Archive for the ‘Nuclear News’ Category

Report: Nuclear is Sustainable, Reliable, Safe, and Clean

Posted by MLC On January - 6 - 2010

[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.

tri_coolers

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.”

Bi-Partisan Letter to the President

Posted by Michael Bloom On December - 17 - 2009

letter[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]  A recent Bi-Partisan letter to the President provides frame work for nuclear power growth and environmental change.  The following is the section of the letter that focuses on nuclear power.

“Encouraging nuclear power. Additional nuclear power is an essential component of our
strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We strongly support incentives for renewable
energy sources such as wind and solar, but successful legislation must also recognize the
important role for clean nuclear power in our low-emissions future. America has lost its nuclear
technology manufacturing base, and we must rebuild it in order to compete in the global
marketplace. Our legislation will encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants and
provide funding to train the next generation of nuclear workers. We will make it easier to finance
the construction of new nuclear power plants and improve the efficiency of the licensing process
for traditional as well as small modular reactors, while fully respecting safety and environmental
concerns. In addition, we support the research and development of new, safe ways to minimize
nuclear waste. We are working with our colleagues to create incentives for low-carbon power
sources, including nuclear, that will complement the Energy and Natural Resource Committee’s
work to incentivize renewable electricity.”

To read the full letter Click Here

CEI Returns from Outage Season

Posted by Carrington Dillon On November - 23 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

logoqWe’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.

Nuclear and the Senate Climate Bill

Posted by Carrington Dillon On October - 20 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

tri_coolers

NEI Nuclear Notes covered President Obama’s comments on nuclear power late last week during his trip to New Orleans.  Here they are:

“There’s no reason why technologically we can’t employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way.  Japan does it and France does it and it doesn’t have greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be stupid for us not to do that in a much more effective way.”

Sounds good.

As you are probably already aware, Senators Kerry and Boxer are currently working with their colleagues on the Senate version of the climate bill.  With important promises to make nuclear power a player in the bill, the progress has been refreshing.

Yesterday, the National Journal Online has started a debate between key players from both sides of the nuclear power aisle.  The question is whether or not nuclear should have a place in the Boxer-Kerry Bill.  There are currently eight responses from the following people:

  • Carl Pope, President - Sierra Club
  • Rep. Joe Pitts, R-PA - Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S. House Of Representatives
  • Marvin Fertel, President and CEO - Nuclear Energy Institute
  • Frank O’Brien-Bernini, Chief Sustainability Officer - Owens Corning
  • Arjun Makhijani, President - Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
  • Rep. Joe Barton, R-TX - Ranking Member, Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S. House Of Representatives
  • Bill Snape, Senior Counsel - Center For Biological Diversity
  • Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK - Ranking Republican, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

Why don’t you head over to the National Journal, check out the responses and submit your vote on who you agree with the most.  Link here.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Does Nuclear Fit The Bill?

Recent endorsements by key senators, such as John Kerry, D-Mass., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., (in their joint op-ed) and Tom Carper, D-Del., could be early signs nuclear energy is gaining traction as an indispensable part of the recently introduced Senate climate change legislation. Still, lawmakers and experts alike cite obstacles, including high construction costs and lengthy license processes, that the industry will need to overcome.

What obstacles do you think are holding up nuclear development? Should the climate bill include provisions to help revitalize the industry, such as streamlining the process of getting new plants built? And if so, how? Would nuclear provisions help Senate leaders win 60 votes? Alternatively, why do you think nuclear energy should not be an integral part of Kerry-Boxer?

– Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com

Britain an “Ideal” Location for New Nuclear Power

Posted by Carrington Dillon On October - 19 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Steven Chu (United States), Lord Philip Hunt (United Kingdom), and Sergej Ivanovich Shmatko (Russia)

We have covered the nuclear power issue in the United Kingdom previously, here and here.  Lord Philip Hunt (center), Minister of the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the United Kingdom, offered the following pro-nuclear letter in the Guardian today.  Very well written and interesting to see the statistics from Britain on nuclear power that are very similar in proportion to those in the United States.

It seems as though certain leaders in the United Kingdom are realizing the role that nuclear power should play in their energy portfolio.  In a country like the United Kingdom with limited land resources, nuclear power is a perfect fit.  As we showed last week, nuclear power is the most dense form of energy; meaning that nuclear power uses the least amount of land of any power source to create power.  I also saw some anti-nuclear commentary from Britain today about the high costs of nuclear power.  True, nuclear power has high upfront costs.  Nonetheless, reports from the United States show that nuclear power is one of the cheapest forms of energy available.  This can be seen in the following graph compiled recently with information from the United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

comparingcosts1

Since we do get so many visitors from across the pond, I am tempted to offer a “What Does Renewable Energy Look Like?” (Part I, Part II) article for the UK.  Those of you from the UK, let me know what you think about that in the comments section, and I will try to get that done before I leave for an outage next week.

