This week it is titled “The Vogtle Edition” after the historic decision Feb 9 by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant combined operating and construction licenses for two Westinghouse 1100 MW AP1000 nuclear reactors. 

This post is the collective voice [...]]]>

The Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Yes Vermont Yankee

This week it is titled “The Vogtle Edition” after the historic decision Feb 9 by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to grant combined operating and construction licenses for two Westinghouse 1100 MW AP1000 nuclear reactors. 

This post is the collective voice of blogs with legendary names which emerge each week to tell the story of nuclear energy.

If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

Past editions have been hosted at Next Big Future. Yes Vermont Yankee, NuclearGreen, Atomic Power Review, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Idaho Samizdat, and CoolHandNuke, as well as several other popular nuclear energy blogs. 

The publication of the Carnival each week is part of a commitment by the leading pro-nuclear bloggers in North America that we will speak with a collective voice on the issue of the value of nuclear energy. While we each have our own points of view, we agree that the promise of peaceful uses of the atom remains viable in our own time and for the future.

If you have a pro-nuclear energy blog, and would like to host an edition of the carnival, please contact Brian Wang at Next Big Future to get on the rotation.

This is a great collaborative effort that deserves your support. Please post a Tweet, a Facebook entry, or a link on your Web site or blog to support the carnival.

# # #

Idaho Samizdat ~ http://djysrv.blogspot.com

Originally posted: djysrv.blogspot.com

Read Original Post

We’ve already heard a lot about the downsides of some of these measures. For example, if cars get [...]]]> Is It Always Cleaner?

I was reminded again–as if I needed another reminder–that the supposedly “easy” fixes–just use energy more efficiently or just substitute “cleaner” fuel–doesn’t always work.

We’ve already heard a lot about the downsides of some of these measures. For example, if cars get higher mileage, they are cheaper to run and people tend to drive more.

Another twist on the same theme has come to my attention. Canadian researchers, looking at the results of a program to use “clean fuel” in the form of compressed natural gas in New Delhi, have found that the “clean fuel” was not always successful. A lot of the fuel was used in two-stroke engines, and apparently, the natural gas did not burn properly in these engines, producing high emissions of methane.

The recommendation of the study–”simply” upgrade two-stroke engines to cleaner, more efficient, four-stroke engines.

Hmm. Given the large numbers of two-stroke “auto-rickshaws” that are used largely in poor countries such as Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Thailand, it’s really hard for me to see individuals, or even governments, making the capital investment necessary to upgrade engines.

This is not to say that there is no other solution to this problem. I hope there is another solution. I simply point out that this example serves as yet another reminder that so many of the grand schemes that are proposed to “solve” our energy problems fall apart in the real world.

***

Nuke Power Talk
Read Original Post

If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

Past editions have been hosted at Yes Vermont Yankee, Atomic Power Review, ANS [...]]]>

This post is the collective voice of blogs with legendary names which emerge each week to tell the story of nuclear energy.

If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

Past editions have been hosted at Yes Vermont Yankee, Atomic Power Review, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Idaho Samizdat, NEI Nuclear Notes, and CoolHandNuke, as well as several other popular nuclear energy blogs.

The publication of the Carnival each week is part of a commitment by
the leading pro-nuclear bloggers in North America that we will speak
with a collective voice on the issue of the value of nuclear energy.
While we each have our own point of view, we agree that the promise of
peaceful uses of the atom remains viable in our own time and for the
future.

If you have a pro-nuclear energy blog, and would like to host an edition of the carnival, please contact Brian Wang at Next Big Future to get on the rotation.

This is a great collaborative effort that deserves your support.
Please post a Tweet, a Facebook entry, or a link on your Web site or
blog to support the carnival.

Cool Hand Nuke – NRC vote for Southern reactors “imminent” Fertel

A vote will take place soon by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to award combined construction and operating licenses for twin Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the utility’s Vogtle site in George.

