Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[Approximate Read Time - 1 minute]

The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) announced their annual Nuclear Excellence Awards today at the conclusion of their eleventh Biennial General Meeting held in Shenzhen, China.

Susan Reilly Landahl, Chief Operation Officer of Exelon Nuclear and member of NA-YGN’s Executive Advisory Committee was one of the eight recipients this year. The Nuclear Excellence awards identify individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to excellence in the operation of nuclear power plants or infrastructure that supports their operation.

NA-YGN would like to congratulate Susan on her well-deserved award. “She has long been a strong proponent of promoting diversity within the nuclear industry,” NA-YGN Professional Development Chair Erin West said. “NA-YGN is grateful for her generous support and is glad to see her recognized by her peers for her efforts.”

Susan was recognized for her relentless pursuit of excellence, wide variety of key positions in Exelon’s fleet and her significant contribution as a mentor and role model to others in the industry, including through organizations such as U.S. Women in Nuclear and North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN).

The NA-YGN Executive Advisory Council provides guidance to the NA-YGN Board of Directors. WANO established the Nuclear Excellence Awards in 2003.

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Virginia’s policy on uranium mining was one of several featured issues discussed at Governor Bob McDonnell’s second annual Governor’s Energy Conference in Richmond earlier this week.

A break out session was held to discuss the historical, economic and environmental issues surrounding the potential for uranium mining in the state . The panel included State Senator John Watkins, U.S. Energy Information Administration geologist Margaret Coleman, and the Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Henry Darwin.

Senator Watkins outlined the history of uranium mining in Virginia going back to the late 1970s when the largest untapped uranium deposit in the U.S. was discovered in Pittsylvania County in southern Virginia. Watkins explained how the General Assembly imposed a temporary moratorium on uranium mining in the early 1980s to allow the state time to conduct a scientific study to determine if it could be done safely in Virginia.

After multiple state studies found that uranium could be mined “with minimal risks” in Virginia, Watkins said the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission recommended that the General Assembly lift the moratorium and draft regulations to oversee the industry in the state. The moratorium was intended as “a first step, not a last step,” Watkins said.

However, Watkins went on to explain that the moratorium was never lifted because in the mid-1980’s, the companies that controlled the deposit decided not to develop it due to a downturn in the uranium market. Today, Watkins told the panel, the global uranium market is booming due to increased demand in the U.S. and major rising economic powers like India, China and Russia. “There is now a global need for uranium for use as nuclear fuel, including in the United States,” said Watkins.

Margaret Coleman from the U.S. Energy Information Administration provided an overall picture of the uranium mining industry in the U.S. and globally.

The U.S. production of uranium was at its peak during the Cold War from the 1950s to the early 1980s, Coleman said, but since then domestic production has trailed off and reliance on foreign imports have skyrocketed. Coleman alerted the panel to the fact that the U.S. now imports 92 percent of the uranium we use to fuel nuclear reactors, with almost a third coming from the Russian government.

She also pointed out that Kazakhstan is rapidly emerging as one of the world’s largest suppliers of mined uranium. Since 2008, Kazakhstan increased its share of the global uranium market from 20 percent to 33 percent. Like Russia, uranium mining in Kazakhstan is largely controlled by sometimes unreliable state-run nuclear companies. The U.S. imports 15 percent of its uranium supply from Kazakhstan.

Henry Darwin, Director of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, discussed the safety and environmental record of uranium mining and milling operations in his state.

Darwin described the balance Arizona strikes between economic development and environmental sustainability when it comes to the development of the state’s natural resources. Darwin spoke about the positive economic impact and the good environmental performance of mining operations in the state. In particular, Darwin drew attention to the industry’s positive track record for protecting the groundwater and other drinking water sources surrounding mining operations in Arizona.

Like the proposed Coles Hill project in Virginia, Arizona uranium mining is predominantly conducted underground and is “pretty small potatoes” compared to the huge open pit copper and other mineral mines throughout the state, Darwin said.

Darwin said that state water permits ensure that water used on site is not leaked into groundwater or surface water and is stored safely in an impoundment after being treated and tested. The impoundment is a heavily engineered and lined structure that Darwin described as “much more than just a hole in the ground.”

State air permit requirements and advanced industry practices have been very effective at ventilating the mines to protect workers from radon gas, as well as preventing dust dispersion at the sites and in the trucks that transport the ore from the site.

During the question and answer section, Senator Watkins was asked what options the General Assembly has in 2012. “If the [National Academy of Sciences] study affirms that uranium mining can be done safely in Virginia, the moratorium should be lifted, and we should direct state agencies to start writing the regulations,” said Watkins, alluding to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study due for release in December of this year.

The NAS has been studying the issue of uranium mining in Virginia for 18 months and has held numerous public fact-finding meetings across the state. Watkins mentioned that the General Assembly could first seek guidance from state regulatory agencies before drafting legislation during the 2012 Session.

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

On September 21, 2011, the North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) Durham Chapter partnered with one of Canada’s premier business schools, The Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto to create a special and successful event with Ontario Power Generation’s Chief Nuclear Operating Officer, Mr. Pierre Tremblay.

Zeeshaan Mustafa, Rotman MBA (C’12) co-host and NA-YGN Member welcomes attendees to the Energy Expert Speaker Series @ Rotman.