‘Britain an ideal location for new nuclear power’

Lord Hunt, a minister in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, gives his verdict on Britain’s nuclear power projects.

Monday, October 19, 2009

A nuclear renaissance in the UK presents a tremendous opportunity. It has the potential to supply us with substantial amounts of home-grown, low-carbon, reliable and relatively cheap energy. That is why the government is facilitating a new generation of nuclear power: removing regulatory barriers, making the planning system fairer and faster, and creating more certainty for communities and industry.

Climate change and the need to replace ageing power stations mean this is the right thing to do. It is in our long-term national interest. We need to transform our energy sector, replacing old infrastructure with high-tech, low-carbon energy sources. Nuclear energy, alongside a tenfold increase in renewables and investing in clean coal, will be central.

Already the energy industry has announced plans for new reactors to generate 12GW of new nuclear power, more than currently exists. The first of these new plants is on course to start feeding into the grid by 2018, which would usher in a new era of secure clean energy, driven by a rejuvenated industry and workforce.

The civil nuclear industry currently generates 11GW of power from 10 nuclear power stations and provides employment for 44,000 people in the core industry and the direct supply chain. We estimate that a new nuclear power station has the potential to provide 9,000 jobs during construction and 1,000 jobs during operation, with many more created across the supply chain. The estimated economic benefit would be £2.8bn for each new plant.

While the government fully supports a new generation of new nuclear power, we recognise that there are legitimate concerns amongst the public. We are the first administration to take serious action to address Britain’s nuclear legacy. I recently visited the site at Dounreay, where workers are completing, ahead of schedule, the decommissioning of the site.

It’s exactly this sort of achievement that makes Britain an ideal location for new nuclear power. We have the skills, ingenuity and experience needed, coupled with a strong safety record. Ours is a world-class, rigorous, and transparent regulatory system, ensuring we maintain the highest standards of safety.

The government will announce shortly a rigorously assessed list of sites suitable for new nuclear development, alongside a clear statement of national need. We are determined that this entire process is conducted in partnership with local communities. We have already conducted extensive consultation to hear people’s views and address their concerns and will continue to do so.

Putting nuclear energy at the very heart of our low-carbon economy is part of our credibility going into the climate summit in Copenhagen. We need to demonstrate how we intend to reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050. We need to show real action and real leadership, and that is why we need new nuclear energy.

HSBC Private Bank Goes Nuclear

Posted by MLC On October - 16 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

hsbcHSBC Private Bank has begun recommending clients to invest between 1-5% of their wealth in nuclear power.  According to the head of global strategy for HSBC, Fredrik Nerbrand, nuclear power is the only sustainable means of electricity.  Nerbrand is also recommending to steer clear of other renewable energy stocks such as solar because of their dependence on government subsidies in a time when budgets are stretched.  Advice from financial experts and recent utility stock market performance is helping to rebuke the long standing myth that any company that builds a new nuclear plant will be penalized by Wall Street and investors.

HSBC Private Bank Goes Nuclear

By Chris Vellacott

LONDON (Reuters) - HSBC Private Bank is recommending weightings of 1-5 percent in nuclear power to clients without ethical objections, as subsidy-dependent renewable energy stocks are too exposed to political risk.

Fredrik Nerbrand, head of global strategy at HSBC’s private banking arm, said nuclear power was the “only sustainable” means of electricity generation.

“We are buying nuclear energy in all its forms,” he said, adding he did not favour sectors such as solar energy on account of their dependence on government subsidies at a time when state budgets are stretched, rendering them exposed to political risk.

Nerbrand also has reservations about gold, which has returned more than 21 percent this year to trade above $1,000 an ounce.

“I fail to see the long-term value of gold from an investment perspective,” he said, adding the commodity should be viewed as a hedge against downside risk to dollar-denominated investments.

Nerbrand is advising wealthy clients that the recovery in the world economy is gathering momentum and the time is right to move into “riskier assets” such as corporate credit, hedge funds and emerging markets.

But he remains particular about which emerging markets are worth a punt, favouring China and Brazil over Russia, which is beset with political risk, and India, which he says has overheated.

“Russia is basically related to oil and I’d rather just buy oil,” he said.

The risk of rising consumer prices in the medium term is low because high unemployment rules out a wage-price spiral, but money printing by governments is likely to lead to higher asset prices favouring real estate and commodities, he said.

In contrast, liquid assets and cash are expected to underperform with central banks maintaining interest rates at record lows. “Central banks will talk tough but act soft with regards to inflation,” he said.