That’s according to Marvin Fertel, the CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)  Fertel says he expects the action approving the licenses to take place “within days.”

In addition to Southern, Scana, a South Carolina utility, is also seeling licenses for twin AP1000s at its V.C Summer Station. According to Fertel, the announcement on Southern’s reactors is only a matter of time.  He said the vote on Scana’s application will take place later this winter.

Nuclear Diner – Cheryl Rofer

• Make Your Smartphone into a Radiation Detector

The Helmholtz Research Center in Munich tested it on several sources and it seems to work though calibration is a question.

• Interpreting Iran’s Claims About Their Fuel Element

Summarizes a discussion on the Nuclear Diner Forum on that fuel element, which seems most likely to be a plate for the Tehran Research Reactor. The available information is not clear. However, Iran has been known to inflate its claims about its technical progress.

Pop Atomic Studios – Susie Hobbs Baker (Link courtesy of Nuclear Street; Cam Abernethy)

The daughter of a nuclear engineer, Suzanne Hobbs Baker was initially afraid of radiation when she first learned about in biology class at 15 years old. So she and her dad spent the day at the Oconee nuclear plant in South Carolina, learning about safety systems, taking dose readings and discovering more about how nuclear power works.

Today, Hobbs Baker is a visual artist who leads PopAtomic Studios and uses her medium to address fears and misconceptions about nuclear energy. In this TEDx Talk, she elaborates on her work and the organization’s outreach, as well as the ways visual art can illustrate concepts in physics that can be difficult for non-scientists to grasp using equations alone.

Atomic Power Review – Will Davis

Nuclear icebreaker Lenin - Image: Atomic Power Review

As a special feature for National Nuclear Science Week, Will Davis has two posts covering a little discussed job nuclear energy does really well – icebreaking.

• National Nuclear Science Week
• Russian Nuclear Icebreaker

The first post is a general history with links to great photo galleries
and related sites; the second is an APR exclusive technical look at the
powerplant of the first nuclear icebreaker, the LENIN.

Talk Nuclear – Laura Allardyce, Canadian Nuclear Association

Our top three reasons why we think the licenses for Cameco’s facilities in Port Hope and Blind River, Ontario should be renewed by the regulator, the CNSC.

Yes Vermont Yankee – Meredith Angwin

Federal Judge Murtha ruled against the State and for Entergy in the Vermont Yankee lawsuit. This was a major court victory for nuclear energy. Near the day of the ruling, Yes Vermont Yankee blogger Meredith Angwin had some scheduled surgery. Angwin thanks several guest bloggers, and spotlights three fine guest posts on the blog:

• District Court Upholds the Rule of Law by George Angwin
• Beyond the Federal Court Decision by Howard Shaffer
• The State and the Control-H Defense by Cavan Stone

Next Big Future – Brian Wang

• Accelerator driven nuclear reactor in Europe

Conceptual drawing – Myrrha Image: Belgian Nuclear Research Centre

A first-of-a-kind reactor system has been set up in Belgium by coupling a subcritical assembly with a particle accelerator. The equipment, known as Guinevere, is a demonstration model that supports the project for a larger version that will be called Myrrha (Multipurpose Hybrid Research Reactor for High-tech Applications).

MYRRHA, a flexible fast spectrum research reactor (50-100 MWth) is conceived as an accelerator driven system (ADS), able to operate in sub-critical and critical modes. It contains a proton accelerator of 600 MeV, a spallation target and a multiplying core with MOX fuel, cooled by liquid lead-bismuth (Pb-Bi). MYRRHA will be operational at full power around 2023.

• DOE funding for small modular reactors

The DOE is funding up to two small modular reactors by 2022 and has grants for $452 million over the next 5 years. There is also an overview of the small modular reactors that are under development.

Idaho Samizdat – Dan Yurman

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced in early January it is starting work on an update to the Waste Confidence decision. With the Obama administration’s successful bid to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository project, one of the agency’s key assumptions for the update is that interim storage of spent fuel will be the norm for up to 200 years after a reactor’s operations come to an end.

