Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

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

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

Nukes, Baby, Nukes

By Bradley Blakeman

Published June 23, 2010 | Foxnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clean Energy Insight - New Nuclear Plant Fact Sheet 2010

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Myth: Nuclear Energy Relies on Government Subsidies

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

Loan Guarantees

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

Price-Anderson Act

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

Traditional Subsidies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Market Activity involves direct federal government involvement in the marketplace.

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

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

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

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

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

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

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

Putting uranium mining ‘misinformation’ to rest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

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

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

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

What is an “Outage?”

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

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

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

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

Re-Fueling

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

Fuel Rods

Pumps and Motors

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

Baby Pump

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

Reactor Coolant Pump for the Westinghouse AP-1000 Reactor

Turbines

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

Reactor Heads

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

Reactor Head

Reactor Head being put into place

Steam Generators

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

Steam Generator

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

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

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

[Approx. Read Time: 5 minutes]

Local educators learn how a nuclear power control room works.

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

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

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

Teachers learn about nuclear energy during Nuke 101

By Jo Ann Hustis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“That’s massive,” Shahkarami said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

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

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

Nuclear’s Footprint

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

(Nuclear - Isometric View)

(Nuclear - Overhead View)

Solar’s Footprint

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

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

(Solar Photovoltaic - Isometric View)

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

(Solar Photovoltaic - Overhead View)

Wind’s Footprint

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

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

(Wind - Isometric View)

(Wind - Overhead View)

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

(Rhode Island)

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

Calculations and References

Nuclear

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

Solar

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

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

3,200 MW/1,000 MW = 3.2

3.2 x 91 sq mi = 292 sq mi

3.2 x 57,895 acres = 185,264 acres

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

1 sq mi = 27,878,400 sq ft

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

Wind

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

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

3,200 MW/1,000 MW = 3.2

3.2 x 260 sq mi = 832 sq mi

3.2 x 166,667 acres = 533,334 acres

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

1 sq mi = 27,878,400 sq ft

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

References

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

2 - US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

3 - American Wind Energy Association

____________________________________________________________________

[Approx. Read Time: 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 6 minutes]

The US Chamber of Commerce has been making major news lately, and I’d like to make an attempt to analyze what the fuss is all about.  Hopefully, by asking a few questions and doing a little research, you will be able to better understand what you may be reading in the news.

The pro-Nuclear United States Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation.  It’s self-proclaimed goal is:

“To advance human progress through an economic, political and social system based on individual freedom, incentive, initiative, opportunity, and responsibility.”

According to a Harris Interactive Poll (2008), the Chamber was ranked 5th most familiar and 5th most trustworthy organization in the United States.  However, the Chamber has gotten a lot of harsh criticism lately from many of its members even leading to some companies dropping their memberships.

Recently, the Chamber of Commerce has come out in opposition to the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade bill that passed the House during late summer.  Since the Chamber has made their opposition publicly known, several major public energy utilities that have heavy stakes in Nuclear power have left the Chamber.  These include Pacific Gas & Electric and Exelon (See here).  Surprisingly, even leading coal power generating utilities like Appalachian Electric Power and Duke Power have come out in support of the Waxman-Markey legislation.  Here is what PG&E Chairman and Chief Executive Peter Darbee had to say about their decision to split from the Chamber:

“We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.”

After reading PG&E’s comments, you may find yourself taking sides against the Chamber of Commerce.  I can certainly understand their support for this legislation.  But before you get hopping mad, take a cool head over to the Chamber’s website to see what they have to say about the situation.  In their explanation for their stance against Cap-and-Trade, they explicitly state that they believe the legislation doesn’t do enough to rollback emissions and implement renewable energy technology.  See below for an excerpt from the Chamber’s website:

Five Positions on Energy and the Environment

Also see our Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future with 88 concrete recommendations and detailed timelines which form a comprehensive, long-term energy strategy that if adopted, will put America on a path for a more secure, prosperous and clean energy future.