New Nuclear Creates Hope in Rural Florida

Posted by Tyler Moses On October - 14 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

crystal_river1The prospect of building a new nuclear power plant in Inglis, Fl has local residents excited. Current economic conditions in surrounding Levy county are dismal with unemployment topping 12% and per capita income reaching only $15,000.  Progress Energy estimated the number of jobs that would be created in constructing and operating the  plant in a recent news article:

“Progress spokeswoman Cherie Jacobs said about 3,000 workers would build the plant when construction starts, perhaps in 2012. About 800 full-time positions would be created to staff the two generators when they open.”

Property for sale  in the area has seen a speculative increase in asking price in anticipation of the plant being built. A local real estate agent had the following to say:

“There’s lot of anticipation as far as the property owners go in what they might be able to get for their property. People want more for their property than it’s worth. They say, ‘Well, the power plant is coming.’”

Opposition to the plant has come  mostly from environmental groups and anti-nuclear groups outside of  the planned build site in Levy county. The anti-nukes concerned about local waterways and spent fuel storage are outnumbered though by locals in favor of the plants.

“The waterways - some of the state’s most pristine - provide recreational opportunities, and some nuclear plant opponents are worried about marshlands and wildlife. Others are concerned about the company’s plan to store spent nuclear fuel onsite. But they are in the minority - most see the reactors as an economic boon.”

Environmentalist may find some  solace in the fact that Progress plans on shutting down two coal fired power plants in Citrus County FL if they get the final okay to operate the new Levy County nuclear plant.  The new nuclear plant in Levy County would provide a reliable CO2 free power source large enough to replace the two coal plants.

Australians Begin to Accept Nuclear Power

Posted by Carrington Dillon On October - 14 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

australian_flagIn a country that has been seemingly anti-nuclear across the board in the past, the idea of relying on nuclear power for baseload electricity in Australia is gaining steam.  In a recent Australian poll, 49 percent of Australians support nuclear power, whereas just three years ago only 38 percent of Aussies supported the energy source.  It seems a bit ironic for Australians to be anti-nuclear with all of the uranium mining activity that goes on there.  We’ll be keeping up with the nuclear climate down under in the future.

(On a side note, here’s an interesting blog I found this past weekend written by a young pro-nuclear Australian.  Clean Energy Insight wishes Mr. Weston the best, and we hope that he comes up with some more of his interesting posts for us to enjoy.)

Australians warm to nuclear power

Ian Munro and Geoff Strong

October 13, 2009

AUSTRALIANS are warming to the idea of nuclear power, with almost one in two saying it should be considered as an alternative source of energy to help combat global warming.

An Age/Nielson poll found 49 per cent of Australians believed nuclear should be on the nation’s list of potential power options, while 43 per cent were opposed outright.

The finding marks a big shift of public opinion from 2006, when a Newspoll showed just 38 per cent in favour of nuclear power and 51 per cent opposed.

The survey came as political haggling in Canberra over emissions trading drew a sharp rebuke from former government climate adviser Ross Garnaut.

”This whole process of policymaking … has been one of the worst examples of policymaking we’ve seen on major issues in Australia,” he said.

Despite the poll findings showing more support for nuclear power, the Rudd Government yesterday restated its total opposition to it as an option to help Australia meet its future carbon reduction targets.

During the 2007 election campaign, after prime minister John Howard put nuclear power on the agenda, then opposition leader Kevin Rudd said: ”If you elect a Labor government, there will be no nuclear reactors in Australia, full stop.”

Supporters of nuclear power say it is the only practical low-emissions alternative to coal for generating baseload electricity - the minimum required by industry and residential users.

Arguments against focus on safety - the risk of accidents and the fact that radioactive waste must be stored securely for thousands of years. Opponents also say it would take too long develop a nuclear power industry.

Ziggy Switkowski, who chairs the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, said: ”[We must] provide for the next generation of baseload electricity generation with clean energy. The only way to do that is with nuclear power.”

Support for considering nuclear was strongest among Coalition supporters (58 per cent), and opposition was strongest among Greens voters (62 per cent). ALP voters were evenly divided, with 46 per cent in favour and 46 per cent opposed.

Survey respondents were told: ”The introduction of nuclear power has been suggested as one means to address climate change”, and then asked: ”Do you support or oppose the Federal Government considering the introduction of nuclear power in Australia?”

Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson restated the Government’s opposition to nuclear power. He also cast doubt on the viability of photovoltaic solar power as a future energy resource. He said the renewable sector kept falsely insisting it could be an alternative to coal as baseload power.

But he believed solar thermal technology, which uses the sun’s heat to boil liquids to power turbines, was a more likely answer.

Victorian Energy Minister Peter Batchelor dismissed nuclear power as an option for the state. He said increased reliance on lower-emitting gas, clean coal and renewable energy sources were the way ahead.

