Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

Clean Energy Insight has created a Fact Sheet for 2009 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 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

Things may be slowing down a bit here at Clean Energy Insight over the next month or two.  Currently, it is outage season for the nuclear power industry.  Many of our contributors will be supporting outage work on-site at nuclear power plants.

In the nuclear power industry, an “outage” does not primarily refer to a power outage or blackout.  Every Spring and Fall, when power demand is at its lowest, the nuclear industry shuts down some of their plants for maintenance and repair.

This could mean packing up and going to a nuclear power plant for the next three months, or staying at their home office and working the night shift.  We will try our best to keep you updated on nuclear news and interesting nuclear power facts.  However, all of our focus will be on our work in order to be as safe as possible and as productive as possible during these critical outages.  Plus, working on an outage can help an engineer gain priceless experience in the field and in the industry, which will make Clean Energy Insight better equipped to bring you voices of experience.  So…

What is an “Outage?”

In the nuclear power industry, an “outage” is a period of time in which a nuclear power plant shuts down (stops producing power)  in order to perform routine maintenance, replacements, and/or re-fuel the reactor.  During this time, the power utility ramps up power production at other plants, or purchases additional electricity from neighboring utilities to make up for the power production from a reactor that is scheduled for an outage.

Depending on the type of outage, it can last from one and a half to two months.  Additionally, outage staff works in 12 hour shifts in order to keep things moving and to provide 24 hour support.

A nuclear plant would be able to tout a 100% capacity factor if it weren’t for these scheduled outages.  Because of these necessary outages, nuclear power plants achieved an energy industry best capacity factor of 91.8% in 2008.

Some of the components that are replaced or maintenanced include but are not limited to: reactor heads, steam generators, pumps, motors, turbines and fuel.

Re-Fueling

Re-fueling outages average about 35 days in length, some have been done in 15-20 days, and are done every 18-24 months.  This means that a nuclear reactor doesn’t need to be re-fueled but every 18-24 months, setting nuclear power apart from other energy sources such as coal that need to be refueled on a daily basis.

Fuel Rods

Pumps and Motors

Pumps and motors must also be replaced or maintenanced during outages in order to service the plant and lengthen its service-life.

Baby Pump

Reactor coolant pump motors are the largest pump/motor assembly in a nuclear power plant.  These can be about 28 feet in height, weigh over 100,000 lbs, roll at 9,000-12,000 horsepower, and spit out 88,000 gallons of water per minute.

Reactor Coolant Pump for the Westinghouse AP-1000 Reactor

Turbines

Here’s a great video from National Geographic on the turbine replacement at Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant.

Reactor Heads

Reactor vessel closure heads must be replaced at a plant periodically as well.  These are pretty heavy components as well.  Usually around 200,000 lbs.  It’s quite a feat to be able to move an object this heavy so precisely.  Here’s a great document from Bechtel on the process they use to replace reactor heads in a safe and efficient manner. Link: Bechtel Detail Design.

Reactor Head

Reactor Head being put into place

Steam Generators

Steam generators are one of the biggest components in a nuclear power plant and can weigh around one million pounds.  Moving these things is big business.  It is also an art. The coordination and precision of this type of operation is impressive and intricate.  The only way to give it justice is to see it in person.  Although, I hope these images will help you understand the scope of this type of project.

Steam Generator

Here is a news clip from Lancaster Online showing two steam generators moving through rural Pennsylvania a couple of weeks ago on their way to Three Mile Island for the outage there slated to start October 26th.  The generators will be installed and the reactors will be back online by January 1st.

The delivery route must go through multiple levels of planning including coordination with local law enforcement and structural qualification of roads and bridges along the route since the steam generators are so heavy.  The steam generators that are currently running at Three Mile Island will be removed and placed in a building called an Original Steam Generator Storage Facility (OSGSF).  This facility is designed and rated to prevent the release of low-level radiation to the public and environment.

These aren’t the only activities that are performed during outages.  Some include modifications that will increase the life and power output of existing plants.  Others may include increasing fire protection safety measures in the plant.  There are many different modifications that a utility performs during outages that will increase quality and performance at their nuclear plants.  Hopefully, this post provides a high-level overview of a nuclear power industry outage.  For more detailed information, feel free to ask any questions in the comment section below.

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

I once read an article by William Tucker that included some interesting facts about nuclear energy.  You can read it here.  One statistic from Tucker’s letter that I’ve kept with me is that uranium is 2 million times more energy dense than coal.  Hopefully, by representing this fact visually it will stick with most of you.  Let’s get started…

Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given volume or mass of a certain substance or material.  If an energy source has a high energy density, then you’ll need less material or resources to create the same, if not more, amounts of power than energy sources with lower energy densities.  I’ve tabulated the energy density of various energy sources below.  These numbers are easily accessible on the internet from various reliable sources.  I started with a wonderfully informative website named “What Is Nuclear?” linked here.