Critics of the effort, and there are many, weigh in about the agency’s process and the perception it is trying the make policy instead of implementing it.

Nuke Power Talk – Gail Marcus

Gail Marcus responds to a reader who is a student of nuclear engineering and is seeking a summer internship.  She tells him about the WISE program, with which she has been involved, and other science policy internships, mainly in Washington, DC.  She also invites readers who know of other opportunities to share them through the blog comments for the benefit of this student and others.

ANS Nuclear Cafe – Paul Bowersox

The Department of Defense is shifting to clean energy sources that reduce greenhouse gases.  Can Small Modular Reactor system lifecycle costs compete with existing installation electricity costs?  William J. Barattino at the ANS Nuclear Cafe summarizes his initial assessment of the market size of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) on U.S. Army installations – and the results are encouraging.

The Neutron Economy – Steve Skutnik

• Cultural Bias & nuclear energy

Steve reviews cultural bias and ignorance about science and technology with regard to nuclear energy.

• Why the Vermont Yankee Case Matters

Beyond the direct implications for Entergy and Vermont Yankee itself, Entergy’s recent victory in federal court has implications for both nuclear and energy projects writ large.

• What to Expect from Japan’s Nuclear Fleet and 2011 in Context – by Alan Rominger

Digging into the historical electricity generation statistics, Alan Rominger looks  at how prior key events have impacted Japan’s nuclear generation capacity, including the post-Fukushima regulatory backlash toward reactors in Japan’s fleet unaffected by the recent Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. With this in mind, he extrapolates outward to give a peek at what Japan’s energy mix may look like for the near term.

i-Nuclear – David Stellfox

The UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority remains in talks with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy to build its Prism fast reactors at Sellafield as a means of managing and disposing of the UK’s 84-tonne stockpile of civil plutonium, an NDA spokesman said January 24.

NDA spokesman Bill Hamilton described reports in today’s Guardian newspaper that the NDA had rejected GE-Hitachi’s proposals as “completely without foundation.”

“Discussions are ongoing,” Hamilton told i-NUCLEAR.  He said the NDA was prepared to provide financial support to develop the proposals if ongoing discussions demonstrate promise.

NEI Nuclear Notes

The Blue Ribbon Commission issues its final report. Enumerating shortcomings of the nation’s used fuel management program, a federal government panel this week recommended eight steps to improve it.

Among them, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future said in a report issued today, is that levies on nuclear energy that American consumers have been paying for years should be fully available to a new organization created to manage the federal government’s used nuclear fuel program.

The commission also recommended development of at least one consolidated storage facility for used nuclear fuel.

Congressional hearings on a new used fuel management organization should begin “as soon as possible,” the commission said.

Atomic Insights – Rod Adams

This blog post tells the real story about nuclear plant liability insurance.

# # #

Idaho Samizdat ~ http://djysrv.blogspot.com

Originally posted: djysrv.blogspot.com

Read Original Post

First of all, I’d [...]]]> A Word to the WISE

A reader contacted me recently and told me he was a nuclear engineering student seeking advice on summer internships. Instead of replying privately, I thought this subject might make a good column, and perhaps that others might weigh in and offer suggestions beyond what I can offer.

First of all, I’d like to take this opportunity to make a pitch for students to use at least one summer during their college years to try to learn something about public policy in the science and engineering area. Everything in nuclear energy is profoundly affected by decisions made in Washington, DC and in state capitals around the country, yet very few policy makers have any training in science or engineering, and very few scientists and engineers are willing to engage in the public policy debate.

Over the years, I’ve tried to do my small part to change this equation. One activity in which I was personally involved for a long time is called the Washington Internships for Students of Engineering–or WISE. In this program, outstanding engineering students are selected to spend 9 weeks in Washington, DC during the summer to learn how government officials make decisions on complex technological issues and how engineers can contribute to legislative and regulatory public policy decisions.