However, hopes for a cleaner future for Victoria’s power industry received a setback last month with the abandonment of a ”carbon capture” project at a proposed power station near Morwell, which instead is to become a gas-fired station. In another setback for the renewables sector, Solar Systems, which was to have developed a 154-megawatt solar photovoltaic power station near Mildura, was put into administration.

Meanwhile, the annual Lowy Institute poll has found that climate change is dropping as a priority for Australians.

The poll, released today, found Australians have gone from ranking climate change in 2007 as the equal most important foreign policy goal to putting it seventh out of 10 possible goals. The issue fell 10 points since last year and 19 points from 2007.

But Lowy executive director Michael Wesley said 76 per cent rated climate change a problem and those who felt this way viewed getting a solution as increasingly urgent.

As the Opposition prepared to put a package of amendments on emissions trading to Parliament next week, political sparring continued over the costs of curbing emissions.

Frontier Economics and independent senator Nick Xenophon hit back at Treasury’s claim that Frontier’s blueprint, commissioned by the Opposition (and Senator Xenophon), had a $3.2 billion hole.

They accused Treasury of misunderstanding the ”credit and baseline” approach to emissions trading and getting its sums wrong.

Senator Xenophon said Treasury was acting politically. He said he could not support the Government’s scheme unless it included changes to the way the electricity sector was treated. There was a risk the Government’s model would cause energy security problems, including blackouts.

The Seven Network reported an analysis commissioned by the NSW Government from Frontier last year on the Rudd Government scheme said that in the long term it could lead to real wages 8 per cent below the level they would otherwise reach, if long-run unemployment was to be avoided.

Promise for Nuclear in Boxer-Kerry Bill

Posted by Carrington Dillon On October - 8 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

boxer-kerryI realize that Clean Energy Insight hasn’t come out and voiced our opinion on the Senate version of the Cap-and-Trade Bill, otherwise known as the Boxer-Kerry Bill.  But don’t get your hopes up.  Personally, some of us feel that it isn’t appropriate, sensible, or productive for a nuclear power advocacy website to come out in support of the entire bill since it has such a large scope.  In fact, the Cap-and-Trade bill going through Congress is one of the largest bills in United States history.

So from now on, we will offer our opinions on the nuclear section of the bill, and at the moment we like what we see; however, currently the bill has nothing but a nuclear-friendly foundation with promises to build.

Mark Flanagan at NEI Nuclear Notes has been following the bill here and here.  Mark has described the bill as a “Christmas tree without ornaments” with regard to nuclear energy policy, and we agree.  Hopefully, those ornaments will decorate our tree with:

  • More Loan Guarantees
  • Tax breaks for nuclear job creation, manufacturing, and construction
  • Licensing process changes that reduce time and create an efficient process
  • Action to get the ball rolling on this “blue-ribbon commission” that will re-examine options for nuclear fuel

Currently, Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain have been offering strong criticism of the bill when it comes to nuclear power.  To me, this seems more like political posturing and gamesmanship than anything.  Although, I appreciate their aggressiveness in support of nuclear power, both Senators know that additions to the bill are coming.  If positive additions promised by Sen. Kerry don’t come, then they can open up the flood gates of constructive criticism.

Although it seems to be unpopular in America today, if you actually read the current bill here (beginning on page 107), you will see that the Boxer-Kerry Bill actually opens up to nuclear power a lot more than the House version (Waxman-Markey).  And when I say “open up,” I mean that it takes a big step in openly acknowledging that nuclear power will have to be a part of America’s energy solution.

On a more personal note, I am very pleased to see the focus on nuclear job creation in the bill.  Especially with respect to trade jobs such as skilled craftsmen, welders, etc.– a big issue for the nuclear industry as current nuclear tradesmen present an aging workforce.  Even if it is obvious that this comes simply as a result of Senators Boxer and Kerry fulfilling their legislative favors for the trade Unions.

We will see what happens with respect to nuclear power in the coming days.  Each of you can make a difference by calling, emailing, or writing your Senator and telling them that you support nuclear power’s role in America’s energy future.  Make them accountable for delivering those ornaments for our Nuclear power Christmas tree.

California Gubernatorial Candidates Tout Nuclear Power

Posted by Carrington Dillon On October - 7 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

san_onofre1Candidates in the California governors race have backed nuclear power for perhaps the first time in the state’s recent gubernatorial race history.  This makes sense with nuclear power being a clean baseload power resource that could allow the state to lower it’s emissions while not hindering economic growth.  However, nuclear power isn’t mentioned much in the state as one could imagine.

Monday, Professor David MacKay made the point in Britain that nuclear power is must be utilized with the popular use of electric vehicles.  California Governor candidate Steve Poizner agrees in the AP article below.

