Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[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.”

 [Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

“It’s the economy, stupid”, with double digit unemployment, what our economy really needs is jobs.  Nuclear energy provides thousands of Americans with stable high paying jobs.  The article below explains how new graduates from a two year program in Miami are getting great jobs before they even graduate.

Miami Dade College’s Clean Energy Institute graduates get more than a diploma; they also get a job.

BY REBECCA HUVAL

It looked like a typical graduation ceremony. But instead of anxiously wondering about finding jobs in the uncertain economy, 22 graduates of the Clean Energy Institute walked across the auditorium stage Wednesday at the Miami Dade College Wolfson campus with letters of employment in hand and white hard hats on their heads.

Thanks to the Clean Energy Institute, a joint program between Miami Dade College and Florida Power & Light, the grads will work as technicians at the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant in Homestead with starting salaries of $45,000 or more after two years of college-level study and earning a $7,661 associate of science degree.

Otrebogir Urquiaga was among them. After studying engineering for five years in Cuba, Urquiaga, 39, of Hialeah, restarted his education when he moved to Miami 16 years ago. He took online courses in math and physics before applying to the Clean Energy Institute.

“Graduating from this course, you have a job,” said Urquiaga, whose two sons, 2 and 4, shouted, “Papi” as he crossed the stage. “And that’s great.”

Started in 2006, the institute is designed to educate workers to replace the aging power plant workforce. Over the next five years, 38 percent of U.S. nuclear power plant workers will become eligible for retirement, said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C.

Under the program, FPL agreed to hire at least 20 Clean Energy Institute graduates annually and promote six internal employees through the program yearly for 10 years, starting with the 2008 grads.

‘A PIPELINE’

“It’s a robust pipeline for highly skilled workers,” said James Auld, college coordinator of the nuclear division at FPL. “We take local individuals, educate them locally and then we hire them locally and they stay long-term with the company.”

The program will expand within five years to include non-licensed operators, or workers who man the controls, in addition to the mechanical, electrical and instrumentation and control skills already taught in the program.

Starting this year, the Clean Energy Institute will give graduates certificates so their work transfers to nuclear power plants beyond South Florida.

Nationwide, more power plant jobs will be created in the next decade. The Obama administration guaranteed $8.33 billion in loans for two new nuclear reactors in Georgia that would create an estimated 800 jobs.

Activists raise questions about potential dangers associated with nuclear power plants, including radiation following an accident.

But the plants don’t emit greenhouse gases, and they account for 70 percent of the U.S.’s non-emitting energy sources, Singer said.

GLAD TO HAVE JOBS

Those concerns weren’t mentioned by Wednesday’s graduates, who were said they were relieved to have jobs as plant technicians.

Urquiaga reaffirmed his career choice after he completed a required five-week internship at the Turkey Point power plant. Despite the intense heat and risks of working in a power plant, he said the internship confirmed “this is where I want to be the rest of my life.” To be admitted, students must pass an aptitude test with a 30 percent pass rate that includes math and spatial reasoning. They can request practice tests from the school. About 120 apply and 40 are admitted yearly, said Richard White, director of the school of computer and engineering technologies.

Of those who graduate, FPL chooses employees based on FBI background checks, grades in classes — such as college algebra and electronics — and how well they perform during hands-on internships at the plant.

HARD WORK PAYS OFF

Elmehdi Elaadil, 21, of Kendall, doubted whether he would get the job because he was fresh out of high school.

But Wednesday, he cradled his hard hat under his arm and celebrated his new job as a mechanical maintenance technician.

“I thought I would never make it,” said Elaadil, who moved to Miami from Casablanca, Morocco, 10 years ago. “But we all studied together at the library almost every day.”

IHI ships heavy components for Vogtle project

9 August 2010

Japan’s IHI has started shipping the containment vessel bottom heads for the Vogtle AP1000 in the USA. It is the first time in 30 years that IHI has shipped nuclear power generation machinery to the USA.

IHI was awarded the contract for two containment vessels from CB&I in January 2009. The CVBHs, produced at IHI works in Yokohama, Japan will be delived within five shipments per unit, as separate plate components due to their size.The two steel containment vessels are each more than 40 meters in diameter, over 66 meters high, and approximately 4,000 tons in weight.

The first shipment set sail for the USA on 25 July 2010.

The components will be used at the two-unit Vogtle nuclear power plant planned by Southern Company subsidary Georgia Power. Ownership of the reactors will be split among Georgia Power, Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30%), the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7%) and Dalton Utilities (1.6%).

Southern Company, DOE agree to conditional nuclear loan guarantee terms

On June 11, 2010, Southern Company and Georgia Power announced an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for a conditional commitment for loan guarantees for construction of units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle. The loan guarantees would apply to future borrowings related to the construction.

Final approval and issuance of the loan guarantees are subject to receipt of a Combined Operating License from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), completion of final agreements, the receipt of any other required regulatory approvals and satisfaction of other conditions.

Total guaranteed borrowings would not exceed 70 percent of the company’s eligible projected costs of approximately $6.1, or about $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. The actual amount of the savings will depend upon the final terms and the timing of the specific borrowings.

On behalf of the plant owners, Southern Nuclear filed applications with the NRC for an Early Site Permit (ESP) in 2006 and a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) in 2008 for new units at the Vogtle site.

In August 2009, Southern Nuclear received the ESP for Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4. The Vogtle ESP is the first one in the industry to reference a specific technology, Westinghouse AP1000. Additionally, Southern Nuclear’s ESP comes with a Limited Work Authorization (LWA). The LWA allows limited safety-related activities to begin at the site prior to the COL being issued.

An ESP allows the NRC to review and pre-approve the site for construction of new units and allows the company to conduct design, construction and other site-specific evaluations before making a decision to build.

The COL will provide Southern Company with one license to build and operate a nuclear plant based on an NRC pre-approved design at a specific site.

Additionally, the new Vogtle units have received certification from the Georgia Public Service Commission. Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, and co-owner of the proposed units, filed an Application for Certification of Vogtle Units 3 and 4 on August 1, 2008. The filing was approved by the Georgia Public Service Commission on March 17, 2009.

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

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

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

Nukes, Baby, Nukes

By Bradley Blakeman

Published June 23, 2010 | Foxnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Approx. Read Time: 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

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

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

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

Senators Webb and Alexander release bi-partisan energy bill

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

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

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

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

Dr. Aris Candris: Why the US needs nuclear power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan, United States to work on nuclear recycling

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

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

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

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

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

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

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

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

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.

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.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

HSBC 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.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

The 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.

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

In 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.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

I 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.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Candidates 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