Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Many manufacturing companies are looking for ways to diversify their clientele in these hard economic times. With American companies building new reactors around the world and preparing to build here in the United States, the global nuclear renaissance presents an opportunity many U.S. manufacturers are trying to access, seize and leverage.

(NEI's Nuclear Supplier Database)

I have friends and family that work in different sectors of manufacturing and used to find myself asking, how can I help them connect with the procurement staff at all of the nuclear companies?  Thankfully, there is now a way to systematically connect manufacturers to the procurement staff at all of the nuclear utilities, reactor designers, and construction companies!

The industry came together to develop the Nuclear Supplier Database (NSD). The database is an interactive, online program that connects the suppliers of nuclear components and services with companies that procure these items. By creating a profile, manufacturers will be able to market their organization and the products they provide.

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/nuclear-supply-chain/nsd

The best part of the database is that nuclear utilities, reactor designers and construction companies will be accessing this database to supplement their supply chain. Manufacturers have one location to enter company information and make their profile available to every nuclear procurement specialist in the country!

How much easier could it be?

After hearing that many of the domestic new nuclear construction projects are targeting 80-90 percent of total procurements from U.S. manufacturers, I’m definitely encouraging my friends and family members to enter their company’s information into this database.  I encourage you to do the same if your company has a product and service they can provide to the industry.

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Reactor parts start arriving at proposed Ga. plant

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

IHI ships heavy components for Vogtle project

9 August 2010

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

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

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

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

Southern Company, DOE agree to conditional nuclear loan guarantee terms

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

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

Total guaranteed borrowings would not exceed 70 percent of the company’s eligible projected costs of approximately $6.1, or about $3.4 billion.

The DOE loan guarantees are expected to save Georgia Power’s customers millions in financing costs annually over the expected life of any guaranteed borrowings, based on preliminary estimates. The actual amount of the savings will depend upon the final terms and the timing of the specific borrowings.

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

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

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

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

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

The author would like to recognize former NA-YGN Public Information Chair Sarah Leversee as a co-contributor to this effort.

For a link to this document, click here.

[Approx. Read Time: <1 minute]

The North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) unites young professionals who believe in nuclear science and technology and are working together throughout North America to share their passion for a field that is alive and kicking!

NA-YGN believes that nuclear energy must be part of our solution for a balanced and secure energy mix.

Nuclear energy is:

Safe and Secure

The nuclear industry’s safety performance is among the best of any energy sector.  Nuclear plants are the most secure industrial facilities, and were so even prior to 9/11.  The industry has invested $2.1 billion above its ongoing security expenses to enhance its security and safety measures [1].

Reliable

Since 1990, commercial U.S. nuclear power plant capacity factors have risen from 66% to nearly 92% in 2007 [2]. When combined with power uprates, this results in an output increase equivalent to adding 29 new 1000-megawatt power plants.

Nuclear power accounts for nearly 20% of all power production in the United States and 16% of all power production in the world [3,4].

Cost Competitive

Since 2006, the average electricity production cost for nuclear power was 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour, versus 2.37 cents for coal-fired plants, 6.75 cents for gas, and 9.63 cents for petroleum [6].

Nuclear is the only power industry that accounts for all its byproducts and includes in its price the cost of waste management and plant decommissioning.

Clean

Nuclear energy is the world’s largest source of emissions-free energy. It accounts for 74% of emissions-free energy in the United States.

One uranium nuclear fuel pellet the size of the tip of your little finger can produce the equivalent amount of energy provided by 1,780 pounds of coal, 149 gallons of oil, or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas [5].

Engine for Job Creation

Construction of new reactors will yield an estimated 610,000 jobs in the nuclear industry.  Currently, there are competitive opportunities for technicians, engineers and skilled trade workers ready to be filled [7].

The Future

The Department of Energy projects a 21 % increase in electricity demands by 2030.  The nuclear industry has responded to the demand with 17 applications for 26 new reactors. These are currently being reviewed by the NRC [2].

The federal loan guarantee program is necessary component for building new nuclear power plants.  Loan guarantees give the nuclear industry the financial stability to move forward with hiring and new plant construction.

 1.  Nuclear Energy Institute, Nuclear Power Plant Security, Accessed 31 January 2009 from http://www.nei.org/filefolder/Nuclear_Power_Plant_Security_Feb2008.pdf  
2.  United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,   Accessed 31 January 2009 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelnuclear.html

3.  Nuclear Energy Institute, U.S. Electricity Generation Fuel Shares, Accessed   31 January 2009 from
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uselectricitygenerationfuelshares/ 

4.  Nuclear Energy Institute, World Nuclear Power Generation and Capacity.   Accessed 31 January 2009 from http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/worldnucleargenerationandcapacity/   
5.  Nuclear Energy Institute, Emissions Free Sources, Accessed 31 January 2009 from http://www.nei.org/filefolder/Infographic_Emission_Free_Sources_2007.jpg  

6.   Nuclear Energy Institute, U.S. Electricity Production Cost. Accessed 31   January 2009 from http://www.nei.org/filefolder/u.s._electricity_production_costs.ppt

  7.  Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, Job Creation in the Nuclear Renaissance, Accessed 31 January 2009 from http://www.cleansafeenergy.org/LinkClick.aspx?link=CASEnergywForewordpg.6.pdf&tabid=243

[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: 1 minute]

I was disappointed to read in the news that recent attempts to overturn explicit or effective nuclear power bans failed in six states. West Virginia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Wisconsin upheld new nuclear power plant bans in 2009. This comes at a time when the NRC is considering licensing applications for new plants in 14 states. West Virginia has an effective ban under which certain conditions have to be met in order to begin construction on a new nuclear power plant. The following West Virginia stipulation is taken from an article discussing nuclear plant bans:

“The code requires at least 24 months’ prior operation of a national facility which safely, successfully and permanently disposes of any and all radioactive wastes associated with operating any such nuclear power plant, nuclear factory or nuclear electric power generating plant.”