The NA-YGN Durham Chapter collaborated closely with the Rotman School of Management and the Rotman MBA Energy Club to co-host a special 2011 Energy Expert Speaker Series @ Rotman featuring Mr. Tremblay.  Mr. Tremblay, who has a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) was invited to return to his alma mater and deliver a presentation entitled, “The Future of Nuclear: Lessons from Fukushima Daiichi”.

Mr. Tremblay, OPGN Chief Nuclear Operating Officer addressing the audience at the Fleck Atrium, Rotman School of Management for his presentation, “Nuclear Energy’s Future: Learning from Fukushima-Daiichi”.

The Rotman School of Management routinely offers students, alumni and interested members of the public an opportunity to learn from renowned global experts on a diverse range of topics.  This thought-provoking suite of lecture series is known as the Expert Speaker Series @ Rotman. The goal of the series is to invite “some of the greatest minds in business” to “visit the Rotman School to share their insights” and inform the audience as “global thought leaders”.  The Speakers Series offers a broad diversity of topics, from expected business school topics such as Finance, Strategy, International Business to the more eclectic subjects such as Integrative and Design Thinking, Competitiveness and Prosperity.

Given the tragic events of Japanese earthquake and tsunami of earlier this year, the NA-YGN Durham Chapter felt the need for academics, business community and public at large to be better informed about the events in Japan and what specifically this meant for OPG and the Canadian nuclear industry as a whole.

The Fleck Atrium in the heart of the Rotman School was the venue for Mr. Tremblay’s presentation.  As the event was open to the public, there was a wide-range of participants with over 250 registered attendees.  Several colleagues from within the nuclear Industry and the broader power generation sector were present. OPG Nuclear Senior Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Chief Nuclear Engineer Mr. Mark Elliott and OPG Vice President Corporate Affairs, Mr. Bruce Boland were in attendance to support the event.  Registrants and attendees also included representatives from the Consulates of Switzerland, Korea, and Britain along with the Consul Generals of Switzerland and UK Trade & Investment.  The audience also included individuals from financial, legal, and consulting firms; as well as, governmental and non-governmental organizations such as the Physicians for the Environment.

Mr. Tremblay delivered an informative and insightful presentation.  He summarized the sequence of events at Fukushima, measures undertaken following the accident and the use of remote technology to stabilize the situation.  Mr. Tremblay also broadly described the defining moments in the nuclear industry and outlined how the nuclear power industry emerges stronger after adversity, “by working together to assess, benchmark and improve performance through mutual support, exchange of information and emulation of best practices”[1].

He highlighted OPG’s response to events in Japan,  including OPG CEO Tom Mitchell’s appointment to chair a special World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) commission; launch of special communications initiatives to keep Ontarians informed and assured about the safety of OPG’s nuclear facilities; and submission to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on lessons learned from Fukushima.

Mr. Tremblay explained how OPG, other Canadian nuclear operators and the global nuclear industry is responding to the lessons learned from Fukushima-Daiichi.  The four key learnings which Mr. Tremblay delineated were the importance of preventing fuel damage and maintaining containment; anticipating and planning for the “unexpected”; verifying defences and systematically carrying out all emergency functions; and considering ways to partner with other operators and the community.   Mr. Tremblay concluded his remarks with the environmental, economic and operational value offered by nuclear energy and how safety, for the public, environment and employees is a fundamental value for nuclear energy professionals.

The presentation was followed by an engaging discussion with members of the audience. Attendees were interested in asking Mr. Tremblay about the specifics of the accident sequence at Fukushima.  Some participants also wanted to learn about a broad range of topics including the possibility of changing regulatory requirements, the status of emergency preparedness plans, alleged incidences of cancers near nuclear facilities and the role of nuclear security.  Mr. Tremblay effectively and eloquently addressed each question by presenting evidence-based research and facts which were well received by audience.

Sunny Mustafa, NA-YGN Durham Vice President, thanking Mr. Tremblay, Rotman and attendees in his closing remarks.

The NA-YGN Durham Chapter was pleased to create this special Energy Expert Speaker Series @ Rotman.  Mr. Tremblay’s presentation highlighted key actions undertaken by OPG, the global response of the nuclear industry and how lessons from Fukushima were are being incorporated in maintaining safe and secure nuclear facilities. The event was an overwhelming success as it educated, informed and promoted an engaging dialogue with the public about the paramount importance of nuclear safety for nuclear energy professionals.  This dialogue and the public’s appreciation of it is the basis for the social license which is required for the continued future of nuclear energy both in Ontario, Canada and abroad.

Some NA-YGN members at a networking session following the event (left to right): Sinéaid Lagan, NA-YGN Durham President, Sunny Mustafa, Vice President; Lianne Lees; Mark Bosley, NA-YGN Durham members; Andrew Ali, NA-YGN AMEC NSS Chapter Communications Chair and Mayur Upadhyay NA-YGN Durham Professional Development Chair.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

The Washington Post issued an online article last week titled, “Quake shifted nuclear storage containers at Virginia’s North Anna plant.” The picture following the headline (below) is a perfect example of the misrepresentation commonly faced by the nuclear industry.

Be informed, this photo is not a concrete wall in a nuclear power facility.  By selecting the “View Photo Gallery” link below the image and then viewing picture number four in the gallery; it is clear that this is not damage to a nuclear power facility. 