*Tucker explains in his piece that solar energy is 10-50 times less dense than wood.  I’d like to use this, but I had a hard time justifying that you can consider solar energy in terms of mass (kg) when solar energy density is usually measured per square meter.  I included solar in the table as a matter of perspective.

I will be the first to admit that if you don’t have a scientific background, you cannot fully appreciate this data unless it is put into perspective.  So, how can you put these numbers into perspective?  I will first represent this data with graphs.  Then I will represent these numbers in terms of feet, and then in miles.

Represented Graphically

First, the energy densities of wood and ethanol, both directly derived from plants, are shown in the below graph.

Next, the energy densities for wood, ethanol, coal, crude oil, diesel, and natural gas are graphically displayed.

Next, natural uranium and reactor-grade uranium are included in the graph.  They completely dwarf the other energy sources.

You can see that other than natural and reactor-grade uranium the other energy sources don’t even show up on the graph.  This is because nuclear energy is just that energy dense!  In fact, if I were to stretch this graph out to where natural gas, coal, and oil would begin to show up, this graph would be almost one mile long!

Represented in Feet

Wood - 10 ft

This can be compared the height of a basketball goal, or the career average passing yards per attempt of Ryan Leaf (3.6 yards).  Leaf is often referred to as the worst quarterback in NFL history.

Coal - 33 ft

This can be compared the career average passing yards per completion of Brett Favre (11.4 yards).

Crude Oil - 42 ft

Compare this to the distance that a football punter stands behind the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped to him for a punt.  Virginia Tech’s football program has proven that 42 feet (14 yards) isn’t very far.  They have led all NCAA football teams in blocked kicks over the past two decades.  It takes about 3 seconds from the snap to the blocked punt.

Natural Uranium - 570,000 ft (108 mi)

This is approximately the distance from Washington DC to Richmond, VA on I-95.  It takes 2 hours to get there with no traffic.

DC to Richmond

Reactor-grade Uranium - 3,700,000 ft (700 mi)

This is the approximate distance from Washington, DC to Chicago, IL via interstate travel.  This trip takes 11 hours without traffic or bathroom breaks; and although some may argue otherwise, I would be willing to bet that Brett Favre cannot throw a ball this far.

Represented in Miles

Coal - 33 miles

This is equal to the average round-trip daily commuting distance for Americans (ABC News/Time Magazine/Washington Post Poll).

Commute

Natural Uranium - 570,000 miles

This is equal to traveling around the equator 23 times.  Or making one trip to the Moon and back.  Hardly a daily commute.

Reactor-grade Uranium - 3,700,000 miles

This is equal to traveling around the equator 149 times.  Or you could make 15.5 round-trips to the moon, but you would have to stay there because you’re one-half a round-trip short.

One Leg Short of a Round-trip

[Approx. Read/Watch Time: 5 minutes]

You may have read on Clean Energy Insight before about the Coles Hill, Virginia uranium deposit.  Pittsylvania County, Virginia is known for its tobacco farms, but it’s also home to the largest untapped uranium deposit in the United States.  Currently, the National Academy of Sciences is conducting an 18 month study to determine the effects that uranium mining will have on the area.

Despite an objective study currently being done to determine if uranium mining can be done safely at Coles Hill, there has been some opposition from a small group of people in Southwest Virginia.  Some anti-uranium mining groups from other states have even come in and attempted to organize opposition based on fear tactics and baseless myths.

The Virginia Energy Independence Alliance has put together a great video dispelling some of the myths being put out there by radical opposition groups.

Myth 1: There is no established need for uranium in the United States. The US exports most of its uranium.

Myth 2: Uranium test drilling at Coles Hill is leading to lead contamination in local wells.

Myth 3: Uranium has never been safely mined. Especially, in a temperate environment like that of Southwest Virginia.

Myth 4: Problems from uranium mining in Navajo communities in the 1950’s will happen again if uranium mining were started in Southwest Virginia.

Thanks to VEIA for the great video, and I hope there are more to come.  Enjoy.

Learn The Facts About Uranium from Jason Phillips on Vimeo.

