Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[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.

Clean Energy Insight has created a Fact Sheet for 2009 focused on New Nuclear Plants and their benefits.  I’ve attached the Fact Sheet for you to use in any way that you would like.  Attach it to a pro-nuclear letter you are sending your Congressman, or just send it to a colleague or friend.

Clean Energy Insight - New Nuclear Plant Fact Sheet 2009

[Approx. Read Time 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]

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

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

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

What is an “Outage?”

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

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

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

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

Re-Fueling

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

Fuel Rods

Pumps and Motors

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

Baby Pump

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

Reactor Coolant Pump for the Westinghouse AP-1000 Reactor

Turbines

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

Reactor Heads

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

Reactor Head

Reactor Head being put into place

Steam Generators

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

Steam Generator

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

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

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

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

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

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

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

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

Nuclear Engineering Graphic Bombs

Collegiate Times, 9/21/09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J Carrington Dillon
Alumnus, Civil Engineering & Economics

Eric Danner
Alumnus, Aerospace Engineering

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Duke Energy announced Friday that they may delay their plans to construct a Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear power reactor near Gaffney, South Carolina by 3 years.  The proposed Lee Nuclear Station would then be delayed to a 2021 start-up instead of the previously planned 2018 date.  See the Charlotte Business Journal article below for more information.

I’m not posting this article because I think that the three-year delay is a dagger to the heart of the “nuclear renaissance.”  The reason I posted this article was because of my personal experience at a Kangaroo gas station near Gaffney, SC last Friday.  I was on my way out of town for the Labor Day weekend and stopped at the station to fill up for the ride.

Two women–one a Manager, the other a sales clerk, were discussing the news from Duke Energy that had come out that morning.  They were honestly upset that Duke was considering delaying the construction for 3 years.  I overheard the Manager say a couple of times that it was a “shame” that Duke is going to delay the construction, and that she “really was looking forward to getting all of that business.”

These women want more nuclear power in their area, and their conversation just goes to show how much the average person understands about the economic benefits that nuclear power can provide to a community.  It’s not just the large energy corporations that benefit from new nuclear plants.  It’s the local small-business owners that also look forward to the residual economic successes that nuclear power can promise to bring.

Nuclear revival may not arrive on schedule

Charlotte Business Journal

September 4, 2009

By John Downey

As Duke Energy considers as much as a three-year delay in building the proposed Lee Nuclear Station, there are signs that the approval process for AP1000 — the reactor chosen for Lee and most new plants planned in the Southeast — may fall off schedule. At issue is certification of the reactor design for Plant Vogtle, the dual-reactor plant being built in Georgia by the Southern Co. The power industry hopes to cut licensing and construction times — and thus save money — by building plants on a few standardized reactor models. The idea is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can certify one standard reactor model for a plant and then subsequent plants using the same model will not need to get new certifications.

Westinghouse blamed

Vogtle is the lead plant for the wave that will be built on the AP1000. So a delay, if significant, could affect plants planned in Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina. An NRC spokesman tells the Augusta Chronicle it is too early to tell whether the current delay in approving some safety features will result in an overall delay in certification. But it is clear that the commission cannot now get its review of certain safety features accomplished by November as planned. The NRC blames Westinghouse Electric Co., designer of the AP1000, for the delay. In a letter last week to Westinghouse, the NRC’s New Reactor Licensing division complains the company has been slow to submit “necessary design information” on engineered safety features. And it says the information, when submitted, “failed to resolve the long-standing fundamental questions.”

Missed deadline

The schedule for the review had already been delayed once. But in June, the NRC says, Westinghouse missed a new deadline. And more delays followed, according to the letter: The staff received the subject submittal at the end of July 2009…. The submitted information failed to resolve the long-standing fundamental questions related to the design basis debris source term, the limiting system flows, in-vessel testing, the magnitude of debris bypassing the sump screens, and the choice of the limiting accident scenario. The staff had planned to meet with Westinghouse on August 25, 2009; however, that meeting has been delayed at your request until the week of August 31, 2009. Given the fundamental nature of the questions raised by the recent submittal and the delay in meeting with the NRC on resolving these issues, the staff is no longer able to support an Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards briefing … in November.

Charlotte’s stake

The delay may be nothing more than a hiccup. But business leaders and economic developers in Charlotte may want to keep an eye on Duke’s plans and the progress of the AP1000. Economic developers have concentrated on attracting nuclear energy related companies to the region over the past couple of years. Those efforts have been successful. Westinghouse, the Shaw Power Group and Toshiba — partners in the AP1000 — all have growing presences here. The French company Areva SA also has important operation in the region. The growth in nuclear energy business here is related to the broader plan to turn Charlotte into a national energy hub.

