it is also selling excess to other nations in Europe. France has become an example for the rest of the world for providing clean and affordable energy.

Nuclear power plants do not pollute the air or produce greenhouse gases.

Today, thanks to technology, spent radioactive fuel can be reprocessed to recover fissile and fertile materials thereby providing fresh fuel for plants. Sadly, in America today there exists no civilian reprocessing plants in operation, although three have been built at great expense.

The world is passing by the very country that invented clean and safe nuclear power.

If our country is serious about becoming energy independent and free from foreign sources of fossil fuel then we need to get serious and build within the next 15 years 200 nuclear power plants throughout our nation.

We should also demand that Yucca Mountain be opened for storage as well as reprocessing. The average time for the permitting and construction of a nuclear power plant is between 8-10 years. The average life span of a nuclear power plant is 30+ years. Think of the jobs that could be created and the costs that could be amortized over long periods of time to make nuclear power affordable. It is a win win.

America needs a “moon shot” on energy and nuclear power is not “pie in the sky.” If other countries can rely on nuclear power as a main source of their electricity needs then America should as well.

Forget “drill, baby, drill” we need “nukes, baby, nukes.”

Clean Energy Insight has created a Nuclear Energy Fact Sheet focused on New Nuclear Plants and their benefits.  I’ve attached the Fact Sheet for you to use in any way that you would like.  Attach it to a pro-nuclear letter you are sending your Congressman, or just send it to a colleague or friend.

Clean Energy Insight - New Nuclear Plant Fact Sheet 2010

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Myth: Nuclear Energy Relies on Government Subsidies

The myth that the nuclear energy industry receives a massive amount of taxpayer subsidies is alive and well in internet chatrooms, blogging websites, and even certain “think tanks.”  One of the goals of Clean Energy Insight is to provide easy access to facts about nuclear energy.  So we are starting a “Wednesday Facts Series” that will address perpetuated nuclear industry myths that aim to harm the nuclear industry for the benefit of certain special interests.

Loan Guarantees

The issue of massive nuclear industry subsidies has been preserved with a number of issues.  The first and most recent is that the Loan Guarantees considered in recent “Stimulus” legislation are actually taxpayer subsidies.  Loan Guarantees are not subsidies.  They are loan guarantees. It’s that simple.

Price-Anderson Act

Second, the Price-Anderson Act has also been attacked as a government subsidy program for the Nuclear industry.  The fact is that the Price-Anderson Act provides liability insurance protection to the nuclear industry at no cost to the public whatsoever.  The purpose of the Act was to remove economic barriers and actually stimulate a competitive private Nuclear industry while providing public compensation in the event of a Nuclear incident.  To date, the Price-Anderson Act hasn’t cost taxpayers one dime.  Here is a detailed fact sheet from the NEI about the history and nature of the Price-Anderson Act.

Traditional Subsidies

The “Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy Development” or “Bezdek Report” was completed in September 2008 by Management Information Services Inc.  The attached graph comes from the Bezdek Report and shows a summary of federal incentives for various energy industries.

Disbursements are another word for federal grants or traditional subsidies.  This is the culprit in question today.  As you can see, federal subsidies going to the Nuclear industry total $-14 Billion.  This means that the nuclear industry actually pays more to the federal government than it is given.  This can be explained by the Nuclear Waste Fund (Yucca Mountain) payments to the government from the Nuclear industry.  The Nuclear industry actually subsidizes the federal government!

The only gripe that some may have about this data and Nuclear power is the large amount of Research and Development funds that were apparently handed to the commercial Nuclear industry.  This is not the case.  Most, if not all, of these monies were given to federal government research facilities like the Oak Ridge National Laboratory during the early days of Nuclear power research (notice that the statistics cover 1950-2006).

I hope this article served to raise awareness about the facts surrounding the myths about Nuclear industry subsidies.  Next Wednesday, Tyler Moses will address the myth that people have a “not in my backyard” mentality when it comes to Nuclear power plants.

In case you are interested, here are brief explanations of the other incentive categories:

Tax Policy includes federal tax credits, exemptions, deductions, etc. as incentives for investment.

Regulation includes federal mandates and government-funded controls on certain energy industries.  An example is the Oil industry’s exemption from price controls in certain cases.

Research and Development includes federal funding for scientific research and development.

Market Activity involves direct federal government involvement in the marketplace.

Government Services refers to all services provided by the government with “direct charge.”

Be heard.

Do you want to make a difference in the energy debate?

Do you want your voice to be heard all over the world?

Do you want to ensure that clean, safe, and reliable energy is being used?

Contribute to a pro-nuclear website that is doing all of the above.

Join us.

Email us at cleanenergyinsight@na-ygn.org to apply to be a regular contributor.

A North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) website.

What information can I use to counter arguments made by people who are opposed to Nuclear Power?

What do I say if an opponent says that Nuclear Energy Is Not Safe?

• Nuclear Energy is safer than any other form of energy available.
• No member of the general public has ever been killed or injured in 40 years of commercial Nuclear Energy generation in the United States
• The OSHA Accident Rate for the Nuclear Power Industry is lower than the accident rate for the Finance, Education, and Artist industries 

Table 1

What do I say to opponents who claim that nuclear power plants could explode like a nuclear bomb?

• A nuclear reactor can never explode like a nuclear bomb. The fuel (Uranium) in reactors is only enriched to about 3%, a nuclear bombs fuel is enriched to over 95%.
• The MOX fuel program is currently down-blending Russian Nuclear weapons grade uranium to produce a lot of fuel for the nuclear power industry. This is helping to deplete the number of nuclear warheads around the world.

What do I say if an opponent says that as nuclear plants get older they become more risky to operate?

• Safety and Reliability of Nuclear Power Plants has improved over time. Plants have increased their electrical output to over 806.5 Billion kWh. Unplanned shutdowns have decreased tremendously, see Table 2 below.

Table 2

Table 3

What do I say if an opponent says that Nuclear Plants Cause Cancer?