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Myth: Nuclear Power Emits Massive Amounts of Greenhouse Gases

I have heard many times before that Nuclear Power emits a lot of greenhouse gases. In all actuality Nuclear Power emits NO greenhouse gases while producing electricity, but if you look at the entire life cycle of nuclear (mining, construction, etc.) you will see that it does emit a minimal amount of CO2 because of the labor involved in manufacturing and the construction of the units. This is the same for all other forms of energy producing sectors as well, including wind, solar, and hydro.

Yes–you read that correctly, all forms of energy production releases some sort of greenhouse gases in their life cycle. If you think about it for a minute, this statement makes total sense. Humans release CO2 into the atmosphere, we even breathe out CO2, and since we have to work at these facilities all facilities will release some CO2.   Manufacturing and construction of the facilities will also emit CO2.  The truth of the matter is, we can’t possibly have 100% CO2 free energy, but we should produce large amounts of energy while keeping our CO2 emissions to a minimum. Luckily, we have that technology available to us today and that is nuclear power!

Lets look at the graph below, it illustrates the amount of CO2 energy the US has avoided by the use of nuclear power production.

How about the rest of the energy industries you ask? Well lets look at the graph below to see how much energy is avoided by other energy producing industries. You can see that nuclear power far exceeds the amount of avoided CO2 by the top “renewable” energy productions.

Nuclear power accounts for 73.6 percent of all the energy production methods considered to be CO2 free. The graph below shows you how much energy is produced by nuclear power compared to other CO2 free emitting energies. This is one of many reasons why we should have a big portion of our energy come from nuclear power, but this is not to say that we should not keep using the other forms of clean energies. In fact, in order for the US to have the greatest benefit, the US will need to use all forms of CO2 free emitting energies, but for the most part the main producer and base power producer should be nuclear power.

This is great information to have but one might ask, “How much CO2 is released by nuclear?” Great question! The answer is in the graph below. It illustrates the amount of CO2 that is released during the life-cycle of energy production from 8 different energy industries. As you can clearly see nuclear power is a close 3rd place but is very comparable to both Wind and geothermal. Now lets combine the information above with the amount of energy produced from nuclear and you have a clear winner of where our country needs to get their base power from…Nuclear Power!

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Myth: As Nuclear Power Plants Age, They Become More “Risky”

A generality that the 104 commercial U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) commonly fall victim to is that as things age, they are at a greater risk for potential failure.  The more miles on your car, the more time you usually spend at the repair shop.  The longer you live in your house, the more trips you have to make to the nearby home improvement store.  Although this is common with most things that we encounter in our everyday lives, this is not the case for NPPs.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) initiated the Industry Trends Program (ITP) to monitor trends of industry performance indicators to ensure safety at NPPs is maintained.  If any adverse trends are detected in the performance indicators, the NRC will evaluate the issue and take appropriate regulatory action to address it.  Each year these performance indicators are reviewed by the NRC as part of the Agency Action Review Meeting (AARM).  Any statistically significant adverse trends are included in the NRC’s Performance and Accountability report to Congress.

“No statistically significant adverse trends have been identified through the end of fiscal year (FY) 2008, based on the ITP indicators and the Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) program.” – NRC website, Industry Trends page

Full details of the trends monitored by the NRC as part of the ITP can be found in the current ITP report, SECY-09-0048.  Definitions and descriptions for performance indicators can be found in the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0313, Appendix A.  Below you can find several of the Fiscal Year 2008 Long-Term Industry Trends Results from the most recent ITP report along with a brief description of the indicator.

Significant Events

Definition: Significant Events are defined as —

1. A Yellow or Red Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) finding or performance indicator
2. An event with a Conditional Core Damage Probability (CCDP) or increase in core damage probability (ΔCDP) of 1×10-5 or higher
3. An Abnormal Occurrence as defined by Management Directive 8.1, “Abnormal Occurrence Reporting Procedure”
4. An event rated two or higher on the International Nuclear Event Scale

Forced Outage Rate (FOR)

Definition: The forced outage rate is the number of forced outage hours divided by the sum of unit service hours and forced outage hours.

Safety System Actuations (SSA)

Definition: Safety system actuations are manual or automatic actuations of the logic or equipment of either certain Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) or, in response to an actual low voltage on a vital bus, the Emergency AC Power System.

Automatic Scrams While Critical

Definition: The number of unplanned automatic scrams that occurred while the affected reactor was critical.  A Scram is an emergency shutdown of a nuclear reactor.

Opponents to the industry trending rationale may state that NPPs are subject to negative aging effects, such as equipment failures.  My response to this claim is that you are exactly correct.  Every plant does experience some form of equipment aging or failure, but being realistic, nothing is made to last forever.  Equipment aging begins as soon as a piece of equipment is operated for the first time.  The important issue is how the utilities manage the aging effects and also how they identify and mitigate the risks associated with the operation of their plants.  NPPs are designed to sustain equipment aging and failures through redundancy and dedicated systems that are capable of and dedicated to maintaining public safety.