“It will be the perfect technology to allow for the rapid expansion of electric vehicles,” Poizner said during a panel discussion focused on housing, transportation and infrastructure.

It is refreshing to see that more people are realizing that mass electric vehicle use is nearly impossible without a clean baseload power source like nuclear power.  Especially in California.  Let’s hope that this trend continues in the state.

Calif. gubernatorial hopefuls back nuclear power

By Juliet Williams
Associated Press (Posted under Fair Use)
09.16.09

SANTA CLARA, Calif. — Two of the three leading Republican candidates for California governor next year said Wednesday they support nuclear power to help the state meet its energy demands. Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner said during a public policy forum at Santa Clara University that he would make the expansion of nuclear power a campaign theme. He said it would be an important tool to help California meet its future energy needs but said state regulations prohibit its expansion.

“It will be the perfect technology to allow for the rapid expansion of electric vehicles,” Poizner said during a panel discussion focused on housing, transportation and infrastructure.

Another GOP candidate, former Congressman Tom Campbell, later said he also supports nuclear power. Republican hopeful Meg Whitman, the former eBay chief executive, did not attend the conference because she was in San Diego addressing a Fortune magazine event on women’s leadership.

One of the potential Democratic contenders, Attorney General Jerry Brown, said he does not oppose nuclear technology, adding that California should consider all options to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Brown, who served as governor from 1975 to 1983, has not announced his candidacy for another term as governor but is contemplating a run.

Brown declined to comment on the recent legislation that would have required California’s utilities to get a third of their power from renewable sources but limited the amount they could import from out of state. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will veto the bills in part because of that restriction.

On Tuesday, he signed an executive order establishing the 33 percent mandate with fewer restrictions than were included in the bills, which were pushed by majority Democrats. Utilities will have to meet the goal by 2020.

Brown declined to comment on the legislation because he hadn’t read the entire bill but said he supports getting renewable energy from California and from wind, solar and geothermal producers in other states.

Campbell, a former Schwarzenegger finance director, said he also agreed with the governor’s decision to veto the renewable energy bills.

Four of the five leading candidates for governor were attending a forum on such issues as energy, education, transportation, taxes and infrastructure sponsored by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. The group said its goal was to bring together business, nonprofit and civic leaders to discuss how to make California more competitive.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is seeking the Democratic nomination, was scheduled to speak about education. He was not immediately available to discuss his views about nuclear power.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

Another Nuclear Power “Heads Up” to Britain

Posted by Carrington Dillon On October - 5 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

The United Kingdom has been warned once again that it must embrace nuclear power if it is going to address climate change initiatives and energy shortages in the country.   Backing up a government study released just two months ago, Professor David MacKay states that nuclear power is paramount to attain a secure clean energy future for Great Britain.

MacKay does bring up a brilliant point that isn’t brought up often enough–electric cars will put major strain on current power production levels.  Vehicle emissions are only a small part of the entire emissions portfolio of countries like the United States and United Kingdom.  In reality, the addition of electric cars will increase the emissions of the biggest contributor to an overall emissions portfolio–electric power generation.  In order to release a fleet of electric vehicles into a country, clean baseload power sources like nuclear power must be utilized.

uknuclear

Professor David MacKay: Britain ‘must go nuclear’ to control climate

The government’s chief scientific adviser on climate change has proposed a quadrupling of Britain’s nuclear power generation to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

Professor David MacKay believes nuclear power could be the only way Britain can meet its soaring demand for electricity while keeping emissions under control.

He has calculated that renewable energy sources such as wind and tidal power will never provide more than a fraction of Britain’s electricity needs.

Speaking last week on his first day as chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, MacKay set out a vision of how Britain could generate the threefold increase in electricity it needs, with nuclear power at its heart.

He cited Sizewell B, Britain’s largest nuclear power station, as a benchmark.

“This plan would involve a fourfold increase in nuclear power over today’s levels,” he said. “So at Sizewell, for example, you would have four Sizewell Bs and at other nuclear sites you would have another four Sizewell Bs, and so on.”

He added: “Britain could never live on its own renewables. If the aim is to get off fossil fuels, we need nuclear power or solar power generated in other countries’ deserts, or both.”

MacKay, who will advise Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December, stressed he was not personally pro-or anti-nuclear. “My point is that whatever energy sources we choose, the sums have to add up,” he said.

Britain emits greenhouse gases equivalent to 680m tons of CO2 a year. The government has pledged to cut this to 140m tons by 2050 and has said it wants nuclear power to play a part.

In the next few weeks it is due to publish a shortlist of up to 11 sites where nuclear power stations could be built. Most are next to existing installations.

The scale of the nuclear programme hinted at by MacKay is far greater than that suggested by ministers, however.