Of course now that Yucca Mountain has lost federal support the development of such a repository seems unlikely in the near future.

The first ban on new nuclear plants was instated in California. Twelve states now ban the construction of new nuclear plants. Many bans were developed shortly after Three Mile Island. Improvements in operation and reliability in existing plants have since proven that nuclear power provides safe, clean, CO2 free energy. These bans come despite the increasing support shown by the general public for nuclear power as reported in an earlier blog post.

Residents in states with new nuclear power bans need to make their legislators aware that they support nuclear as a clean baseload power alternative to greenhouse gas emitting energy sources such as coal and natural gas.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Myth: People don’t want Nuclear power plants in their backyards

Where do I even start? This is an enormous myth. I was pleased last week to find that Bisconti Research Inc. made public their Nuclear Plant Neighbor Survey results because it makes my job in disproving this myth embarrassingly easy.

The Nuclear Plant Neighbor Survey used a sample of 1,100 adults living within 10 miles of one of our nation’s 64 nuclear plant sites. Plant employees living within ten miles of a site were not surveyed. Below are some of the results worth highlighting:

• 84% of Americans living near nuclear power plants favor nuclear energy!
• 90% view the local nuclear power station positively!
• 76% would support the construction of a new reactor near them!
• 72% associate nuclear energy “a lot” with reliability!
• 71% have heard or read about the clean-air benefits of nuclear energy!
• 58% strongly support nuclear energy whereas only 5% strongly oppose!
• 83% believe that companies that own sites are involved in the community!

Wow! Nuclear plant neighbors are not only happy with the plants, but they wouldn’t even mind more reactors being constructed on site. These survey results really point out what great stewards domestic nuclear sites are within their respective communities. It doesn’t hurt that no member of the general public has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power plant operation something even wind turbines can’t claim.

Separate from the survey, I also wanted to take a more in depth look at another argument made by the “not in my backyard” crowd. Some residents have expressed worry that nuclear power plants could drive down home prices and hurt nearby communities. I decided to take a look at home prices directly next to McGuire Nuclear Station outside of Charlotte, NC where the median home price is $169,000. Using Zillow.com, I scanned prices of homes that have recently sold or are for sale near McGuire Nuclear Power Station. I found that there are several houses within less than ten miles of the power plant that have recently sold for over $1 million. Some of Charlotte’s most wealthy residents are choosing to live near the plant. When people that can afford to live just about anywhere invest in a home that close to a plant it makes you wonder if the “driving down home prices and hurting communities” fear really carries any weight. And the answer is no.

I dug deeper and found a 2006 study by Roger Bedzek and Robert Wendling that specifically studied the impact of 7 nuclear sites on property values. The results of this study can be summed up in one excerpt:

“The taxes and fees the facilities pay often fund over half of the county and school district budgets and provide levels of public and educational services that are far above those of surrounding counties and greater than the state averages. In each of the seven regions, housing and real estate values have benefited from the operations of the nuclear facilities.”

If nuclear power plants make for better schools and higher property values you can put one in my backyard today!

____________________________________________________________________

( By Mark Stewart ) [Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Florida state authorities, including the Governor, approved an important element of Progress Energy’s proposal to build two new nuclear power plants (NPP) in Levy County, FL.  You can read the Jacksonville Observer’s account here.  Florida officials approved the plants despite some protesters using some of the same, tired, and inaccurate arguments against the world’s only reliable carbon-free baseload electricity generation method. FL Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda was sure to make her voice heard with the following:

“I’m concerned about the cost with regard to this nuclear power plant, I’m concerned about the time that it’s going to take to build this nuclear power plant, I’m concerned about the number of jobs, I’m concerned about the danger and I’m concerned about the legacy that we leave our children and our children’s children.”

As detailed in a previous post, NPP are a GREAT investment, if you are able to think long-term.  NPP do take time to build but they are the only technology available NOW that can provide the CO₂ free power on a large scale that the US (and the rest of the world) needs.  I’m not sure what Rep. Vasilinda means when she says she is concerned about jobs but the lasting positive economic impact a NPP has on the surrounding community has been well documented.  Finally, just for good measure, Rep. Vasilinda throws in a vague boogeyman statement about “danger” that our children and our children’s children will face.  As proven year after year by OSHA statistics, the nuclear industry is one of the safest major industries in the U.S.

Not to be outdone, Lake Worth City Commissioner Cara Jennings offered the following:

“Scientific research has clearly shown that the entire nuclear process - from minor to transportation, process, use and long-term storage - has negative consequences on public health,” Jennings said. “Even when running ‘safely,’ nuclear power plants release radiation. Radiation is odor-less, tasteless, invisible and deadly even in low doses.”

Not to let facts get in the way of an argument, but you are exposed to 400 times more radiation while getting a full set of dental X-rays than if you lived outside a nuclear power plant for one year.  Commissioner Jennings also offered the following regarding Progress’s plan to replace existing coal plants with the new NPP

“Is this really the best we have to offer the people of our state?” she asked. “Go ahead Floridians, take your pick: lung cancer and air pollution from coal or cancer for your kids and a waste product so deadly we have nowhere to put it.”

All nuclear waste is currently stored safely at the facility where it is generated.  You can read more about the safety of spent nuclear fuel storage here.  While this isn’t a long term solution, it is safe and a long term solution does exist in the form of reprocessing technology being used NOW in France.

As NEI’s Richard Myers said this week “You clearly cannot have a credible program to control carbon emissions without expanded nuclear power.”