• Nuclear Plant workers have a lower mortality than average Americans. 35% lower for all cancers and 66% lower for all non-cancer deaths (NEI)
• Americans receive more radiation from natural sources than from Nuclear Plants (NEI)
  • Average Resident Receives 360 millirems per year
  • Average Nuclear Plant worker receives 160 millirems per year
• Pilots receive many times more radiation than the average nuclear plant worker. The higher in elevation you are the more radiation you receive.

What do I say if an opponent says that all radiation is negative, no matter the level?

• Everyone receives radiation on earth. The sun, rocks, dirt, anything on the earth emits radiation. It is known as background radiation.
• Radiation is highly used in the medical field for cancer research, cancer treaments, X-rays, etc.
• The granite walls of the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. emit so much radiation from the contained uranium, that it could never be licensed as a Nuclear Power Reactor Site (PBS) and if it were a Nuclear Power Plant, it would be decommissioned.
• Dispersions from coal combustion result in effective radiation dose 100 times greater than nuclear energy production.

What do I say to opponents who claim that Nuclear Energy is too costly?

• Nuclear Energy is competitive with other forms of baseload power generation. (Table 5, Table 6)

Table 5 : Baseload Power Costs

Table 6

Courtesy - Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration 2009

What do I say to opponents who claim that Nuclear Power Generation is not reliable?

• In 2004 Nuclear Power Plants in the United States operated at an average of 90.5% capacity.
• The increases in capacity factor at 103 nuclear power plants across the country have been equivalent to the addition of 26 new 1,000MW power plants.
• Nuclear power plants are available 24/7 day and night and release no greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It accounts for about 75% of all non-greenhouse emitting energy generation.

U.S. Capacity Factors by Fuel Type (2007)

What do I say to opponents who claim that there is not enough uranium to support building new Nuclear Plants?

• There is enough Uranium today to last hundreds of years.
• 96% of today’s spent fuel can be recycled. The United States is the only country that does not recycle the spent fuel.
• Advanced breeder reactors could increase fuel inventories by 50 times.
• Thorium which is found in large supplies within the United States could be converted to U-233 and used to fuel reactors.
• Fuel costs are roughly 2% of the total cost of a MWhr in currently operated plants.
• Current MOX Fuel technology can turn nuclear weapons into nuclear fuel for your home.

What do I say to opponents who claim that Nuclear Power Plants are terrorist targets?

• Nuclear Power Plants have the highest security of any American industry
• Well armed, trained security forces
• New, strong physical security barriers
  • Continuous Link to the Department of Homeland Security
  • Established response procedures and contingency plans
  • See this link from the NRC for more information on security measures - http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/security-spotlight/overview.html
• The containment dome is conservatively designed to withstand impact from a commercial jet and still stand, along with continuing to protect and contain the reactor.
• Containment structure is 4-5 feet of concrete, 1.5 in thick steel liner, and has a negative pressure.

What do I say to opponents who claim that Americans are not in favor of Nuclear Power?

• Support for Nuclear Energy is WIDESPREAD and GROWING! (Table 7)

“Overall, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States?”

Table 7

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

Clean Energy Insight has tried to follow the issue of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County, VA for about a year now.  Mike Bloom and I (Co-Creators of this website) both grew up in the area and are hoping that safe uranium mining can offer a much-needed economic boost.  As the debate continues, local newspapers like the Chatham Star-Tribune, the Danville Register and Bee, and the Martinsville Bulletin have published great op-eds regarding the issue that are all worthy of a read.

Recently, the head of the prestigious Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, H.L. Dodds wrote an informative letter-to-the-editor of the Star-Tribune regarding some of the misinformation on the issue being spread by anti-uranium mining activists. 

Dodds does a tremendous service to the people of the Piedmont region by offering an open and honest dismissal of some of the scare tactics that local anti-uranium mining activists have pushed on them.

Despite the intellectually dishonest anti-uranium mining campaigns, Piedmont residents are looking forward to the completion of the recently commissioned National Academy of Sciences study on the safety of the uranium mining plans as covered by groups like the Virginia Energy Independence Alliance.

Enjoy the letter from an industry expert.  (For more information on uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia, see - http://www.virginiauranium.com/)

Putting uranium mining ‘misinformation’ to rest

By H.L. DODDS
Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:56 PM EDT

As someone who has devoted my professional career to the scientific and academic pursuit of nuclear energy, I am disconcerted by the misinformation being spread by opponents of uranium mining in Virginia to stoke unwarranted fears among residents.

As Virginia examines whether to allow uranium mining, I believe it is important that citizens and policymakers have the best information available to make their decision. This is why I feel compelled to respond and put some of this misinformation to rest.

Contrary to the false assertions of some mining opponents, there is no institution better suited than the National Academy of Sciences to assess the human health and environmental impact of uranium mining in Virginia.

Residents of the state - from the Southside region to Hampton Roads - should have full trust and confidence in the National Academy as the nation’s most prestigious and respected body for scientific and technical research.

For more than a century, the National Academy has maintained an unimpeachable record for impartiality and independence from influence.

Virginia residents should also rest assured that uranium mining and milling is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the United States.

The industry, which has made great strides in the past few decades to improve protection of the environment, human health and worker safety, is overseen by a veritable alphabet soup of regulatory bodies - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, to name a few.

These agencies are vigilant in enforcing their strict standards for radiation protection, air and water contamination, tailings management and worker safety.

For example, the maximum level of radiation exposure allowed by these regulators in areas surrounding uranium mines is equivalent to a small fraction - less than 10 percent - of the natural background radiation we all receive each year from our environment, homes and routine medical procedures.

A single abdominal x-ray would expose someone to five times the amount of radiation allowed by the EPA and NRC for uranium mining operations.

As the U.S. Secretary of Energy and Nobel laureate Stephen Chu stated unequivocally in Pittsylvania County several months ago, modern uranium mining can be done safely and in an environmentally responsible way.