The caption associated with the image reads, “Damage is visible on a beam that supports the roof over the atrium in Ernest Everett Just Middle School.”

The article indicates that the spent fuel storage casks that shifted remained intact and upright. 

See how tough these spent fuel storage casks actually are by viewing these test pictures and videos.

Stay Informed.

UPDATE:

Tuesday, September 6 - The Washington Post has updated the picture associated with the article since it was released last week.  The picture now shows the North Anna nuclear power plant.

I commend the The Washington Post for updating this image, however, erroneous occurrences such as this should not occur when reporting on issues where misleading information can generate negative perception.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 min]

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has publicized the plan to close all 17 nuclear power plants in Germany by 2022.  Germany temporarily shut down 7 reactors in an immediate “knee-jerk” reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

Germany currently generates about 23% of electricity by means of nuclear power.  The plan is to replace nuclear power with alternative energy productions that “do not increase greenhouse gases.”  The issue with this statement is that once a nuclear plant is constructed, it does not generate greenhouse gasses.  Construction of the alternative energy resources utilized to replace the 23% of lost nuclear generation would result in an increase in greenhouse gasses, whereas, the continued operation of the German nuclear plants would not produce greenhouse gasses.   Germany, where’s the logic?

A decision to shut down all nuclear plants in response to the Fukushima Daiichi accident is not logical; now is the time to focus on continued safety and reliability of nuclear energy.  Germany is bordered by countries that rely on nuclear power for electricity generation, including Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.  Germany should have an interest in the safe operation of the nuclear plants in these neighboring countries because if an event similar to the Fukushima Daiichi accident were to occur, Germany would likely be affected as well.  Germany, where’s the logic?

Nuclear power is a means of “base load” generation, meaning that energy production is considered to be a consistent power source.  Renewable energies are not regarded as base load generation because the source of the generation is not always consistent.  Simply put, the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.  Eliminating the only carbon free, base load energy source would either require an increase in carbon emitting generation (i.e. clean coal and natural gas plants) or the purchasing of power from surrounding countries to meet base load power demands.  Again, the majority of countries surrounding Germany have operating nuclear power plants.  Germany, where’s the logic?

I agree that renewable energies are crucial to clean energy and I commend Germany for the planned development of renewable energy sources, but where is the logic in shutting down operating nuclear plants that do not produce carbon emissions and eliminating fission power from the clean energy solution?

Table Source: European Nuclear Society

[Approx. Read Time: <1 minute]

Who knew that a century after Thomas Edison’s invention of the light bulb, it would serve as a beacon of hope in a difficult situation? Nuclear professionals around the world were grateful for this photograph of the lights coming on in the Unit-3 Fukushima Dai-Ichi control room. This simple achievement represents the dedication and accomplishments of the Japanese nuclear power plant workers over the past few weeks.

For up-to-date information and news on the situation in Japan, see our previous blog, Resources on Situation in Japan.

Credit: REUTERS/Tokyo Electric Power Co.

As our thoughts continue to be with our friends and colleagues in the Japanese nuclear industry, we would like to provide our North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) members with up-to-date information and talking points based on factual information from experts and industry professionals on the ground.

Remember, as members of the nuclear industry in North America, it is important to stay informed of the situation in Japan and (when appropriate) refute any factually incorrect information and rumors that we may encounter in the midst of this situation.  Use these sources provided to send to colleagues, friends, and family who are concerned about the situation in Japan.

(Please feel free to post some links below in Comments)

Industry and Government Organizations

The International Atomic Energy Agency has been the first point of contact for information coming out of Japan regarding the nuclear energy situation there:

http://www.iaea.org/

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) has come up with some helpful and informative Fact Sheets, FAQs, and talking points on the current situation:

http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/

The Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS) is also posting updates:

http://cnsc.gc.ca/eng/mediacentre/updates/march-11-2011-japan-earthquake.cfm

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) is posting updates twice daily on their blog:

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/

The NRC is also offering support to the situation and posting information such as seismic design criteria for United States nuclear reactors on their website:

http://www.nrc.gov/

Utilities

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is the Utility in that owns the reactors affected by the earthquake and tsunami in Japan.  They are posting updates as they become available:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/index-e.html

Major News Outlets

World Nuclear News is posting constant news updates on the current situation here:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/

SKY News has created an informative timeline of events:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/VIDEO-Japan-Timeline-How-Events-Unfolded-From-Earthquake-And-Tsunami-To-Aftershock-And-Nuclear/Article/201103315952511?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15952511_VIDEO%3A_Japan_Timeline_How_Events_Unfolded_From_Earthquake_And_Tsunami_To_Aftershock_And_Nuclear

So has The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8383473/Japan-nuclear-crisis-Timeline-of-official-statements.html

Reuters is following the situation here:

http://live.reuters.com/Event/Japan_earthquake2

BBC is covering current events in Japan here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

Japanese (English) news outlet NHK WORLD is covering the situation here:

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/

Blogs

The energy blog Brave New Climate has posted some of the most informative updates on the situation as it unfolds in Japan.  They have done a commendable job at making the information easier to understand for people not familiar with nuclear science and technology:

http://bravenewclimate.com/

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

National Nuclear Waste Commission to Hear from Public, Environmental Groups on Friday in Augusta

Friends of the Earth to Challenge those who Aim to Dump Spent Fuel at SRS

By: Randy Key

Augusta, GA – A national panel established by President Obama to decide the way forward with high-level nuclear waste will meet in Augusta, Georgia on Friday, January 7. The Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC), which is deciding the fate of commercial spent fuel and Department of Energy high-level waste, will meet at the Augusta Marriott (Two Tenth Street in downtown) all day Friday and hear public comment at the end of the day.