Along with the ITP, there are also measures to evaluate the ability of NPPs to maintain safety on an individual basis.  INPO routinely sends teams to evaluate plant operations, processes and personnel.  INPO then assigns a score to the plant based on observations during the assessment.  Negative ratings from the assessment generally warrant more demanding requirements to maintain safety by the NRC and can even lead to a NPP being shut down.

The information presented in the annual ITP report confirms that the safety of operating nuclear power plants is being maintained.  The decreasing trends can be attributed to the dedication of the individuals in the commercial nuclear power industry to deliver safe and reliable power to the public, as well as:

• Regulatory guidance (NRC)
• Industry organization involvement (INPO, EPRI, etc.)
• Improved processes and procedures
• Evaluation and incorporation of operating experience and lessons learned
• Advances in technology / Plant modifications
• Predictive and preventive maintenance capabilities
• Economic benefit to maintain a plant

Another intriguing subject that comes up when discussing the safety of NPPs is the potential for a plant to become a terrorist target.  Mike Bullard will be addressing this issue in two weeks.  Next Wednesday, Jonny Abendano will take on the myth that nuclear energy emits greenhouse gases.

[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: 4 minutes]

I found a pretty interesting video a couple of months ago of Google CEO Eric Schmidt giving his strong opinion on nuclear power.  We were still designing this website at that time, so I have been waiting to post this for a while.

Watch the video before you continue:

What really strikes me is the pompous attitude Mr. Schmidt carries with him throughout the video clip.  Where did he get this information that he is so confident in?  Nuclear power just doesn’t “cost out” against renewables?

I believe that Mr. Schmidt’s flawed assumption is that wind and solar installations will last forever, just like their energy sources–the sun and wind. That is obviously not the case, these installations must be replaced on a large scale every 15 to 20 years (if everything goes as planned).

Wind and solar installations aren’t made by Ron Popeil.  You don’t “set it and forget it”. Other than having proverbial maids go around and wash off those solar installations every three to four days (which are ironically best placed in the desert), the installations must be replaced every 20 years.  All in the face of a 60-80 year lifetime for nuclear plants.  (The lifetime promise is the same for wind turbines; but, Danish turbines are only lasting for an average of 16 years.)

Anyway, Clean Energy Insight created this graph “Comparing Clean Energy Costs” with information from the Energy Information Administration’s 2009 Annual Energy Outlook.  Annually, the EIA completes energy forecasts for the following 20 years based on current information.  Back in April, they updated their forecast to include Stimulus provisions.  This includes subsidies for renewables in an attempt to make them more competitive.  Even Schmidt admits in the video that renewables rely on federal subsidies to be competitive.  Something that Nuclear power does not rely on.  As you can see, nuclear is far cheaper than any variation of wind and solar technologies.

Here is a link to the full-size graph.

Here is a link to a decent explanation of the information used.

Finally, I would like to address Mr. Schmidt’s claim that solar thermal power can power the entire United States with a 10,000 sq mile installation.  I’ll bring back my methodology from What Does Renewable Energy Look Like? Parts I and II to debunk this claim.  I’ll even ignore the fact that current transmission technology isn’t even able to do this in the first place, and even the biggest planned solar thermal installation is only 340 MW and yet to be proven.

According to the Energy Information Administration Solar Thermal installations have a capacity factor of 0.312.

Mr. Schmidt proposes a 100 mi x 100 mi = 10,000 square mile area of solar thermal panels will power the entire United States.

The 340 MW Arizona installation uses approximately 4,000 acres or 6.25 sq miles.  We’ll use that ratio for this quick calculation.

This means that for 1,000 MW, solar thermal would need approximately 18.4 square miles.

The United States uses an approximate hourly average 3,310,502 MW of power.

Mr. Schmidt’s proposed 10,000 square mile solar thermal installation will reliably provide:

18.4 sq mi / 0.312 capacity factor = 59 sq mi per 1,000 MW

Therefore, 10,000 sq mi of solar thermal panels will yield only 169,491 MW of power.

5.1% of the energy consumption of the United States.  That’s 3,141,011 MW short.

Someone recently commented on one of the “What Does Renewable Energy Look Like” posts and said that I was at least 95% off in my calculations.  It’s pretty ironic that Mr. Schmidt is actually 95% off in his claim.  I would really like to see the study Mr. Schmidt used for his claims, and would welcome the chance to see the methodology and calculations of the study.