There is a large body of evidence and numerous studies which have found no link between uranium mining and the incidence of cancer and other illnesses in surrounding populations.

Several studies of uranium mining and milling communities in Texas, New Mexico and Colorado conducted by John D. Boice Jr., scientific director of the National Epidemiological Institute, found virtually no difference between cancer mortality rates in mining areas versus non-mining areas.

Opponents of mining have consistently and recklessly raised anxiety among local farmers and residents by perpetuating myths about mining activities contaminating local groundwater and agriculture with harmful levels of radiation.

These myths are based on a fundamental lack of understanding of basic science and should be put to rest once and for all.

Contrary to their assertions, it would be virtually impossible for radon gas - a byproduct of uranium - to travel distances far enough and in quantities large enough to contaminate the vegetation, air and water of areas surrounding mining activities.

The elementary physics of radon gas prevent this from happening. Because radon gas is seven times heavier than air, it impossible for it to escape more than a few feet above ground and certainly to travel distances further than a few hundred feet.

This is why radon is usually found in the basements of homes because it is too heavy to climb the stairs to the first floor.

Cherry-picking and misappropriating pieces of scientific studies to prove dubious claims is a favorite pastime of anti-nuclear advocates.

So, recent attempts to misrepresent and conflate the results of an ecological study of coal mining in West Virginia with uranium mining in Virginia should come as no surprise.

The most elementary grasp of the methods, geology, geographic location, environmental footprint and scale of the two vastly different kinds of mining would prevent any responsible person from making such a spurious comparison.

The people of Virginia - particularly those living in Southside and Hampton Roads - deserve much better.

Finally, although I now live in Tennessee, I lived in the Hampton Roads area in the 1960s while working for NASA. The area is a wonderful place to live and will continue to be so with modern day uranium mining.

H. L. Dodds is IBM professor and head of the Nuclear Engineering Department at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tenn.

[Approx. Read Time: 9 minutes]

Myth:  Nuclear Power Plants Cause Cancer

Few words in the English language invoke feelings of unrest and controversy as the word “nuclear”.  Historically, the word has been associated with feelings of uncertainty, fear or danger, and understandably so, as nuclear technology made its debut in the mainstream media by way of its use in weapons of mass destruction.  But as the general public becomes more aware and educated on the subject, many are finding that nuclear has nothing more than a bad rap.

As an illustration, let me pose this question:  When you think of gasoline, does your mind initially wander to Napalm?  Or better yet, does the use of fertilizer lead to thoughts of home made bombs?  There are a slew of atrocious myths circulating about nuclear power which are perceived as fact by many for this very reason.  One common misconception is that nuclear power plants emit substantial levels of radiation leading many to believe that operating nuclear power plants are surrounded by disfigured wildlife or that nearby residents are at a higher risk of contracting cancer or growing a third arm.
The truth is that the highly regulated nuclear industry takes the safety of the general public as its primary initiative through many stringently enforced radiological safeguards.  Among the physical barriers incorporated into the design of the plants, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enforces a number of requirements and expectations on the industry.
Take, for example, the policy statement issued by the NRC in 1986 which established safety goals and expectations with respect to an acceptable level of risk to public health and safety from the operation of nuclear power plants. According to the policy statement, the following goal was implemented as follows:

“ . . . the risk of cancer fatalities to the population near a nuclear power plant should not exceed 0.1% of the sum of cancer fatality risks from all other causes.”

As reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 180.7 cancers (i.e. malignant neoplasms) related deaths occurred per 100,000 people in 2006.  Taking this value into account with the NRC’s expectations discussed above, for a population of 100,000 people living near a nuclear power plant the risk of cancer fatalities should not exceed 0.001 x (180.7 / 100,000) = 0.000181% – still concerned?

One might argue that NO cancer related deaths should be tolerated – agreed!  Studies show that this is in fact the case and that plants exceed the NRC’s expectations (discussed further below).

The reality is, however, that we live in a radioactive world – this has been true since the beginning of time – and everyone is exposed to varying levels of radiation on a daily basis.  Take for example bananas and brazil nuts, which naturally contain higher levels of radiation than other foods.  Similarly, brick and stone homes have higher natural radiation levels than homes made of other building materials such as wood. Heck, our nation’s Capitol, which is largely constructed of granite, contains higher levels of natural radiation than most homes.  JunkScience.com once measured the radiation emanating from granite statues in the U.S. Capitol Building and discovered that a person standing in statuary hall near the Senate Chamber would absorb 5 times more radiation than would be absorbed by standing at the fence line of a nuclear power plant.

The chart below provides a comparison for doses from everyday radiation sources relative to living near a nuclear power plant, which exposes residents to an average annual dose of less than 0.001 rem.  In comparison, Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20) dictates that the total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from a licensed operating plant is not to exceed 0.1 rem in a year.

For additional consideration, the pie chart presented is from the NRC’s website and provides a percentage breakdown between natural background radiation and artificial sources.  I believe the numbers speak for themselves.

The NRC similarly limits the amount of radiation that a nuclear plant worker can receive in one year.  Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20), establishes the does limits for radiation workers. Although the limits vary, depending on the affected part of the body, the annual total effective dose equivalent for the whole body is 5 rem, although many plants go even further to restrict employees to 2 rem per year.  In contrast, the Federal Aviation Administrations recommended occupational exposure limit for ionizing radiation is a 5-year average effective dose of 20 mSv (2 rem) per year, with no more than 50 mSv (5 rem) in a

single year (nearly the same standard).

Regulations imposed on nuclear power plants ensure that both the surrounding population and the workers within plants are exposed to only low levels of radiation.  The fact of the matter is that the biological effects due to low levels of radiation exposure are so small that they may not even be detectable.  The exact effect, however, depends on the specific type and intensity of the radiation exposure.