Given the problems with proceeding with the Yucca Mountain waste dump, the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina is at risk of becoming an “interim” home for radioactive spent fuel or reprocessing of that dangerous material. “We will watch out for the public interest and strongly oppose efforts to dump high-level nuclear waste in South Carolina,” said Tom Clements, Southeastern Nuclear Campaign Coordinator with the environmental organization Friends of the Earth. “Environmental groups will confront efforts by special interests to reprocess nuclear spent fuel as it leaves behind a huge volume of nuclear waste and would make SRS the nation’s de facto nuclear dump, which is totally unacceptable.”

Included on the formal agenda amongst a long list of politicians with little technical or policy expertise in management of nuclear waste or record of closely tracking issues at the Savannah River Site, several SC and GA environmental groups will present testimony to the BRC. Clements will be first on a panel at 10:55 a.m. on Friday, January 7 and will speak to problems with the secretive push by special interest to pursue reprocessing at SRS, which is unsuited to receive more of the nation’s nuclear waste burden. Reprocessing is a dirty and dangerous chemical process that extracts plutonium and magnifies problems with spent fuel storage. Reprocessing of military materials for plutonium production for nuclear weapons is what has resulted in the 36 million gallons of high-level waste at SRS and with which DOE is struggling to manage.

“While some are pushing on the one hand for a way out of South Carolina of high-level nuclear waste, these same people are lobbying for reprocessing at SRS, which means bringing the nation’s spent fuel to SRS. This effort to bring radioactive spent fuel to SRS for reprocessing will be confronted for what it is - a dangerous deception that could result in a huge nuclear waste problem in South Carolina. Some label reprocessing as ‘recycling’ but most of the resultant waste streams have no practical use, are dangerous to handle and are costly to manage.”

DOE itself has raised the possibility of spent fuel storage and reprocessing at SRS, but it is primarily contractors that profit off SRS and nuclear waste management that have been pushing the idea. “As clean-up of SRS continues, we must look for new employment at SRS but those jobs must not be associated with bringing more radioactive waste to SRS,” said Clements. We believe that the public in South Carolina and Georgia will support clean jobs at SRS but not projects that bring yet more deadly nuclear waste to the site.” The charter of the BRC does not directly include consideration of jobs or future use of SRS or any other DOE site.

Friends of the Earth and the South Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club are running ads in local weekly papers and on radio stations in the Aiken/Augusta area, urging members of the public to attend the BRC meeting and speak out against the nuclear waste threat faced by South Carolina.

On Thursday, January 6, members of the public will tour SRS, on a parallel track with members of the BRC, who will have a tour of their own. Staff of the BRC may well be on the bus with the public and available for interaction about the work of the Commission.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Entergy’s Arkansas Nuclear One Wins Global Nuclear Project of the Year

Two Entergy Projects Honored at 2010 Power-Gen

Orlando, Fla. - Entergy employees from Arkansas Nuclear One were honored by Power Engineering magazine as Nuclear Project of the Year in the annual global completion at the 2010 Power-Gen International conference.  Working with American Ceramics Technology, the ANO team successfully drove development of a method to attach a flexible shield to various sizes of pipes and surfaces as well as a tungsten vest for a first-in-industry approach to personal shielding.”We are very happy to have our team recognized for the years of work put into the tungsten shielding,” said team leader Jim Bacquet, supervisor of the ANO radiation protection team. “We are proud to have brought this new shielding, now used across the Entergy fleet, to our industry, increasing safety and productivity for nuclear operations.”

At the 2010 Power-Gen International, more than 1,200 companies from all sectors of the power industry and more than 18,000 attended the Orlando event.

About Tungsten Shielding

The Entergy tungsten radiation shielding is a flexible heat-resistant shielding made of tungsten and iron metal powder immersed in a silicone polymer. Lead blankets have been the backbone of shielding applications for years, but in comparison, lead blankets are a less effective and efficient shielding choice. Due to the tungsten properties in this newly created material, it has proven to be up to twice as effective as lead and is more flexible and more quickly installed in the field.

The Entergy tungsten radiation shielding uses a new method of attaching shielding using imbedded magnets. As a polymer material, this shielding becomes form fitting. “We call it snap-and-shield,” noted Bacquet.

Taking this new material a step further to enhance safety, the ANO team designed and produced vests to be worn by workers in the field. Working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the tungsten vests are a new approach for the power industry, one that the ANO team adapted from the medical field.

“This shielding vest is a big plus for the Arkansas Nuclear One work force and for all plants across the country,” said Dan Stoltz, radiation protection coordinator and team member. “It is gratifying to see the vests and tungsten shields so readily adapted by others and to know it came from right here at ANO.”

Entergy Corporation is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, and it is the second-largest nuclear generator in the United States. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Entergy has annual revenues of more than $10 billion and more than 15,000 employees.