I wonder why the CEO of Google would make such blatantly false claims like this about solar power?

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Myth: People don’t want Nuclear power plants in their backyards

Where do I even start? This is an enormous myth. I was pleased last week to find that Bisconti Research Inc. made public their Nuclear Plant Neighbor Survey results because it makes my job in disproving this myth embarrassingly easy.

The Nuclear Plant Neighbor Survey used a sample of 1,100 adults living within 10 miles of one of our nation’s 64 nuclear plant sites. Plant employees living within ten miles of a site were not surveyed. Below are some of the results worth highlighting:

• 84% of Americans living near nuclear power plants favor nuclear energy!
• 90% view the local nuclear power station positively!
• 76% would support the construction of a new reactor near them!
• 72% associate nuclear energy “a lot” with reliability!
• 71% have heard or read about the clean-air benefits of nuclear energy!
• 58% strongly support nuclear energy whereas only 5% strongly oppose!
• 83% believe that companies that own sites are involved in the community!

Wow! Nuclear plant neighbors are not only happy with the plants, but they wouldn’t even mind more reactors being constructed on site. These survey results really point out what great stewards domestic nuclear sites are within their respective communities. It doesn’t hurt that no member of the general public has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power plant operation something even wind turbines can’t claim.

Separate from the survey, I also wanted to take a more in depth look at another argument made by the “not in my backyard” crowd. Some residents have expressed worry that nuclear power plants could drive down home prices and hurt nearby communities. I decided to take a look at home prices directly next to McGuire Nuclear Station outside of Charlotte, NC where the median home price is $169,000. Using Zillow.com, I scanned prices of homes that have recently sold or are for sale near McGuire Nuclear Power Station. I found that there are several houses within less than ten miles of the power plant that have recently sold for over $1 million. Some of Charlotte’s most wealthy residents are choosing to live near the plant. When people that can afford to live just about anywhere invest in a home that close to a plant it makes you wonder if the “driving down home prices and hurting communities” fear really carries any weight. And the answer is no.

I dug deeper and found a 2006 study by Roger Bedzek and Robert Wendling that specifically studied the impact of 7 nuclear sites on property values. The results of this study can be summed up in one excerpt:

“The taxes and fees the facilities pay often fund over half of the county and school district budgets and provide levels of public and educational services that are far above those of surrounding counties and greater than the state averages. In each of the seven regions, housing and real estate values have benefited from the operations of the nuclear facilities.”

If nuclear power plants make for better schools and higher property values you can put one in my backyard today!

[Approx. Read Time: <1 minute]

The Nuclear industry is one of the safest industries in the United States.  Recently, I looked up some facts about workplace incident comparisons by industry.  These include OSHA recordable accidents.  I decided to go and check out the updated Nuclear industry averages and compare them to some other industries in the available US Bureau of Labor Statistics database.  I made the following graph with some of the information I found.  This data may surprise some of you who do not work in the Nuclear industry.  I believe that the graph speaks entirely for itself.  (Link to graph)

[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.”

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 3.5 minutes]

With all the attention that yesterday’s meeting between President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev received, I thought that it was necessary to raise awareness of the “Megatons to Megawatts” program that turns former Russian nuclear warheads into nuclear energy fuel.  This program wasn’t mentioned a single time in yesterday’s negotiation announcements.  This is especially a shame since the “Megatons to Megawatts” program is such a great program that largely goes unnoticed on a public stage.

From the negotiations between the two countries came one agreement to negotiate, by the year’s end, a reduction in one another’s nuclear weapon arsenals.  I felt that this may have left some people wondering, “where do these weapons go?”

I only recently learned of this private program that, at no cost to taxpayers, turns nuclear weapons into nuclear energy fuel.  You may have heard of the phrase “10% of American lightbulbs are powered by a former Russian nuclear warhead.”  Thanks to the “Megatons to Megawatts” program, that is true.

The goal of the program is to recycle 20,000 Russian nuclear warheads into nuclear energy fuel by 2013.  As of June 30th, 2009, 14,686 Russian nuclear warheads have been eliminated and turned into nuclear fuel.  Another relevant statistic from this program is that 367 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium has been recycled into 10,621 metric tons of nuclear energy fuel–a testament to the importance and effectiveness of this program.

With the recent and upcoming agreements between the Russian and American governments to reduce their nuclear weapon stockpiles, hopefully, this program will be expanded and brought to light on a larger stage.

You can learn more about the program here: http://www.usec.com/megatonstomegawatts.htm

( By Mike Bullard )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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