In order to truly wrap your mind around the risks associated with radiation exposure, it is useful to evaluate those risks relative to the risks associated with everyday life.  For example, a 3-millirem exposure imposes the same chance of death — 1 in a million — as each of the following common life experiences:

• Spending 2 days in New York City (because of the air quality)
• Riding 1 mile on a motorcycle or 300 miles in a car (because of the risk of collision)
• Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter (because of aflotoxin) or 10 charbroiled steaks
• Smoking 1 cigarette

Dr. Bernard L. Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh has extrapolated this approach in his book “The Nuclear Energy Option”.  In Chapter 8 of the book, Understanding Risk, Dr. Cohen instructs that the most logical procedure for minimizing risks is to quantify all risks and then choose those that are smaller in preference to those that are larger.  He then goes on to provide a framework for that process and applies it to the risks in generating electric power.  Chapter 8 presents various everyday activities or occurrences and their associated risks.  These risks are quantified then in terms of the loss of life expectancy (LLE); which is the average amount by which one’s life is shortened by the risk under consideration.  The figure below shows some of the activities or occurrences investigated.  It is clearly shown that living near a nuclear power plant ranks at the bottom.

Further substantiating his findings, Dr. Cohens work is also published by the NRC in Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.29.  RG 8.29 offers further indication that:

“. . . the health risks from occupational radiation exposure are smaller than the risks associated with many other events or activities we encounter and accept in normal day-to-day activity.”

As mentioned earlier, countless studies have shown that populations in close proximity to a nuclear power plant receive negligible levels of radiation exposure relative to general population and are no more susceptible to cancer than the average person.

It is impractical to discuss every study ever conducted by any organization or individual regarding this matter.  Instead I have listed a few additional determinations or studies from non-bias organizations concluding such.

• The American Cancer Society blatantly backs this notion on their website with the following statement:

“Ionizing radiation emissions from nuclear plants are closely controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for communities near the plants. Reports about cancer case clusters in such communities have raised public concern, but studies show clusters do not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do elsewhere.”

• A survey conducted by the National Cancer Institute and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed no general increased risk of death from cancer for people living in 107 U.S. counties containing or closely adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities. The facilities in the survey had all begun operation before 1982. Included were 52 commercial nuclear power plants, 9 Department of Energy research and weapons plants, and 1 commercial fuel reprocessing plant. The survey examined deaths from 16 types of cancer, including leukemia. In the counties with nuclear facilities, cancer death rates before and after the startup of the facilities was compared with cancer rates in 292 similar counties without nuclear facilities.

The results of the survey, per John Boice, Sc.D.(who was chief of NCI’s Radiation Epidemiology Branch at the time of the survey), showed that “From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased risk of death from any of the cancers we surveyed due to living near nuclear facilities”.

• In a response to ongoing public concern over the risk of people living near nuclear facilities, a publication of the Illinois Department of Public Health examined the pediatric cancer risk in relation to the proximity of nuclear power plants in Illinois.  Evaluations were conducted at both the county and ZIP code levels. Age-adjusted cancer incidence and mortality rates for children aged from 0 to 14 for years 1990 to 2002 were calculated for nuclear facility county group and nuclear facility ZIP code group, respectively, and then compared with those for the matched non-nuclear facility county group or non-nuclear facility ZIP code group.

The results of the publication The results indicate that pediatric cancer incidence and mortality rates for the nuclear facility county group and nuclear facility ZIP code group were not significantly different from those for their comparison groups. In addition, there was no evidence of increased trend in cancer incidence rate after startup of nuclear power plants.

• The accident at Three Mile Island 2, what is considered the worst nuclear related accident ever to occur in the United States, caused no injuries to workers or the public.  At least a dozen epidemiological studies conducted since 1981 have found no discernible direct health effects to the population in the vicinity of the facility. Studies of the consequences of the accident were conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Energy and the state of Pennsylvania. The average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem, according to the results of these and independent studies.  The public’s average dose from natural radiation is 100-125 millirem per year for that area.

In the decades following the accident, several studies were conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, all showing conclusive evidence that no negative health effects on the population surrounding the plant. In addition to the Pennsylvania Health Department studies, several other studies have examined the health impact of the TMI accident on the population and yielded similar results.

The key to dispelling this myth is to acknowlege that, as demonstrated:

1. Any increased risk of cancer around an operating nuclear power plant relies primarily on the adverse effects resulting from any small amount of radiation it might release.
2. No single person can go through life without experiencing some level of radiation dose on a daily basis.
3. The levels of radiation emitted at or near a nuclear power plant, and the associated level of risk, are negligible in comparison to that experienced in commonly occurring events and activities experienced by most on a day-to-day basis.

Once you are able to come to terms with these facts (and I hope that this article is of some help) it becomes painstakingly obvious that, contrary to popular belief, nuclear power plants do NOT cause cancer, and in fact pose no more threat to an individuals health than 365 Tbsps of peanut butter.

Myth Busted!

Next Wednesday, Adam Johnson will address the myth that as nuclear power plants age, they become more risky.

[Approx. Read Time: 5 minutes]

Local educators learn how a nuclear power control room works.

Exelon employees from the Braidwood Nuclear Generation Station outside of Chicago, Illinois recently changed the game when it comes to nuclear power advocacy in the United States.  Led by their North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) Chapter, Braidwood Generating Station has started a nuclear power education program called Nuke 101.

The program aims to educate 6th-12th grade teachers on nuclear power, in hopes that they will pass this knowledge on to their students–creating a more informed and educated generation of Americans when it comes to nuclear power.

Let’s hope that the Braidwood Generating Station NA-YGN Chapter continues this program into the future, and other NA-YGN Chapters can follow.  This is undoubtedly important to America’s nuclear energy future.

Teachers learn about nuclear energy during Nuke 101

By Jo Ann Hustis

BRACEVILLE – For Dr. Charles Birch, the nation’s pilot Nuke 101 program Saturday was almost a walk back in time with his late father.