Accepting the 2010 Nuclear Project of the Year Award are members of the team that developed new tungsten shielding: ( left to right) Dan Stoltz, Arkansas Nuclear One radiation protection team; Richard Culbertson, president and principal of American Ceramics Technology and Jim Bacquet, ANO radiation protection supervisor and team lead. The global award was presented by David Wagman, chief editor of Power Engineering magazine at the annual Project of the Year Awards dinner held at the Power-Gen International conference in Orlando attended by more than 18,000 power industry peers.

Accepting the award as FINALIST in the 2010 Nuclear Project of the Year Award program are Entergy employees from the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant in Covert, Mich., for development of the gimbaled head for reactor head inspections: (left to right) Brian Kemp, Design Engineer Manager and Chad Main, team lead for the project. The global award was presented by David Wagman, chief editor of Power Engineering magazine at the annual Project of the Year Awards dinner held at the Power-Gen International conference in Orlando attended by more than 18,000 power industry peers.

From Entergy Nuclear, at www.entergy-nuclear.com

Follow Entergy Nuclear on Twitter @EntergyNuclear

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Harvard MBAs get Straight Answers on Nuclear Power

Entergy’s John Herron addresses Harvard Business School Energy Symposium

(Cambridge, Mass.) -

One of the nation’s nuclear leaders, Entergy Chief Nuclear Officer John Herron, encouraged future business leaders to seriously consider the nuclear energy in terms of career opportunities and future energy policy. Eager to access industry CEOs, Harvard students heard a simple and memorable message from Herron: Nuclear energy is “sexy” in its appeal for the future. The Harvard Business School held the Energy Symposium 2010, “Changing the Balance: Our Energy Future” on October 23-24.

With the transformation of the country’s energy policy, innovation of the U.S. electric grid and the addition of new power sources being imminent, the Entergy Nuclear leader spoke frankly about the green power path of nuclear to a standing room crowd at the HBS Energy Symposium.

“The financial challenges, the need for clear energy policy and the imperative to evaluate clean, baseload options to serve our country makes it a particularly exciting time to be in the nuclear power profession,” Herron said. “Nuclear is the way to go.”

Herron joined a prestigious lineup of energy sector thought-leaders on a panel including Sheeraz Haji, president of the Cleantech Group; Edward McGinnis, deputy assistant secretary, Department of Energy; Thomas Flaherty, senior vice president of the North American utility business for Booz & Company; Lisa Clark, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and moderator Dr. Mathew Bunn, associate professor at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

The student questions and discussions circled around the issues of having the political will to implement a solution to the long-term fuel storage issue and the nation’s commitment to move to a cleaner energy policy by supporting nuclear and new nuclear building.

“Public education is the key,” Herron repeated to 28 selected students in a luncheon that followed the panel. ”If you believe in reducing our carbon footprint, in energy independence and in creating jobs for our economy then nuclear power is the answer. It’s time we got this message out.”

Nuclear energy provides 20.2 percent of the United States’ electricity and is its No. 1 source of emission-free electricity. There are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States in 31 states generating more than 798 billion kilowatt-hours in 2009. In seven states, nuclear makes up the largest percentage of their electricity generated: Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, South Carolina, Illinois, New Hampshire and Virginia

“We have got to do a better job of educating the general public and policy-makers. Financial incentives are helping renewables, which are only a small piece of our clean air energy challenge,” Herron continued. “License renewals and new nuclear are needed, but politics and economics aren’t always aligned to support our industry in these important efforts. If our country is serious about clean energy then it is time to get serious about expansion of nuclear energy,” he concluded. Entergy Nuclear operates or provides management services to 12 reactors in eight states.

Entergy Corporation is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, and it is the second-largest nuclear generator in the United States. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Entergy has annual revenues of more than $10 billion and more than 15,000 employees.

Visit Entergy Nuclear at www.entergy-nuclear.com, or follow them on Twitter, @EntergyNuclear

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Perusing through the internet a week ago, I came across an interesting article from Popular Mechanics titled “Debunking the Top 10 Energy Myths“.  Knowing the misunderstandings that frequently arise from nuclear power, it had to be on the list.  Here’s a link to the article:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar

The article is well written overall but tends to need clarification on some issues or is missing a caveat or two. My main concern was the statement:

“During the first six decades of the nuclear age, however, fewer than 100 people have died as a result of nuclear power plant accidents.”

There have been no public deaths in the United States directly attributable to commerical nuclear reactor operations.

The number they are referring to would be the deaths associated with the Chernobyl Accident, which wouldn’t be able to happen in the US due to overall design (graphite control rods, containment structure), inherent safety measures (can’t be turned off, redundancy), and physics (negative reactivity) of the plants. It’s like saying English and Russian are the same because they are both languages.

Even those in our government are aware of this, Senator Lamar Alexander had previously brought this fact up and was independently verified.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/22/lamar-alexander/facts-risks-nuclear-power-plants/

Nuclear safety is paramount to the industry and will continue to be under the auspices of the NRC (http://www.nrc.gov/) and INPO (http://www.inpo.info/) as well as many other organizations.

 The next wave of young nuclear professionals will continue to uphold these high standards, and through an open dialogue and public outreach, can dispel these and other myths to eliminate much of the lack of general knowledge that surrounds nuclear power.