There are 10 ageing nuclear stations in the country, with 12 gigawatts of generating capacity — about 15% of Britain’s needs. Two are due to close next year, the rest by 2023.

MacKay’s calculations, set out to an audience of Cambridge academics, are based on a new generation of nuclear power stations supplying 40 to 50 gigawatts of power by 2050.

Since modern nuclear power stations are likely to be much more powerful than those built in the past, this suggests fewer than 15 new reactors would be needed.

At the heart of his thinking lies a prediction that, by 2050, Britain will need three times more electricity-generation capacity than it has now.

This is partly because the only way to cut the surging emissions from road transport — roughly a third of all UK emissions — is to make most vehicles electrically propelled. Millions of electric vehicles would need regular recharging.

MacKay also wants to see an end to the use of gas for central heating and the replacement of boilers with heat pumps that extract heat from the atmosphere. They run on electricity.

“Setting fire to chemicals like gas should be made a thermodynamic crime,” he said. “If people want heat they should be forced to get it from heat pumps. That would be a sensible piece of legislation.”

wales

MacKay said there were other ways of generating the electricity Britain needed. One was to rent swathes of desert from north African countries such as Algeria or Libya, cover them in solar panels and transmit the power to Britain along high-voltage cables.

In theory an area the size of Wales could meet all of Britain’s power needs, but the idea is fraught with technical and political problems. It would also leave Britain at the mercy of the countries whose territory contained the equipment.

Another possibility would be carbon capture and storage, in which CO2 emissions are captured before they enter the atmosphere and buried. MacKay said this was an untried technology, however, and should not be relied on.

Caps Endorse Nuclear Power

Posted by Carrington Dillon On September - 30 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

ovechkin_scoreThe Washington Capitals, an NHL hockey team, endorsed nuclear power today.  Through an endorsement from the Nuclear Energy Institute, the Caps will attempt to share the importance that nuclear energy has with respect to emission-free energy generation.  The endorsement showcases the great work and increased spending from the NEI in the past year to educate the American public on the benefits of nuclear power as a clean, safe, and reliable form of energy for the country.  Now, if only the Capitol (rather than the Capitals) will choose to fully endorse nuclear power.  Although, this is a great start.  You can check out the interesting details of the endorsement below.

NEI Partners with NHL’s Washington Capitals to Promote Nuclear Energy’s Clean-Air Value

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — To increase awareness of nuclear energy’s role in clean-air electricity generation, the Nuclear Energy Institute has entered into its first-ever partnership with the Washington Capitals of the National Hockey League. As an official energy partner of the Capitals, NEI is teaming up with the team to promote the clean-air benefits of nuclear energy to sports fans via multiple media, including signage at the Capitals’ home arena, the Verizon Center, in print and radio ads, and on the Caps’ and NEI’s Web sites.

Hockey and climate change may seem unrelated, but a rising concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is, many believe, creating changes in the climate–changes that are having an impact on hockey. From Vancouver to Vermont, Stockholm to Moscow, the ponds and lakes on which many hockey players hone their skills are freezing later in the year and melting sooner.

“Nuclear energy is an important part of a technology-based solution to climate change,” said Capitals majority owner Ted Leonsis. “It’s a proven energy provider in Virginia and Maryland for Capitals’ fans. We are pleased to work with NEI to raise awareness of the role that it can play in reducing greenhouses gases across America.”

The Washington region has long benefitted from nuclear energy’s clean, reliable electricity generation: Nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases or other controlled air pollutants while generating electricity. For local Caps’ fans, 85 percent of the clean electricity produced in Maryland comes from the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant located 45 miles from Verizon Center. In Virginia, nuclear energy produces 91 percent of the state’s emission-free power.

Additionally, Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and Richmond-based Dominion Power are among energy companies that have filed permits with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build new nuclear energy facilities.

“The Capitals’ success here in Washington provides a terrific branding opportunity for the industry as Congress and the Obama administration tackle important energy and environmental issues, all of which will benefit from America’s investment in nuclear energy,” said Scott Peterson, NEI’s vice president of communications.

Nuclear energy is the largest generator of clean-air electricity with 104 reactors in 31 states generating 20 percent of all electricity and 72 percent of electricity produced from sources that do not produce greenhouse gases. For many U.S. energy companies, nuclear energy is a vital part of a clean energy production portfolio that also includes wind, solar and hydroelectric power.

Like the energy sector, NHL players are increasingly serious about climate change. The NHL Players Association has helped its membership calculate their total carbon emissions for the regular season. Hockey players are uniquely qualified to comment on the demonstrable effects of climate change.

“A rite of winter passage among generations of hockey players–playing and falling in love with the game out on frozen ponds and lakes–has been curtailed as warmer winters in recent years have meant less access to skating recreation,” Peterson noted. “A lot of people associated with hockey believe this is due to climate change.”