The WISE program has been ranked by the Princeton Review as one of the best student internship opportunities in the US (although I couldn’t find it on their current website). The program is sponsored by a number of engineering societies, and I’m proud to say that ANS has consistently been a strong supporter, sponsoring two students each year. The students select a topic, meet with government and other officials to gather ideas on the legislative and regulatory issues associated with that topic, and prepare a paper on it. Some of them have had their papers published. In addition, they participate in a series of talks by various government officials on a wide range of science policy topics.

Unfortunately for the student who wrote to me, it appears from the WISE website that the deadline for applications for 2012 has recently passed. I do not know if there would be any latitude for the coming year. Anyone interested would have to inquire, but I suspect the WISE group will be reluctant to make an exception, as they are probably already reviewing the applications they have received. Therefore, the WISE program is probably more of an opportunity for students to consider for 2013. I should note that most students participating in the WISE program are rising seniors, but exceptions have occasionally been made to that rule.

Of course, there are many other summer internships in science policy available in Washington. Many government agencies and congressional offices accept students for short term programs in the summer. Arrangements would have to be made either through a student’s congressional representatives (for a Capitol Hill experience) or with the specific agency of interest. A number of universities have their own programs designed to expose science and engineering students to the Washington public policy arena and even offer academic credit for the experience. Some state governments also have opportunities for students to serve in internships.

I have been focusing on internships in the science policy area, but for students who want to stick to more traditional engineering experiences, many companies in the nuclear industry offer students opportunities for summer positions. These opportunities are specific to each company, and would need to be explored individually with each company.

I would welcome comments on this blog from readers who can recommend other internship opportunities to the student who raised this question.

***

Nuke Power Talk
Read Original Post

I have revised the resources tab on top at my blog and have created a new list titled ” Books about Nukes”  The link will open a new window.  The list will be updated over time. The date of this edition of the list [...]]]> This blog post is an update of the list posted in October 2010

I have revised the resources tab on top at my blog and have created a new list titled ” Books about Nukes”  The link will open a new window.  The list will be updated over time. The date of this edition of the list is: January 15, 2012. 

Nuclear energy is the stuff stars are made of

This list is intended to reach the NON-TECHNICAL reader.  This means the book must explain nuclear energy for commercial use, and closely related issues, e.g., uranium mining, spent fuel management, etc., in a clear and intelligent manner that is accessible to someone who has no technical background in the industry.

I would especially like to hear about books that would be readable by a high school senior or freshman / sophomore college student interested in a career in the nuclear industry.

Comments and suggestions for additional listings are welcome.

Before you comment, please check the current list.  I only need a few volumes in each category.

Please be complete with title, author, ISBN number, date of publication, and a link to an online bookseller of your choice or the publisher/author website.

Want to know more? Read a book on nuclear energy and share it with your friends. While it won’t compete with cocktail chatter about ‘Dancing with the Stars’, in fact, nuclear energy is the stuff stars are made of.

Note: I do not make any money with referrals to Amazon from this list. The list is not linked to the tower ads from Amazon on the main blog page.  The Amazon listing is used so that a reader can extract the ISBN number if they want to get it from their preferred bookseller or borrow it for free from their local library.

# # #

Idaho Samizdat ~ http://djysrv.blogspot.com

Originally posted: djysrv.blogspot.com

Read Original Post

You see, the site is a defense of the Canadian oil [...]]]> When I stumbled across the site EthicalOil.org recently, I thought there was a small chance that it was a parody. And, it turns out that the site reads like a parody in some places even though I am certain that the owners are dead serious.

You see, the site is a defense of the Canadian oil sands industry. The argument it makes is that because human rights standards are much better in Canada than in many other oil exporting nations, Canada should be considered a more “moral” source of oil. In fact, the oil from the oil sands is touted as a “fair trade choice.”

Once I’d read through the site, it was hard to imagine why the oil sands industry would even want it online. If these people were working for me with the express mission of defending the oil sands, I would fire them. Let me explain why.