For a more dramatic presentation of myths and facts, see the American Nuclear Societies’:

http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/myths/docs/myths.pdf

[Additional Note (9-29-10): A revision/clarification was issued in this article to clarify the statement that "no deaths in the United States can be attributed to a commercial reactor."  The statement has been corrected to state: "There have been no public deaths in the United States directly attributable to commercial nuclear reactor operations."  Due to the nature of this fact, it is important that the specifics of this fact are clearly communicated.]

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Southern Company's Buzz Miller (Forbes.com)

Harnessing the Power of the Atom

Southern Company’s new nuclear units in Georgia will create 3,500 construction jobs and 800 high-paying permanent jobs

Despite the economic downturn, the population of the southeastern United States continues to increase. Moreover, that growth is expected to hasten as the economy rebounds. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 40 percent of the U.S. population will live in the South by 2030.  The state of Georgia alone is expected to grow by 4 million people over that same period, boosting the state’s electrical demand by nearly 30 percent.

As a result, a comprehensive approach to maintaining reliable and affordable supplies of electricity for this region’s economy is paramount.  Along with increased energy efficiency and conservation, and expanded use of renewables, natural gas and 21st century coal, it will be essential to build new nuclear power generation, the only proven large-scale generating technology that produces no greenhouse gas emissions.

Southern Company has a 30-year track record of safely, securely and efficiently operating nuclear plants in Georgia and Alabama. Three nuclear plants, each with two generating units ─ Plant Hatch near Baxley, Ga., Plant Farley near Columbia, Ala., and Plant Vogtle near Augusta, Ga. ─ currently serve customers across our region. 

New Vogtle nuclear units under construction

As it becames clear that new generation will be needed to meet growing power demand, Georgia Power, a Southern Company subsidiary, filed an application with the Georgia Public Service Commission in 2008 to move forward with two new nuclear units at its Plant Vogtle site.

Jointly owned by Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton Utilities, Plant Vogtle sits on a 3,100-acre site along the Savannah River.  The current Vogtle nuclear units 1 and 2 came online in 1987 and 1989, respectively.  Today, the construction of the nation’s first new nuclear units in three decades is well under way, with the Westinghouse AP1000 units 3 and 4 expected to be placed in service in 2016 and 2017, respectively. 

Up to $3.4 billion in federal loan guarantees

In a move designed to spur a renaissance in America’s nuclear industry, in February 2010 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) offered Georgia Power a conditional commitment for loan guarantees for the construction of Vogtle Units 3 and 4.

Georgia Power and the DOE agreed to conditional nuclear loan guarantee terms. Final approval and issuance of the loan guarantees are subject to receipt of the combined construction and operating license, completion of final agreements and the receipt of any other required regulatory approvals.   Total guaranteed borrowings would not exceed 70 percent of the company-eligible projected costs, or approximately $3.4 billion.

The DOE loan guarantees are expected to save Georgia Power’s customers millions in financing costs annually over the expected life of any guaranteed borrowings, based on preliminary estimates.

Further, the economic impact of this move cannot be understated. The Vogtle 3 and 4 project represents up to $14 billion in capital investment in Georgia and will create 3,500 construction jobs and 800 high-paying permanent jobs.

When you add it all together, it’s clear that nuclear energy must be part of any realistic solution to lessen greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce our dependency on foreign sources for fuel and to limit the price volatility associated with fossil fuels. Southern Company is committed to a leadership role in advancing this initiative for our customers and this nation.

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Reactor parts start arriving at proposed Ga. plant

The first major parts have begun arriving in eastern Georgia for what could become the country’s first nuclear reactor in a generation, although uncertainty remains over when safety regulators might grant it final approval.

[Approx. Read Time: 8 minutes]

Nuclear energy’s advantage in job creation continues to be its most attractive asset.  The new generation of nuclear professionals that is now entering the revitalized nuclear industry is the direct beneficiary of this fact, and organizations like the North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) showcase its success.

According to the Department of Energy, nuclear power creates 500 jobs per 1,000 MW of electricity generating capacity versus 220 jobs for coal power, 90 for wind energy, and 60 for natural gas generation.

Nuclear Energy Institute’s Marvin Fertel discusses in this in-depth op-ed that nuclear energy is the clean energy job engine that our country desperately needs.  In this op-ed, Fertel details the coming energy challenges that our country faces and offers nuclear energy’s proven benefits as part of the solution.

No clean energy industry has invested more in American workers than the nuclear energy industry.  From AREVA Inc and Northrop Grumman’s $360 million heavy components manufacturing facility in Newport News, VA, to Westinghouse’s Chattanooga, TN training facilities, nuclear power continues to offer promising opportunities for Americans to get to work.

Fertel does a great job with this op-ed detailing nuclear energy’s advantage in job creation.  Did I mention that it’s clean energy, too?

Nuclear Plants Boost Economy, Protect the Environment

A balanced portfolio is needed to meet 20 percent increase in electricity use by 2030

The energy industry is preparing to meet electricity needs in fast-growing population areas today and help spur economic expansion as America pulls out of the recession.  Even with conservation and efficiency efforts, a balanced portfolio of electricity production options is needed to meet an expected 20 percent increase in electricity use by 2030, including vital contributions from nuclear energy.