“He was a maintenance electrician 41 years for Wisconsin Power, and so, as a kid, I had the chance to understand electrical power,” said Birch, instructor at Coal City Intermediate School and one of 16 area junior high and high school teachers participating in the instructional session, hands-on lab, and tour of the immensely secure Braidwood Generating Station.

“At that time, nuclear just began to become part of Wisconsin Electric Power, so this was a very personal experience for me. I couldn’t help but think of my father walking at my shoulder and saying, ‘Hey, this is something.’”

A first-of-its-kind educational opportunity in the U.S., Nuke 101 was the inspiration of Braidwood Station engineer Morgan Davis and the North American Young Generation in Nuclear chapter at the plant.

“Educating the educators,” station spokesman Neal Miller noted prior to taking the teachers through the giant concrete, two-unit generating station.

“The first time we’ve ever done this. We do plan on taking it to another level, learning what we can here to improve for the next time, and continue building on it.”

The pilot program’s goal was to teach teachers about nuclear power so they can take the information back to their students.

Most of the young engineering professionals at Braidwood Station started in nuclear science by chance. Davis, herself, was introduced to it by someone who invited her to tour a generating station.

“This is an opportunity for teachers to take the wealth of information (from Nuke 101) and pass it on to the younger generation,” Braidwood Site Vice President Amir Shahkarami noted.

Fran Ogden has taught chemistry classes at Seneca Township High School for many years.

All this time, she has lived with La Salle Generating Station in Brookfield Township practically in her backyard, but never visited a nuclear plant until Saturday.

“It’s something I wanted to learn about as much as I could to relay to the students,” Ogden said of her participation in Nuke 101. “We always try to help the students find a career, and this is definitely an area many of them could get involved in.”

When nuclear power came on the scene in 1972, there were 42 generating stations operating across the nation.

Today in the United States, there are 104 operating nuclear plants, supplying 20 percent of the power needed in the country, Shahkarami noted during the instructional portion of the session.

Worldwide, today, there are 439 operating nuclear reactors. Eighty percent of the power used in France is generated by nuclear plants.

Also, another 54 nuclear generating stations are under construction throughout the world today. South Korea alone has 20 operating nuclear plants and another six under construction. Taiwan is currently constructing one nuclear plant. The United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Japan are considering building nuclear plants.

China is building from 12 to 15 reactors into each of its nuclear plants.

“That’s massive,” Shahkarami said.

The maximum number of reactors in any nuclear station in the U.S. is two.

In the 1970s, the U.S. had the technology for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, but not today.

“France, Germany and Russia do have the technology,” Shahkarami noted. “They got it from us. But President Jimmy Carter said, in 1977, no to processing nuclear fuel.”

The United States’ biggest nuclear accident, at Three Mile Island, occurred in 1977. Six years later, the nation canceled construction of the 259 generating stations that were on order.

“Because they couldn’t control the cost of construction,” he said.

China is building a dozen nuclear plants at a time today. However, with the financial crisis in the United States , it doesn’t make sense to build nuclear plants here, Shahkarami said.

“But, how long can we depend on foreign power? We haven’t built a nuclear plant in the U.S. since the early 1980s,” he said.

The back end of the nuclear generating process is recycling. The country is looking for new ways of operating this process. Meanwhile, the nation is storing its spent fuel.

“Sometime, someone will come along with a viable idea for reprocessing spent fuel,” Shahkarami said.

In the United States today, there are two kinds of reactors – pressure and boiling water.

Fast-breeder reactors are not in use in the U.S. today. These are fast-neutron reactors designed to breed fuel by producing more fissile material than they consume.

“They are the type that eventually will reprocess nuclear fuel,” Shahkarami said.

He stressed the importance of spent nuclear fuel not getting into the hands of the unauthorized, especially terrorists.

“Because they can extract plutonium from it, and that’s what makes missiles,” he said.

Braidwood Station currently stores its nuclear waste in deepwater pools within the plant, and in dry cask storage on station property.

“Eventually the dry casks have to go somewhere,” Shahkarami said. “The latest reprocessing techniques eventually take the uranium and plutonium and burn them in the reactors.”

At the conclusion of the tour, Dr. Birch, a social science teacher, noted the Nuke 101 class should definitely be an annual offering to educators.

“We in education are educators for all disciplines, so I would want this to continue, and include grades K through 12,” he said.

“We have to recognize we teach students first, and then, in particular cases, a subject area. It’s a very important experience I think ought to be continued.”

Teachers in Nuke 101 learn that radiation is all around you - even in bananas

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

If you’ve looked for a comparison in land areas needed for different power sources, I would be willing to bet that you found a lot of numbers and zero pictures.  In order for you to gain a valuable perspective on the amount of land area needed for different energy sources, I feel that a graphical presentation would be more of an eye opener.  In order to do this, I’ve enlisted the help of Google SketchUp. Let’s begin…

(I’ve included the calculation, justification, and references of these numbers at the end of this blog entry.)

Nuclear’s Footprint

For this comparison, I’ve used the largest commercial nuclear reactor on the market–the AREVA 1600 MW EPR.  A nuclear power plant typically has 2 reactor units on site.  Two EPRs take up less than 2 sq. miles of land area. (You can check this out for yourself at the Flamanville or Olkiluoto EPR sites on Google Earth)  Here is what Nuclear’s footprint looks like:

(Nuclear - Isometric View)

(Nuclear - Overhead View)

Solar’s Footprint

By comparison, solar photovoltaic technology requires a little more land area than the AREVA EPR in order to match the EPR’s power output.  According to the US Dept. of Energy and others (Ref. 1), 1,000 MW of electrical capacity requires 11,000 acres of photovoltaic solar panels.  A capacity factor of 0.19 is used for solar photovoltaics (Energy Information Administration, Ref. 2).  Referencing the calculation at the bottom of this blog entry, this means that 3,200 MW of electrical production from solar energy would need approximately 292 sq. miles, or 185,264 acres.  That’s 146 times more land required than the two EPR’s.  To put this into perspective for most Americans, that’s approximately 141,328 football fields.