[Approx. Read Time: 5 minutes]

An interesting study documenting anticipated electricity blackouts came out of the United Kingdom this week.  Because of poor energy planning, the federal government projected in their Low Carbon Transition Plan that energy demand would exceed supply as early as 2017.  This will leave millions of families without power.  The UK government has talked the talk on the need for reliable nuclear energy to fulfill their energy needs.  But it is time for them to walk the walk when it comes to providing people with clean, reliable, cheap, and safe nuclear energy.  Here is the news article from the Telegraph that first broke the issue.  However, I’ve attached an article from the Daily Mail on the issue that, typically for the Daily Mail, displays more flair, frustration, and entertainment value.

Green zealots and muddled ministers are leading Britain to blackouts

By Christopher Booker

03 September 2009

Power-cut Britain, to anyone who remembers it, will seem utterly antediluvian. It predated home computers and mobile phones, and colour televisions were only then beginning to appear.

Those who were young in the early Seventies will remember poring over their homework by candlelight, and there was a clear division between people who liked the reek of paraffin lamps and people who didn’t.

Then, along with the three-day week and crippling industrial disputes, powercut Britain disappeared into the past, never to return. That is, until now.

Once again we are being warned that within a few years this country could be facing its worst wave of power blackouts since those far-off days more than three decades ago — and that even the Government itself now admits these might be inevitable.

For seven years it has been glaringly obvious to energy experts that Britain will soon be facing a colossal energy gap, as the ageing power stations which currently supply 40 percent of our electricity are forced to close down.

Eight of our nine nuclear power plants are coming to the end of their life. And half of our coal and oil-fired power stations are rapidly running out of the hours they are allowed to keep running under the EU’s Large Combustion Plants directive, designed to stop the pollution blamed for acid rain.

By 2015, or even earlier, we shall thus begin to lose two-fifths of our present electricity supply, and the question energy experts are asking is: how do we propose to fill this yawning gap?

Britain faces a colossal energy gap

The seriousness of this cannot be overestimated. Cosy images of candlelit Britain in the Seventies are all very well, but since then we have been through a revolution which makes our society almost wholly dependent on computers.

It is no longer just our lights, cookers, fridges and televisions for which we rely on electricity, but pretty well our entire working lives, from offices, banks, petrol pumps and supermarket tills to traffic lights, railway signals and virtually all our transport system.

The tragedy is that for seven years, politicians of all parties have refused to face up to Britain’s fast-looming energy gap because they have all been bewitched by the great ‘green dream’, that we could somehow save the planet by generating much of our electricity from ‘renewables’, such as building thousands more wind turbines.

In reality this is just makebelieve. The 2,300 turbines so far built in Britain supply barely 1 per cent of our power, less than a single medium-sized conventional power station.

The Government talks about spending £100 billion on building 10,000 more windmills to meet our EU target that within ten years we must generate 32 per cent of our electricity from ‘renewables’. But, first, there is not the remotest chance that we could build three turbines a day between now and 2020.

And, second, even if there were, they would do virtually nothing to close our energy gap, not least because we would need to build a dozen or more conventional power stations just to provide back-up for when the wind is not blowing.

Almost the only politician who realised this was John Hutton, the former energy minister, who last year reversed Government policy by announcing that we needed at least a dozen new nuclear and coal-fired power stations to fill the gap.

As he starkly declared to the 2008 Labour conference: ‘No coal and no nuclear means no power, no future.’

Two weeks later, however, Hutton was moved to another department, and Britain’s energy policy was handed over to Ed Miliband, a ‘green’ zealot in charge of a new ministry ominously named the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

Mr Miliband still makes noises about allowing the French and German companies which now dominate our electricity supply industry to build a new generation of nuclear power plants.

But under EU rules they cannot, unlike the wind industry, expect any subsidies, and the chances that any new nuclear plants could be built before 2020 are virtually non-existent.

Wind turbines won’t solve the problem

As for new coal-fired power stations, he has decreed that these cannot be built without socalled ‘carbon capture’, piping off their CO2 to bury it in holes in the ground.

Not only would this double the cost of the electricity, but the technology to do it hasn’t even been developed yet.

In other words, Miliband is so obsessed with the need to halt ‘climate change’ that his concern with the ‘energy’ half of his brief — keeping Britain’s lights on — so obviously takes second place that it is scarcely evident at all.

This was glaringly obvious from his recent policy statement on making the ‘transition to a low-carbon economy’: hundreds of pages about how we are going to build windmills and achieve imaginary cuts in our CO2 emissions, but notably short on any practical suggestions as to how we are going to keep our economy running.

From a statement put out by Mr Miliband’s ministry this week, it has become even more obvious that the one thing they hope will save Britain’s electricity supplies from disaster is a scramble to build dozens more gas-fired power stations — just when our own North Sea gas reserves are fast running out.

This means we shall be looking to gas to provide anything up to 80 per cent of our electricity, and the gas will be largely imported from politically unreliable countries such as Russia and Algeria at a time when world gas prices are likely to be soaring.

It is exactly the disastrous scenario which Mr Hutton warned against last year.

Even if, by this extremely risky gamble, we might manage to close the energy gap now fast approaching us, it could only mean a further massive hike in electricity prices, driving millions more into ‘fuel poverty’.