New electricity production sources will vary by region, and there will be a premium on sources that do not emit greenhouse gases. Altogether, the electric utility industry must invest some $2 trillion in electricity infrastructure by 2030—the largest expansion ever of the U.S. power grid.  This infrastructure development also is essential to meet the expected market penetration of plug-in hybrid vehicles, which will enhance our energy security by reducing our dependence on imported oil.

Energy could be one of the most significant economic drivers for the next two decades. The benefits of such an expansion are staggering when one considers the labor force and supply chain needed for construction and operation of power plants, transmission grids and environmental compliance technology on fossil-fueled power plants.

Most significant low-carbon electricity source

Broad independent studies looking at future energy and climate scenarios clearly point to nuclear energy as an important component of our energy portfolio. Nuclear energy is by far the most significant low-carbon electricity source in America today, with 104 reactors producing one-fifth of all electricity production and 70 percent of all carbon-free electricity. They’re also economic drivers in the communities in which they operate.  A typical nuclear power plant produces $430 million of economic impact to the surrounding communities each year, and the construction of a series of new advanced reactor designs will extend the industry’s economic impact.

The industry is seeking federal permits for the construction of 22 reactors—a small part of the potential $400 billion global market in nuclear energy equipment and services over the next 15 years. 

For the first three new reactor projects in the United States, more than $2 billion in equipment and services already has been procured from manufacturers in 17 states. Another $2.5 billion in export orders for equipment is creating jobs in 25 states as American companies begin to reinvest in the nuclear energy supply chain.

Though today’s economy is slowing the pace of expansion of the electricity sector, our long-term fundamentals have not changed.  We are putting into service nuclear energy assets that will deliver low-carbon electricity safely for 60 to 80 years.

Nuclear industry employs more than 57,000 people

The industry employs more than 57,000 people at the 104 nuclear power plants operating in 31 states, but the nuclear energy work force is multiplied significantly by jobs in areas such as uranium fuel development, the industry supply chain, and skilled craft jobs at new reactors such as the Vogtle project in Georgia and the V.C. Summer project in South Carolina.

These new facilities in Georgia and South Carolina are among the four to eight advanced reactors that the industry expects will be producing electricity by 2016-18. Construction activities already have begun at those facilities and project-labor agreements are in place for three projects.

In preparation for this growth, the nuclear industry over the past three years has created more than 15,000 careers and invested more than $4 billion in new facility development. Plans call for the investment of another $8 billion to facilitate the supply of materials needed for large-scale construction beginning in 2011-2012.

New manufacturing jobs in nuclear energy sector

In the manufacturing sector, there is tangible evidence of expansion in the nuclear energy sector:

-    Alstom recently opened a $300 million turbine manufacturing facility in Tennessee to supply turbines for use in North American power plants.

-    Shaw Modular Solutions built a 410,000-square-foot nuclear modernization facility in Louisiana to assemble structural, piping, equipment and other modules for new nuclear plants that will employ 700 to 1,400 assembly line and skilled technical workers at full capacity.

-    AREVA and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding broke ground last summer on a $360 million manufacturing and engineering facility in Newport News, Va., that will manufacture heavy components such as reactor vessels, steam generators and pressurizers.

All told, these and other companies have already hired more than 9,000 employees.

Economic activity associated with nuclear power plants is considerable. In fact, new nuclear power projects create twice the number of jobs of a comparably sized coal power plant, five times more jobs than wind power projects, and nearly nine times the number of jobs of a natural gas-fueled power plant.  Nuclear power plants also act as an economic multiplier, as each plant employs an average of approximately 500 employees from the local community and generates an additional 500 jobs in the local area.

For example, the expansion of the Vogtle nuclear plant near Augusta, Ga., is a $14 billion investment that will create up to 3,500 jobs during construction and 800 permanent jobs. In addition, more than 1,000 Georgia companies provided $908 million in materials, goods and services to the nuclear energy industry in 2008, the last year for which figures were available.

Strong support from organized labor

Organized labor has been a strong supporter of new nuclear plants, recognizing the significant economic potential for its skilled work force and the environmental benefits of keeping existing reactors operating and building new nuclear plants.

Mark Ayers, president of the AFL-CIO Building & Construction Trades Department, has proposed establishing multi-craft training centers near or at nuclear plant sites as well as developing specialized training partnerships with industry vendors and suppliers to certify all workers and developing programs to train local workers for careers in the nuclear industry.

Edwin Hill, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), recently called nuclear power “essential” to our electricity production portfolio, adding that there is no way to meet the nation’s energy needs without it. The IBEW has developed a code of excellence for its members and has developed training programs to prepare workers for a new generation of reactors.

Our country faces an extraordinary challenge to expand our electricity system over the next two decades. Some have argued that building new nuclear plants at the pace required is impossible.  However, our industry built more than 100 reactors in the 1970s and ‘80s; France built 38 reactors in a decade.

Advanced reactor designs are higher capital cost projects, but the actual cost of electricity from these facilities will be competitive in the marketplace. Today’s reactors have among the lowest electricity production costs in the sector. Based on estimates for new reactor development, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that electricity production costs will be competitive, and in fact, cheaper than most alternatives in 2016.

Affordable electricity for 60 years or more

With low uranium fuel costs and capacity factors (a measure of reliability) that average 90 percent across our industry, nuclear plants compensate for the up-front construction costs by affordably producing electricity for 60 years or more.