1. The Chamber’s position on climate change

The Chamber has in its public documents, Hill letters and testimony, supported efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. Our position is simple: There should be a comprehensive legislative solution that does not harm the economy, recognizes that the problem is international in scope, and aggressively promotes new technologies and efficiency. Protecting our economy and the environment for future generations are mutually achievable goals.

2. The Chamber’s position on Waxman-Markey

We opposed this specific legislation because it would not reduce the global level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It is neither comprehensive nor international, and it falls short on moving renewable and alternative technologies into the marketplace and enabling our transition to a lower carbon future. It would also impose carbon tariffs on goods imported into the U.S., a move that would almost certainly spur retaliation from global trading partners.

3. The Chamber’s position on EPA’s proposal to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act:

The Clean Air Act is not the appropriate vehicle for regulating climate change. Even though EPA is only addressing motor vehicles, the Clean Air Act is structured so that once EPA regulates greenhouse gases in any manner; the Act regulates all emitters of the gases which includes stationary sources that have never been subject to EPA Air regulation. To quote Congressman John Dingell, this will be a “glorious mess.” Our economy does not need a glorious regulatory mess, especially now. Reason needs to prevail and Congress needs to enact a comprehensive climate change law.

4. The Chamber’s position on alternative/renewable energy sources:

The Chamber has vigorously supported the production and use of renewable energy and we have consistently called for additional funding for renewable and other clean energy technology advancements. The Chamber’s website contains all of our letters of support to Congress and comments to agencies, and our reports on the status of funding for new energy technologies. In addition, we have sent dozens of concrete policy recommendations to the Administration and Congress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere while keeping our economy healthy. We are currently leading the fight to clear the regulatory, legal, and Not-In-My-Backyard roadblocks that are delaying promising wind, solar, nuclear and other clean energy projects across the nation.

5. The Chamber’s position on the role of technology in addressing these challenging issues:

American business is the single biggest investor in clean technology. The Chamber has routinely supported tax incentives and credits, appropriations and stimulus funding to promote the accelerated development of these technologies.  Our Institute for 21stCentury Energy dedicated an entire chapter of its Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future to increasing sources of renewable energy in our transportation and electricity sectors. We supported all of the technology provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and has promoted their funding since the passage of these laws

PG&E’s Peter Darbee also claimed that he fears that the Chamber of Commerce “has forfeited an incredible chance to play a constructive leadership role on one of the most important issues our country may ever face.”

See the Chamber’s Transition Plan for Securing America’s Energy Future in which the Chamber notably came out in favor of an expansion of Nuclear power in America (page 21).

The Chamber’s official nuclear stances include the following:

• Increase the amount of federally stored uranium for use in domestic nuclear power.
• Expeditiously establish a program to recycle nuclear waste.
• Develop centrally located storage facilities for used nuclear fuel.
• Request that the current Administration must make a formal decision on Yucca Mountain.
• Mandate that the Federal Gov’t pay back Waste Fund payments to utility rate-payers ($27 Billion) if the Yucca Mountain plan is disregarded.
• Improve the DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program for nuclear power.
• Improve the NRC licensing review process with additional resources and more efficient processes.

Wading through this back-and-forth between the US Chamber of Commerce and public energy utilities may leave you feeling dizzy.  It left me wondering why the utilities were so hard on the Chamber for stances it really doesn’t seem to take.

The answer may lie in a statement or series of statements by one Chamber official in which he called for a “Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st Century” in order to reportedly test the scientific theory of man-made global warming.  William Kovacs, a VP at the Chamber, immediately came out and retracted his statement. Claiming that he was misunderstood and didn’t effectively relay the Chamber’s position on the issue.

This all stemmed from the Chamber’s opposition to an EPA ruling that CO2 has a direct harmful effect on human health and welfare, which allows the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to more strongly regulate emissions on industry and business. (See here.)

However, other than this single statement/issue, the Chamber has been pro-climate change solutions.  The Chamber explicitly states that it’s mutually achievable goal is to protect the economy and the environment.  One of the main reasons the Chamber doesn’t think this is achievable with the Waxman-Markey bill can be seen in the graph below (Click graph for large size).