Here is what solar’s footprint looks like in comparison to Nuclear’s footprint (I’ve inserted three solar panels and enlarged each of them to about 2 sq miles):

(Solar Photovoltaic - Isometric View)

Try to imagine the entire solar (yellow) footprint covered with solar panels.  Next, try to imagine washing these things every three to four days.

(Solar Photovoltaic - Overhead View)

Wind’s Footprint

Are you ready to look at the land area required for wind energy?  To produce 3,200 MW and match the EPR’s power output, wind turbines require even more land area than solar photovoltaics, and 416 times more land area than two EPR Nuclear reactors.  Again, according to the American Wind Energy Association (Ref. 3), 1,000 MW of electrical capacity requires 50,000 acres of wind turbines operating at full capacity.  But a capacity factor of 0.30  is used for wind turbines (Energy Information Administration, Ref. 2).  Referencing the calculation at the bottom of this blog entry, this means that 3,200 MW of electrical production from wind energy would need approximately 832 sq. miles, or 533,334 acres.  Yes, 832 sq. miles or 533,334 acres.  That’s 402,688 football fields.

Here is what the land area required for wind energy looks like in comparison to the footprints for Nuclear and solar photovoltaic (I’ve got two wind turbines a few hundred times taller than the Empire State building inserted into the model):

(Wind - Isometric View)

(Wind - Overhead View)

The State of Rhode Island has an area of approximately 1,545 sq miles.  Try to imagine counties and counties of wind turbines and solar panels covering the State.  Or you could just look at this picture below.

(Rhode Island)

No wonder T. Boone Pickens jockeyed Congress for help with eminent domain issues while executing his plan for using 1,200 sq miles for 4,000 MW of wind power production.  Hopefully, this will be an eye opener to the amount of forests, plains, and desert needed to enable wind and solar energies to compete with nuclear energy in power production.  Until the technology is developed to store the energy produced by wind and solar energies, this is the footprint of land that we will be dealing with.

Calculations and References

Nuclear

I used the commonly accepted <1 sq mi for Nuclear power plants and doubled it to be conservative.  The average capacity factor for Nuclear power plants is 0.90.  Two sq miles envelopes 1.5 sq mi / 0.90 capacity factor = 1.67 sq mi for 3,200 MW.  I also checked against the current EPR footprints in Europe with Google Earth.  You can easily check this for yourself.

Solar

11,000 acres / 0.19 = 57,895 acres for 1,000 MW

57,895 acres = 91 sq mi for 1,000 MW

3,200 MW/1,000 MW = 3.2

3.2 x 91 sq mi = 292 sq mi

3.2 x 57,895 acres = 185,264 acres

160 ft x 360 ft = 57,600 sq ft for an American football field (including end zones)

1 sq mi = 27,878,400 sq ft

(292 sq mi x 27,878,400 sq ft) / 57,600 sq ft = 141,328 football fields

Wind

50,000 acres / 0.30 = 166,667 acres for 1,000 MW

166,667 acres = 260 sq mi for 1,000 MW

3,200 MW/1,000 MW = 3.2

3.2 x 260 sq mi = 832 sq mi

3.2 x 166,667 acres = 533,334 acres

160 ft x 360 ft = 57,600 sq ft for an American football field (including end zones)

1 sq mi = 27,878,400 sq ft

(832 sq mi x 27,878,400 sq ft) / 57,600 sq ft = 402,688 football fields

References

1 - US Department of Energy, Office of Utility Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy & Electric Power Research Institute

2 - US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

3 - American Wind Energy Association

____________________________________________________________________

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes] The Yucca Mountain site in Nevada was to be the permanent long-term storage site for spent fuel and other nuclear waste.  It was scheduled to be completed over 12 years ago.  Decades of development and $20B later, project canceled.

Do not mis-conclude that nuclear power shouldn’t be used because there is no way to store the radioactive waste.  Radioactive waste will stay radioactive for centuries and there is no way to make it un-radioactive.  It can however be transported and stored safely inside shielded containers so that no radioactivity escapes to the air, soil or water.  The proposed containers were designed with multiple layers of safety so that multiple different parts would have to fail at the same time for radioactive contents to be leaked.  The DOE built a prototype container, left it on train tracks and hit with a locomotive.  The thick titanium container remained leak-tight. 

The proposed Yucca Mtn facility had provisions for monitoring the integrity of the containers and for detecting and containing any container leaks within the facility.  Even if despite the lottery-winning odds of all the layers of safety failing simultaneously, and radioactive material got into the soil at Yucca Mtn, the ground water is hundreds of feet below the surface and radiation can only travel about 10 feet through soil.  That’s why the military now does all their nuclear weapons tests by detonating nukes buried deep in the ground.  The detonation implodes the ground and they can calculate from the radius of the implosion what the effective blast radius in air would be.  (The blast radius underground is way, way smaller than in air.)  This underground testing of nukes that dwarf the WWII nukes in power is done in the remote deserts of Nevada.  Can you believe that?!  The same state whose not-in-my-backyard politicians have undermined all efforts to complete the Yucca Mtn project, claiming Yucca Mountain to be not 1,000,000% safe enough has over 1,000 implosions in their desert.  Two decades and $20B have been spent making Yucca Mountain’s design risk as ridiculously microscopically miniscule as possible.  How much time and energy was spent ensuring each of those potentially far more dangerous nuclear weapons tests would be safe?  A tiny fraction I’m sure – but still enough.  No one’s getting sick from the tests.

The reason for canceling Yucca Mountain is not technical infeasibility, but politicians and uninformed constituents who think it’s a lot more dangerous than is.  Uninformed fear, that’s all it is.  We can allow reprocessing of spent fuel – which we need to else we run out of uranium in 30 years - however 90% of the waste planned for Yucca was other contaminated material besides spent fuel.  This waste is useless.  France has been reprocessing spent fuel for decades without causing nuclear proliferation or anything.  France’s energy is 85% nuclear generated.  The US’s energy is 20% generated by nuclear power, 75+% by fossil fuels. 