Financing new nuclear plants is one of the industry’s biggest challenges, but it is being met with support from state and federal energy policy. Federal loan guarantees can help project sponsors access lower-cost financing for nuclear and other clean-energy power projects, which ultimately lowers the cost of a new nuclear power plant and delivers lower-cost electricity to the consumer.

Loan guarantees are a mechanism that extends the federal government’s credit rating to companies that allows them to finance projects that are in the national interest. The loan guarantee program is a disciplined process that operates under strict controls and sets a high bar for companies seeking credit support. The industry will pay fees associated with these loan guarantees, so there is no liability on taxpayers when the projects come on line.

State governments also offer incentives to encourage construction of nuclear power plants. For example, Georgia enacted a law that enables Georgia Power, now building new reactors at Vogtle, to recover construction costs as it builds the plants. By doing so, the company expects to save $1.5 billion on the final cost of the reactors—savings that will be reflected in consumer rates for electricity from the facility.

Meeting America’s greenhouse gas reduction targets

Analyses of climate change policy by independent organizations conclude that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will require a portfolio of technologies, that nuclear energy must be part of the portfolio, and that a major expansion of nuclear energy over the next 50 years is essential.

A 2009 National Academy of Sciences study showed that 77 nuclear power plants must be built by 2035 and operating with the high efficiency of current reactors to effectively meet America’s greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Wind and solar energy will play an important role in our low-carbon energy portfolio, but they account for less than 2 percent of total U.S. electricity supply today. The prospect for renewable energy development differs widely by region, and until there is storage capacity for the electricity produced at these facilities, they operate only 30 percent of the time. Therefore, fossil fuel sources, primarily natural gas, are required as a back-up source of power to the grid where renewables are used.

The coming decades will witness the most significant challenges the nation has ever faced in meeting the twin imperatives of meeting rising electricity demand and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. No single technology can accomplish these tasks alone and they certainly cannot be accomplished overnight. Low-carbon sources like nuclear energy, hydro, solar and wind all must contribute.

Supporting the development of new efficient and environmentally friendly technology such as nuclear energy will create hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs while improving our environment for generations to come.

Marvin S. Fertel is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute. He has 35 years of experience consulting for electric utilities on issues related to designing, siting, licensing and managing both fossil and nuclear plants.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

In what is being viewed as a landmark demonstration of public support among the scientific community, the President of the Virginia Health Physics Society officially endorsed efforts to mine uranium in Virginia in an Op Ed in the Chatham Star Tribune.

The Health Physics Society is an organization of nearly 6,000 scientific professionals from across the country that strives to promote best practices in radiation safety.

Carter Ficklen, the President of the organization’s Virginia chapter is a retired health physicist who worked for more than 10 years at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton and spent the last 18 years of his career at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Thomas Jefferson Lab in Newport News.

“It is the position of the Virginia Chapter of the Health Physics Society”, Mr. Fecklin writes in the Op Ed, “that uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia can and should be pursued.”  “The proposed mining endeavors,” he continued, “can be carried out with minimal impact on the environmental quality of the surrounding areas while simultaneously stimulating the economy of Southside Virginia, filling a vacancy in our country’s energy needs, and reducing the United State’s dependency on foreign sources of energy.”

The largest untapped uranium deposit in the United States, known as the Coles Hill deposit, is located in Southside Virginia’s Pittsylvania County. The deposit, a veritable mother lode of nuclear energy, contains enough uranium to fuel Virginia’s entire nuclear energy demand at current levels for more than 65 years, and America’s for more than 2 years. Yet, a 25-year-old moratorium on uranium mining in the Commonwealth stands in the way of its development.

The General Assembly is waiting for the results of an independent study by the National Academy of Sciences on the public health and environmental impact before determining whether to lift the moratorium and promulgate the necessary regulations and permitting to allow the development to proceed.

A 1984 independent study commissioned by the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission determined that the Coles Hill deposit could be mined safely and without serious risks to the environment.

Concerns about the safety of uranium mining are based on “misinformation and misperceptions,” says Mr. Ficklen. In an effort to allay some of those concerns, Mr. Ficklen outlines the stringent regulatory structure that governs mining operations in the U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency’s rigorous standards for water quality protect public water sources from contamination, and the tight regulation of mine tailings - the waste rock left over after mining is complete - by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission prevents the infiltration of radiation into the air, water and agriculture surrounding mining operations.

Mr. Ficklen illustrates the significant economic impact the project would entail for the economically distressed Southside region - 300-350 permanent jobs, as much as $300 million in annual economic impact and millions of dollars in local tax revenue each year.

Mr. Ficklen also argues that it is imperative to develop Virginia’s abundant uranium resources in order to reduce America’s dependence on foreign sources of uranium and to fuel the vast expansion of electricity output that is expected in the coming decades. America currently imports 86% of our uranium from foreign countries, with roughly half purchased from state-run nuclear companies in Russia, Kazakhstan, Namibia and Uzbekistan.

“The global demand for electricity is increasing at a fast pace with the overall world generation of electricity expected to increase by 60 percent between now and 2030,” Ficklen said.

“These increases can be achieved only by the rapid construction of new generating stations, and a significant number of these new stations will be nuclear plants fueled with uranium. To support the growing dependence on nuclear power, the uranium mining industry must significantly increase its annual production and processing of uranium ore.”