Capitals’ fans this hockey season will see NEI’s “Nuclear: Clean Air Energy” message prominently displayed near the goal both at the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C., as well at the team’s training facility, Kettler Capitals Iceplex, in Arlington, Va. NEI also will air 30-second radio commercials during coverage of all 82 games on local radio WFED 1500 AM. NEI also will have video and display ads on the Capitals’ Web site and full-page advertisements in the game programs.

All season long, NEI will provide updated information on nuclear energy’s role in moving America to a more climate-friendly energy portfolio for Washington Capitals fans at http://nei.org/caps. To view partnership-related photographs, including shots of the Capitals in action, throughout the season, see NEI’s Flickr account at http://www.flickr.com/photos/_nei/.

The Coal Reality Hits China’s Wind Energy

Posted by MLC On September - 28 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

coal_wind1

China is quickly becoming the world’s largest producer of wind energy; however, they are also building coal back-up plants to safeguard against blackouts when the wind doesn’t blow.  Typically, wind mills are producing energy 30-35% of the time.  The author also notes 30% of the wind-power capacity installed in China was not connected to their grid due to the transmission network’s inability to absorb the growth in renewable-energy output.

Other countries that have a combination of rapidly growing energy demand, an old and inflexible grid, a heavy reliance on coal, and ambitious renewable energy expansion plans will face the same problem.  The US currently meets 3 of those 4 requirements.

There are plans in the US to use natural gas combustion plants to supplement our wind energy; however, these plants are subject to high energy price volatility.

China is also leading the way on nuclear power fleet development by rapidly building new nuclear plants that don’t require fossil fuel back-ups.  The plan is to use nuclear plants to offset the need to build coal plants will help China curb their carbon emissions and maintain stable electricity prices.

China’s Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants

Wall Street Journal - Sept 28, 2009

SHANGHAI—China’s ambition to create “green cities” powered by huge wind farms comes with a dirty little secret: Dozens of new coal-fired power plants need to be installed as well.

Part of the reason is that wind power depends on, well, the wind. To safeguard against blackouts when conditions are too calm, officials have turned to coal-fired power as a backup.

China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts say the country’s transmission network currently can’t absorb the rate of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of wind-power capacity wasn’t connected to the grid. As a result, more coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.

In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn’t blow. This is important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal, which fuels two-thirds of China’s electricity output. Wind energy ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which can be stockpiled at generators in advance.

Further complicating matters is poor connectivity between regional transmission networks, which makes it hard for China to move surplus power in one part of the country to cover shortfalls elsewhere.

China may not be alone in having to ramp up thermal power capacity as it develops wind farms. Any country with a combination of rapidly growing energy demand, an old and inflexible grid, an existing reliance on coal for power, and ambitious renewable energy-expansion plans will likely have a similar dilemma. What marks China out as different is the amount of new coal-fired capacity that needs to be added.

The China Greentech Initiative, a group made up of more than 80 mostly large Western companies and organizations with interests in the environmental sector, said in a report earlier this month, “China’s increased focus on renewable energy exerts yet greater demands on China’s electric power infrastructure. Power generation based on renewable energy sources … necessitates greater use of intermittent generation management and storage.”

“China will need to add a substantial amount of coal-fired power capacity by 2020 in line with its expanding economy, and the idea is to bring some of the capacity earlier than necessary in order to facilitate the wind-power transmission,” said Shi Pengfei, vice president of the Chinese Wind Power Association.

Largely due to its reliance on coal, China is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in absolute terms. Last year, the country accounted for more than 85% of global growth in coal demand, according to BP PLC’s statistical review of world energy.

Facing pressure from abroad over the pace of China’s emissions growth, President Hu Jintao used a speech to the United Nations last Tuesday to stress his country’s commitment to tackling climate change. He said China will lower energy intensity as the country grows, while raising output of renewable energy and nuclear power. China aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product by a “notable margin” by 2020, Mr. Hu said, without setting a concrete cap.

The city of Jiuquan, in the flat and arid northwestern province of Gansu, shows the complexities that crop up when implementing such plans. The city is meant to showcase the strides China is making in renewable energy. Wind turbines with a combined capacity of 12.7 gigawatts are due to be installed there by 2015—more than the country’s present nuclear-power capacity.

But the Jiuquan government wants to build 9.2 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity as well, for use when the winds aren’t favorable. That’s equivalent to the entire generating capacity of Hungary.

Construction of these thermal power plants is pending approval by Beijing, an official with the Energy Department under the Jiuquan Development and Reform Bureau said Tuesday.