First, the site claims to be based on a book called Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada’s Oil Sands. At the bottom of the EthicalOil.org home page the book is described as follows:

In Ethical Oil, Levant [the author] turns his attention to another hot-button topic: the ethical cost of our addiction to oil. While many North Americans may be aware of the financial and environmental price we pay for a gallon of gas or a barrel of oil, Levant argues that it is time we consider ethical factors as well.

I am certain you are now scratching your head thinking you could do a better job of arguing the case than that. Since when, I hear you saying, did things financial and environmental stop being moral issues? That’s strike one.

But the embarrassment has only begun. A set of rotating stories under “Featured News” includes a photo of two burka-clad females in front of the White House holding a hand-lettered sign which says “Stop tar sands, Stop Canada, Americans4OPEC.com.” This strange scene seems contrived, and it is. The accompanying text reads as follows:

Americans4OPEC: Blame Canada!
Earlier today, I snapped a few photos of Americans4OPEC, which today joined the anti-Keystone XL protests outside the White House. Here’s one of the photos and the group’s press statement. You can visit their website at Americans4OPEC.com

Americans4OPEC statement (sic), which is available on their website:

“For more than 40 years, we Americans have powered our businesses, fueled our cars, and made our lives more comfortable with the help of OPEC oil. We think that special relationship is worth protecting…”

This is the site’s attempt at satire (and it’s also intentionally misleading). After reading the story or clicking through to the Americans4OPEC site, if you haven’t figured out that the burka-clad protesters aren’t real and that this is a satire, a note in small type at the bottom (if you make it that far) will tell you that “Americans4OPEC is not a real organization, but a satire created by EthicalOil.org to highlight the choice Americans now have.”

Okay, in order for a satire to work, you don’t really want to tell the reader up front that what he or she is reading is a satire. You want the reader to figure this out; it’s part of the fun. On the other hand, a satire, to be effective, really ought to be funny. This one isn’t. Strike two!

Far more insidious is the confusion this site sows about the label “ethical.” We might consider the mere purchase of certain products or services as unethical. Or we might consider the conditions under which a product is grown, mined, manufactured, or traded, or a service rendered as unethical.

For example, we might consider the purchase of African ivory as unethical. (It also happens to be illegal.) We might also consider it unethical to eat bluefin tuna–which is highly prized in raw fish dishes such as sushi–because the species has declined so much due to overfishing.

However, we don’t say that the purchase of coffee is in and of itself unethical. We now sometimes say that the terms of trade for the coffee growers is often unfair and therefore unethical. And, this accounts for the growth of fair trade certified coffee. The feeling is that the grower ought to get more of the proceeds from his or her coffee than international trade arrangements and powerful food companies have provided in the past.

Obviously, the argument being made by EthicalOil.org is that Canadian oil from the oil sands is more ethical because of the conditions under which it is produced which exhibit higher concern for human rights than in many other exporting countries. And, now we see why the authors of the site do not wish to talk about environmental aspects of the oil sands. Because to do so would force us to include the first ethical category in our discussion: namely, whether it is moral for us to consume increasing amounts of oil or even any at all given the implications for pollution and climate change.

But let’s accept for a moment that we should limit our discussion to the relative human rights records of various regimes which export oil. If we buy oil from Canada, or at least refined products made from oil produced in Canada, should we feel better about ourselves? Not particularly, would be my answer. The key fact about tradable oil is that it is fungible. It can be moved virtually anywhere in the world. If we don’t buy oil from Saudi Arabia or any of the other regimes thought to be inimical to human rights, those regimes will simply sell their oil to someone else. None of it will go to waste.

The only way those regimes might be penalized is if total consumption worldwide slumped, driving prices down. But this would force us back onto the first ethical category: namely, that the most moral thing we could do is simply to consume a lot less oil. Naturally, the supporters of the site do not want to discuss this logical conclusion of their argument. (The site, however, unwittingly mentions conservation in one paragraph as a means to wean America off OPEC oil. So, the authors are unconsciously aware that reducing overall consumption is really the only way to reduce the perceived evils associated with oil use including that of rewarding oil-exporting regimes having poor human rights records.)