Which energy source are you for?  Fossil plants can produce electricity 24/7, when the wind’s not blowing and the sun’s not shining, and fossil units can adjust power output on demand.  Wind and solar can’t.  A small fossil plant can produce as much energy as a zip-code’s worth of wind farms and solar power equipment.  Accounting for the vast quantities of trees and wildlife habitat that has to be cleared to build a decent-sized wind or solar plant, wind and solar energy are not as green as they’re touted to be.  All that land and equipment that has to be bought makes wind and solar energy a lot more expensive to generate than with a fossil plant.  Most of what little wind and solar generation the US has wouldn’t exist if not for government mandates (cap and trade program).  As for wind power creating jobs, 2 European counties reported the higher energy costs were destroying more 2.4 jobs for each 1 that wind farm building was creating.  Solar would be the same because it is just as unconcentrated (whimpy) an energy source as wind.   

But if we keep burning fossil fuels forever, we send the whole planet to eventual doom from global warming.  Carbon emissions can’t be isolated from the environment but nuclear waste can be.  We don’t have to cause global warming.  We don’t have to bulldoze zip codes of land and pay $6,000/yr electric bills for power produced exclusively by renewables.  Our lights, heat, air conditioning, TV and refrigerators can continue to have electricity when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.  Nuclear power is affordable, carbon-free, 24/7 energy, we just need to get the government on board with reprocessing and Yucca Mountain.  With reprocessing of spent fuel, there’s enough uranium to last centuries.  We can either leave our current nuclear wastes at nuclear power stations across the country or send it to the remote Yucca Mountain with an over-engineered facility for isolating the waste indefinitely from the environment.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

With all of the recent state legislation requiring a certain portion of electricity generation to come from “renewable” energy sources, now is a good time to expand nuclear power. With the ever increasing reliance on technology, electricity demand is projected to increase 26 percent from 2007 to 2030. A report by the National Center for Policy Analysis suggests that recycling spent nuclear fuel could provide an almost unlimited supply of nuclear fuel in the USA while also decreasing the nuclear waste issue.

NCPA Report: Nuclear Power Is Safe, Could Answer Energy Mandates

Since many state governments now require a percentage of their electrical power to come from approved “renewable” energy sources, now is a good time for policymakers to allow the United States to expand the use of nuclear power as a reliable form of energy, according to a new report by the National Center for Policy Analysis.

“The demand for electricity is projected to increase 26 percent from 2007 to 2030,” said H. Sterling Burnett,” NCPA senior fellow and co-author of the report. “Nuclear power is one of the safest and most reliable forms of energy available and it emits no greenhouse gases.”

Nuclear power is also sustainable. The NCPA report explains that recycling spent nuclear fuel could provide an almost unlimited supply of nuclear fuel in the U.S.

“Recycling nuclear fuel would definitely decrease the problem of nuclear waste disposal,” said James Franko, NCPA legislative assistant and co-author of the report. “It can also be a boon to local communities and create a significant amount of jobs.”

Nuclear power should also be considered because it is clean and safe, according to the NCPA report. Nuclear power has among the lowest carbon dioxide(CO2) emissions of all energy sources, emitting only 17 tons of CO2 per gigawatt hour. By contrast, coal emits 1,041 tons and natural gas emits 622 tons. In addition, in more than 50 years of experience with nuclear power in the United States, no deaths or negative health effects have been conclusively linked to nuclear plants or recycled fuel.

“Nuclear power is a viable source of energy, and technology exists today for nuclear power to safely provide a larger percentage of America’s energy needs,” Burnett said. “Policymakers need to consider it as a long-term solution to our energy demands and remove barriers that prevent nuclear energy from being fully utilized.”

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]  A recent article written by Keith Bradsher, states “China, which by most estimates overtook the United States in 2006 to become the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, is seeking sharp improvements in the energy efficiency of its economy.”

China is taking action to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit by building new nuclear reactors – as many as 10 a year – to meet the country’s growing electricity demand.

China’s economy has grown significantly in the last 10 years, and is continuing to grow significantly. They are investing in numerous energy sources to help create and sustain their economies; building nuclear power plants is one energy source that will help their economy, and as a result, China is reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Please reread the first four words of the second paragraph “China is taking action”. I applaud the Chinese for taking initiative in reducing the amount of greenhouse gases they emit, without waiting for an agreement from Copenhagen. Unlike the United States, who is waiting for an arbitrary panel of individuals in Copenhagen to determine what nations “should do”, China is already taking action.

We (United States) have politicians, environmental activists, scientists, etc., all making a case for why or why not we should invest in nuclear power as an energy source. While the Chinese are taking action, the United States is once again arguing over who is right and who is wrong, delaying the process of investing in new nuclear reactors to meet our energy needs and sustain our economy.

This country and our politicians think like a teenage girl who has a crush on a teenage boy. But what if I do this, And this will happen or If I do that. We need politicians who will get over their Ifs, Ands, and Buts hang-ups and make decisions about how we will sustain our economy while still providing enough energy for Americans to live comfortably. We at CEI are in the process of coordinating a Letter Writing Campaign to mobilize the politicians of this country to ACT. Stay posted.

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

We’re back.  After a month of outage season it’s time to get back to work.  Most of Clean Energy Insight’s contributors are back from working their respective outages.  Contributors spent time working long hours over the past month at places like Diablo Canyon, Sequoyah, Three Mile Island, VC Summer, Oconee, and Salem nuclear power plants.  While working on-site and in the field at these plants, everyone gained invaluable experiences that will allow us to provide informed opinions and factual information to you via Clean Energy Insight in the future.

Although we did miss a lot while we were gone, we would like to provide you with a brief summary of some of the more important stories from around the nuclear industry over the past month.  More extensive commentary is to follow on some of these issues.