The heavy reliance on coal-fired power plants to add to the power supply from large wind farms in order to meet minimum power demand is essential to grid safety, said Mr. Shi of the Chinese Wind Power Association.

To be sure, any kilowatt hour of wind power consumed by end users ultimately replaces a kilowatt hour of electricity generated by other, possibly dirty, sources such as coal, and the huge power supply expected from the new wind farms represents a major stride in China’s clean energy push.

In addition to Jiuquan, there are plans for six other wind farms in China with a capacity of more than 10 gigawatts each, mostly in sparsely populated inland regions such as wind-swept Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang.

Several gigawatts of new thermal power capacity will need to be built at these sites as well, Mr. Shi said.

China has plenty of windswept plains and sun-baked deserts like the Gobi which can host turbines or solar panels, but these are often far from cities and existing infrastructure for shipping power. Sebastian Meyer, director of research and advisory services with clean-energy consultancy Azure International, says China needs a more modern and flexible grid if it wants to raise the share of renewable power in its energy mix.

So-called smart-grid technology aims to modernize the power sector by overlaying digital communications onto the grid, enabling utilities to manage supply more efficiently and compensate for any variance. But while the U.S. and many countries in Europe are lining up spending to exploit the technology, China is lagging behind.

State Grid Corp., China’s monopoly power distributor in all but five provinces, says it wants to build a nationwide “strong smart grid.” But while it is investing heavily in grid improvements, its immediate focus is the construction of ultrahigh-voltage lines linking China’s coal production and hydropower centers in inland areas to the densely populated east.

A single such line can carry up to 6.4 gigawatts of power, which makes it even more important that generation at its starting point is stable and reliable.

—Jing Yang

Nuclear Engineering Graphic Bombs

Posted by Carrington Dillon On September - 22 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

The school newspaper for Virginia Tech, the Collegiate Times, released a story on the NRC’s recent education grant to Virginia Tech to start a nuclear engineering program.  The article is great and the news is wonderful for the university and for the future of the nuclear industry in the United States.  What caught our eye here at Clean Energy Insight was the graphic that was placed in the print edition of the newspaper article. (See below)

virginiatech

Eric Danner and myself from Clean Energy Insight were compelled to write a letter-to-the-editor of the Collegiate Times in order to follow up on the article and let the students of Virginia Tech know that atomic bombs aren’t business-as-usual for the nuclear industry, much less a university nuclear engineering degree program.

Nuclear Engineering Graphic Bombs

Collegiate Times, 9/21/09

Last week, the CT released an article covering the recent grant from the NRC for a nuclear engineering program at Virginia Tech.  The students at Virginia Tech are some of the best and brightest in the country, and well deserving of this challenging educational opportunity.

However, at least one person made the mistake of placing a picture of a mushroom cloud in the background of a “Virginia Tech’s Nuclear Energy History” timeline.  Although this is probably more of a minor oversight by someone at the CT, it does raise a larger issue that is prevalent in today’s society.

The relationship between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are all too often confused, mostly because of a lack of education on the subject.  It seems that in today’s world it is becoming easier to demonize something that isn’t understood, instead of attempting to understand it.

No one at Virginia Tech will be taught how to engineer nuclear weapons.  A nuclear engineering program is focused on an energy technology that creates clean, safe, and reliable energy.

Just as a bottle of petroleum jelly cannot explode while sitting in your bathroom cabinet, a nuclear power reactor cannot possibly explode like a nuclear bomb.  Although the two technologies share the same name, they are very different.  Simply, fuel for nuclear power is enriched 25-30 times less than that of weapons-grade material.

Although this new nuclear engineering program is wonderful news for the University, unfortunate inaccuracies like this can cause severe damage to the future of clean baseload energy in the United States.

Nuclear power currently accounts for 74% of clean energy production in the United States and helps the country avoid almost 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year.  The second and third closest clean energy competitors are hydro and wind energy with 200 and 27 million metric tons of CO2 avoided, respectively.

Nuclear power is also the most reliable clean energy that we have available today.  It produces clean energy 100% of the time, compared to wind (30%), hydro (27%), and solar energy (19%).

Not only is nuclear power clean and reliable, it is safe.  According to the Dept. of Labor, the US nuclear power industry has a workplace accident rate lower than that of the US education and communication industries, which includes the entire faculty and staff of Virginia Tech and the CT.

Hokies, please take this opportunity to learn more about nuclear power and support the new nuclear engineering program at Virginia Tech.

J Carrington Dillon
Alumnus, Civil Engineering & Economics

Eric Danner
Alumnus, Aerospace Engineering

Mythbusting Uranium Mining Opponents

Posted by Carrington Dillon On September - 21 - 2009

[Approx. Read/Watch Time: 5 minutes]

tobaccopittsylvaniaYou 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.

Fact Sheet 2009