(Note - This graph was provided by Alex Flint, Senior VP of Governmental Affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, in a presentation he gave to NA-YGN members during this past summer.  Although, Flint and NEI came out in support of Waxman-Markey’s pro-nuclear provisions, his point by showing this data was that in order to reduce costs the final legislation must be more pro-nuclear.  This is currently being seen with the Boxer-Kerry legislation making its way through the Senate, although Waxman-Markey wasn’t as openly pro-nuclear.)

Regardless of your stance on climate change and climate change legislation–In it’s current form, the Waxman-Markey bill is a bottom-line price-increase on energy consumers, as shown above by NEI.

Furthermore, regardless of your stance on this legislation, public energy utilities are profit-seeking businesses, and a profit-seeking business would not go out of its way on principle alone to support something that would harm its profits.  Utilities like Exelon with a considerable number of operating nuclear power plants are naturally supporting the legislation because nuclear power emits zero greenhouse gases.  Exelon CEO John Rowe commented on this yesterday in the Wall Street Journal.

WSJ: You’re outspoken about the need for carbon-emission reductions. You dropped out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because it opposed legislation. But you own 17 nuclear reactors that would benefit.

Mr. Rowe: We don’t flinch from the charge that, yes, some of our motivation and enthusiasm comes from the fact that we should make money on it if it happens. I started dealing with this problem more than a decade ago, long before I had a sense of how much money I could make for Exelon. A good solution to a societal problem is one where the winners help solve the problem.

With the current Waxman-Markey bill not putting much stake in nuclear power, energy prices will rise.  But why are utilities that produce power using fossil fuels also fervently on board with the legislation?

In an attempt to explain, the demand for energy is for all intents and purposes perfectly inelastic.  A product that has inelastic demand has few substitutes.  Examples of inelastic goods include gasoline, medicine, Super Bowl tickets, and electricity.  In the case of energy, this is exhibited by the fact that energy consumers basically have no choice in who they purchase their electricity from or whether they need to use electricity at all.

Another characteristic of a perfectly inelastic good is that when a tax or price-increase is introduced, the producer is able to pass 100% of the increase on to the consumer.  That is the cost to produce electricity will be passed directly onto energy consumers by public utilities who emit a lot of greenhouse gases.  Hopefully, knowing these economic facts will help you understand why even coal-heavy public energy utilities with seemingly so much to lose are supporting Waxman-Markey.

In fact, if you do an internet search on “Chamber of Commerce Cap and Trade” you will find countless news articles that state the Chamber’s official position to be anti-climate change, anti-emissions reductions, anti-cap-and-trade, anti-renewable energy, etc.  All running contrary to the Chamber’s explicitly stated positions.

Personally, I’m not sure that the public energy utilities can be held completely responsible for the Chamber’s true message apparently getting lost in translation. Unless you do the necessary research, you will find that many ”credible” news-outlets are getting the story wrong.  All because of one statement that was immediately retracted.

Maybe the Chamber of Commerce is right when it states that current legislation isn’t doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create a competitive renewable and clean energy sector in the United States?  But the next time you hear a news-release pronouncing that the Chamber of Commerce has decided to support climate legislation in Congress, you can bet that it will be because Congress has actually decided to take further and more effective steps in the direction of competitively reducing emissions and creating a strong renewable energy portfolio.  An energy future that includes nuclear power.  Until then, it just looks like business as usual.

[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: 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: 4 minutes]

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

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

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

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

Represented Graphically

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

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

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

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

Represented in Feet

Wood - 10 ft

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

Coal - 33 ft

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

Crude Oil - 42 ft

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

Natural Uranium - 570,000 ft (108 mi)

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

DC to Richmond

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

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

Represented in Miles

Coal - 33 miles

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

Commute

Natural Uranium - 570,000 miles

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

Reactor-grade Uranium - 3,700,000 miles

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

One Leg Short of a Round-trip

[Approx. Read 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