Senators Webb and Alexander release bi-partisan energy bill

Possibly the most promising energy legislation so far this year made its way to the game one week ago.  Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) co-authored the bi-partisan Clean Energy Act of 2009 that places more importance on nuclear power than other legislative measures introduced so far.  Both Senators are answering the call of several non-partisan groups that claim an inclusion of nuclear in energy legislation will reduce both costs and the use of resources.  This comes after Senator Webb broke with party lines and said that he could not support the climate change bills currently going through Congress.  It seems that this legislation is a step in the direction of common sense legislation that places more importance on nuclear power.  The most reliable, cleanest, and cheapest form of energy available.

““The Clean Energy Act of 2009” spends $20 billion over the next 10 to 20 years to fund a series of loan guarantees; nuclear education and workforce training assistance; research into nuclear reactor lifetime-extension; and the development of solar power, biofuels, and alternative power technologies. The bill follows the urging of Secretary of Energy Steven Chu to increase funds available for the development of nuclear power facilities and technology.

“If we were going to war, we wouldn’t mothball our nuclear navy and start subsidizing sailboats. If addressing climate change and creating low-cost, reliable energy are national imperatives, we shouldn’t stop building nuclear plants and start subsidizing windmills,” said Senator Alexander. “This legislation will create the business and regulatory environment to double our country’s nuclear power production within 20 years and to launch five Mini-Manhattan projects to make advanced clean energy technologies effective and cost-competitive.”

“This legislation is measurable, achievable, and targeted.  By making a concerted investment in nuclear power and other renewable energy technologies, we can effectively address our nation’s energy requirements and also the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,” said Senator Webb. “This legislation is a practical approach to move the United States toward providing clean, carbon-free sources of energy, to help invigorate the economy, and to strengthen our workforce with educational opportunities and high-paying jobs on U.S. soil.””

Dr. Aris Candris: Why the US needs nuclear power

“Other clean energy sources can’t meet the needs of a growing economy.”

Westinghouse Electric CEO Dr. Aris Candris provided a great article in the Wall Street Journal where he outlined the need for nuclear power in the United States.  The nuclear industry is fortunate to have someone like Dr. Candris at the forefront.  As always, Candris does a great job putting the need for nuclear power in a global context.  He likens nuclear power to a stimulus package in itself.  Here’s what he had to say about jobs:

“To date, the recent growth of the nuclear energy industry has created at least 15,000 jobs, with many more on the horizon. Westinghouse’s work alone in the deployment of four new nuclear plants now under construction in China will create or sustain an additional 5,000 U.S. jobs in 20 states. These jobs are in fields such as engineering and design, and in the manufacturing of fuel rods and assemblies, pumps, motors, circuit breakers, etc.

Beyond that, the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness (a trade group) estimates the nuclear energy industry will create as many as 350,000 jobs over the next 20 years, many in traditional building trades (welders, pipe-fitters, construction workers) that have been hard hit by both global competition and the current economic downturn.”

NEI President reminds of the need for nuclear in any effective climate change legislation.

In the past, we have covered the necessity of nuclear power in any effective climate change/energy legislation (here, and here).  NEI President and CEO Marvin Fertel posted a concise article at The Hill while we were out.  You should read it for yourself.  Here are the first and last paragraphs from that piece:

“There’s a growing consensus in Congress across party lines that significant expansion of nuclear energy is needed to meet our electricity demand while achieving the country’s ambitious climate change goals. The nuclear industry is moving forward with 13 applications for a potential 22 new reactors under active review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The industry also has identified federal policies necessary to facilitate the expansion of the nuclear component of our energy portfolio to the scale that numerous independent analyses have concluded are necessary.

Addressing climate change while producing the quantity of electricity needed to sustain economic growth and maintain a high quality of life necessitates a significant contribution from nuclear energy as part of our diversified portfolio. Inclusion of a meaningful nuclear energy title by itself doesn’t get you to an agreement in Congress on climate change legislation. But at the same time, you can’t get there without it.”

CEO of NRG says that nuclear is needed for electric vehicle usage worldwide

NRG CEO David Crane told the US Senate that in order for electric vehicles to be used on a large scale while meeting carbon emission targets, nuclear would have to be used.  Here are a couple of quotes from the article from World Nuclear News:

“A combination of electric vehicles with clean generation and nuclear power for baseload will solve America’s climate and energy security problems, according to testimony from a senior utility chief.

Crane said: “We need to build a zero carbon baseload foundation under our wind farms and solar fields. That foundation is new advanced nuclear power.”

“We need to focus on a commercial foothold strategy that will quickly capture a significant market share for electric vehicles in key American cities and city clusters,” said Crane, adding that “the electrification of our transportation sector will provide the cure to our national addiction to foreign oil.”"

Japan, United States to work on nuclear recycling

In order to meet emissions targets and employ more clean energy, President Obama and the Department of Energy plan to get the help of the Japanese nuclear industry with recycling American nuclear fuel.  This is promising since the practice has been outlawed since the Jimmy Carter years, and the Obama Administration is attempting to end the Yucca Mountain project.

Progress says it needs 12 nuclear reactors to meet emissions goals set by Congress

Progress Energy is getting realistic in response to the recent climate change and energy legislation that is passing through Congress.  Progress released a statement saying that in order to realistically achieve an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, at least 12 new reactors would have to be added to its own energy portfolio.  Progress is currently planning to build new reactors at the Shearon Harris site in Raleigh, NC, and the Crystal River site in Levy County, FL.

Clemson University Tigers study impact of nuclear industry on jobs in State

A group of researchers at Clemson University reported that the nuclear industry in South Carolina is responsible for supporting 28,704 jobs in the state.  The group upstaged their rivals at the University of South Carolina who recently reported that BMW employed 23,050 jobs in the state.  The group also found that if planned nuclear reactors were to get built in the state, an additional 12,400 permanent jobs would be created.  I have heard in the past that nuclear energy is South Carolina’s number one trade export.