The argument for using less oil overall is simply rejected in the book upon which the site is based. Here’s the conclusion to that book (available on Amazon for those who want to check it out without buying the book):

The world isn’t throwing out the internal combustion engine anytime soon. In fact, in countries like India, China, and Brazil, the world is buying more cars than ever. So we’re stuck with oil for a long time, whether we like it or not. The only question that remains is: if we have to produce oil, and we have to buy oil–and we absolutely must do both–whose oil should we do our best to support? Who can we trust to do it the most morally?

There can be no doubt: Canada does it best. We’re an energy superpower. And we’re an ethical superpower too, setting international standards for how we treat the environment and how we treat each other. And if our goal as moral citizens is to make the world a better place, then there is only one choice: to pump as much oil as we possibly can out of Fort McMurray. Pump and steam and dig and drill and get that oil out of the sand in any and every way we can. Every drop of oil from Alberta is one less drop from some fascist theocracy, or some brutal warlord; one less cent into the treasuries of Russia’s secret police and al-Qaeda’s murderers.

Canadian oil sands oil is the most ethical oil in the world, and the people who invest there, work there, and support the oil sands with their patronage and their encouragement should be proud. Whether they realize it or not, they are all, gradually, helping to make the world a more moral, humane, and better place.

Think about it. The action that will be the most moral is “to pump as much oil as we possibly can out of Fort McMurray.” This is only moral if you limit your moral evaluation to the relative human rights records of oil exporters. Otherwise, it isn’t. And, you must ignore the necessity of bringing down consumption worldwide to really force any pain on the aforementioned egregious exporters. This is hardly a compelling case. Strike three!

(There’s actually a lot more to amuse you or befuddle you with its ineptitude on the EthicalOil.org site if you have the necessary inclination.)

While unlocking the oil in the oil sands is most certainly the carbon bomb for our atmosphere that its opponents say it is, to be fair, so is every other source of carbon fuel, including sources for supposedly “clean” natural gas. It is not so much that the Canadian oil sands are better or worse than other sources of fossil fuels, but rather that their exploitation is made inevitable by the way we live. If we don’t like the oil sands, then we must build a society that does not require their exploitation. This is doable with the technology we have (but perhaps not with the politics we have). The originator of the “ethical oil” argument, however, tells us that it will be impossible to build such a society until very far into the future. He is wrong–dead wrong, I would say.

If this is the argument upon which “ethical oil” rests, then it is one of the most unethical arguments ever made. Believing such an argument or using it cynically to deceive others may condemn us to catastrophic and irreversible climate change. And, it will also prevent us from preparing for an orderly transition away from fossil fuels–a transition that may be forced upon us in the not-too-distant future.

Now how’s that for ethics?

Kurt Cobb is the author of the peak-oil-themed thriller, Prelude, and a columnist for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen. His work has also been featured on Energy Bulletin, The Oil Drum, 321energy, Common Dreams, Le Monde Diplomatique, EV World, and many other sites. He maintains a blog called Resource Insights.

Nuclear bloggers work differently than the mainstream media and are not shadows of the nuclear trade press.  We don’t have time to report everything so we try to focus on developments that look like they’ll have more than average influence on the industry.  At this blog I [...]]]> News items you might have missed in 2011

Nuclear bloggers work differently than the mainstream media and are not shadows of the nuclear trade press.  We don’t have time to report everything so we try to focus on developments that look like they’ll have more than average influence on the industry.  At this blog I try to answer the “so what” question about the news.

During the course of the year, as a blogger I wind up with stand alone news items that just don’t fit into larger patterns. I hold on to them hoping that there will be a place to fit them into the jig saw puzzle that makes up the global nuclear industry.  So for better or worse, here are a few of those “keepers” that may yet emerge in a larger picture, or maybe not.  These are issues this blog will continue to watch to see where they go.