Not for nothing is Mr Miliband also proposing that we should spend £7 billion on fitting every home in the country with what are called ‘smart meters’.

These are two-way devices, connected electronically to our supply company, which would not only allow us to see how much electricity we ourselves are using but would enable the firms to ‘manage demand’ by controlling how much power we receive.

A massive price hike is inevitable

If the power cuts come, this ‘Big Brother in the cupboard’ would allow the firms to ration our electricity use.

And it is revealing that instead of looking to that £7 billion to be spent on two or three new nuclear power stations, the Government prefers a system which would allow the misery of electricity cuts to be spread around in a ‘managed’ fashion.

It is ironic that this week’s stories about the Government admitting that we face the possibility of blackouts should have originated with the Tory Party, whose own energy policy has long been indistinguishable from the Government’s — windmills, ‘carbon capture’, ‘smart meters’ and all.

The truth is that, if David Cameron comes to power in nine months’ time, there will be no bigger headache confronting him than how to avoid precisely the disaster which his spokesman was yesterday warning about.

If there is one issue to which he and his colleagues should now be giving their fullest attention it is how to keep Britain’s lights on without prices going through the roof.

And that will mean abandoning a lot of that childish Milibandian make-believe which now threatens us with as great a crisis as any our politicians have ever landed us with.

[Approx. Read Time: 2.5 minutes]

Yesterday, Jim Efstathiou Jr. reported from Bloomberg that the Cap-and-Trade Bill, in its current form, would boost the amount of land required for the development of energy by approximately 48%.  This is because the Bill places a lot of importance on renewable energy technologies like biomass and wind power.  Critics are calling this “energy sprawl.”  Although, unlike it’s evil twin “urban sprawl,”  the Sierra Club doesn’t have a website devoted to grinding it to a halt.  The Sierra Club claims to support preservation and conservation of the environment while also avidly supporting the use of wind and solar power.  While not being a contradiction in theory, (renewables are environmentally friendly from an emission and fuel resource standpoint) this stance is a blaring contradiction in reality because of the massive amounts of land required to support most renewable technologies.  Maybe the Sierra Club would benefit from checking out how much land their ardent support for wind and solar requires in order to produce as much energy as say, nuclear power.

Here are two blogs where I previously addressed this issue:

What Does Renewable Energy Look Like

What Does Renewable Energy Look Like Part II

Forests, Deserts in Climate Measure May Spawn “Energy Sprawl”

By Jim Efstathiou Jr.

Aug. 26 (Bloomberg) — More forests, deserts and grasslands in the U.S. will be used to produce energy under a proposal to cap greenhouse gases, an unintended consequence of efforts to fight global warming, according to a Nature Conservancy report.

A bill that boosts energy from wind turbines and biofuels will increase the amount of land needed for energy development as much as 48 percent, or almost 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) during the next 20 years, said Robert McDonald, a scientist with the Arlington, Virginia-based Nature Conservancy environmental group. An area larger than Minnesota will be affected even without any climate change bill, he said.

Less land will be needed to grow corn for cleaner-burning ethanol and to support electric-generating wind turbines if legislation gives carbon-dioxide emitters more options to reach targets, said the report, published today in the online journal PloS One. Greater energy conservation can also reduce the amount of land needed for development.

“Climate-change legislation could have a significant impact on land use in the U.S. but it might not if it’s properly designed,” McDonald, lead author of the report, said in an interview. “We’re tying to make sure that energy sprawl is one of the things policy makers are thinking about.”

Biofuel made from corn, along with biomass burned to make electricity, affects the most land for every unit of energy produced. Nuclear power uses the least amount of land, the report said.

Corn for Ethanol

Growing corn for ethanol on land already used for agriculture is one way to reduce the area needed to meet future energy needs, McDonald said. Allowing utilities and manufacturers with carbon-dioxide caps to use offsets — credits from projects that lower emissions — to meet pollution targets also reduces land use for energy.

The report analyzes the land-use implications of a climate- change bill that failed in the U.S. Senate last year. A bill that passed the U.S. House in June would have a “very similar” effect, McDonald said.

“Depending on the details of the bill, there may be millions of acres of new development,” McDonald said. “While we’re changing the rules of the system, we want to think about the land-use impacts.”

Without climate-change legislation, new coal-fired power plants will be built on over 26,000 square kilometers of conifer and deciduous forests, grasslands and desert, according to the report. Under a climate bill, costs for power from burning fossil fuels will rise, and the area needed for coal-burning power plants will be reduced by 7,500 square kilometers.

More land, meanwhile, will be needed for lower-emissions energy from biomass, biofuels and wind turbines. More than 49,000 square kilometers will be needed just to grown biomass that can be burned for electricity under a climate-change bill.

“In the scenarios we considered, there is a tendency for greater reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to be associated with a greater total new area affected by energy development,” the report said. “A decrease in U.S. emissions increases the new area impacted, although the magnitude of the effect is policy-specific.”