Californians like nuclear energy less, but they still like to eat

Last July conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found a steep decline in support for nuclear energy. The poll shows a 14% drop in support from a year ago. Now just 30% of the population, based on the poll sample, support building more nuclear power plants there.  There is a definite partisan split with just 23% of Democrats in favor of new reactors compared to 48% for Republicans. The new levels of “dislike” are linked to the Fukushima crisis in Japan which pumped up anti-nuclear sentiment in California.

The bad numbers appear to have left the Fresno Nuclear Group unfazed by their importance.  John Hutson, who heads the effort to build two Areva 1,600 MW EPRs in the state’s agricultural belt, says what else is new?

He is pushing ahead with the project which is intended to provide cheap electricity to food processing factories and to desalinate brackish water.  Hutson thinks the plants could handle up to one million acre feet of water at a cost of $200/acre foot.

An acre foot is approximately 324,000 gallons.  One million acre feet per year times 60 years is a lot of water, a lot for crops, and a lot of clean water for processed food factories.  If I were Hutson, I might design a bumper sticker that says – Want to eat? Support nuclear energy!  

Thrifty Swiss may balk at the high cost of going green

The Wall Street Journal reported Nov 29 that Switzerland’s reliance on nuclear energy means a switch to other sources of energy to generate electricity may hit them hard in the pocketbook.  The reason is the country’s parliament voted earlier this year to close its nuclear reactors by 2034.

The country has benefited from the reactors by being a profitable net exporter of electricity and by having a stable, reliable supply of energy for heavy industries.  Like Japan, Switzerland is not self-sufficient in terms of agricultural production so it exports electricity and high value finished goods and gets food in return. It’s a two-way street.

Here’s where the sticker shock hits.  The WSJ reports that according to a leading renewable energy think tank, the cost of new investments in hydro, solar, and wind power to replace the reactors would be $108 billion, or roughly the price of 15 new 1,000 MW reactors built over the next 20 years.  Then there are also the $22 billion in decommissioning costs for the current fleet which will extend into the end of this century.

A U.S. think tank put the diversion of capital into these channels in a stark light.  It told the WSJ the phase out of nuclear energy in Switzerland “will have harsh consequences for economic growth and job creation.”

South Korea and U.S. at odds over spent fuel

The revision of a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement between South Korea and the U.S. is taking place during an uncertain transition to the North.  South Korea wants to get U.S. agreement to support its efforts to develop a spent fuel reprocessing center to provide fuel for its growing fleet of 21 nuclear reactors.

The U.S. sees the request as a red flag for North Korea. That country might regard the new technology as ‘dual use’ capable of manufacturing weapons grade materials as a deterrent to the threat of invasion by the North’s massive army.

The new head of what passes for a government in North Korea is said to be the 20 something son of the late dictator Kim Jong II.  Anyone who thinks the kid is a real political leader, and not a “face” for the North Korean military, should line up to buy a bridge in Brooklyn.

For its part, the U.S. is nervous that the North Korean military, which is likely to be inwardly focused these days in terms of who is in charge, may not take kindly to a “provocation” from its neighbor to the south. Bear in mind the North Koreans have their own nuclear weapons capability having conducted at least one underground test.

South Korea has also become an exporter of nuclear reactors selling four of them to the United Arab Emirates in a $30 billion deal.  It may be looking at the development of a spent fuel reprocessing center, and MOX fuel fabrication center, as an additional product line to meet needs for nuclear fuel domestically and elsewhere.

So when South Korea talks about the new agreement being an “important test” of relations with the U.S., the translation from diplomatic speak might be something different.  South Korea has no geologic repository for a once through fuel cycle and there is value in reprocessing the fuel.

While South Korea lives under the U.S. military’s protective umbrella, it doesn’t see it as a reason for giving ground on the spent fuel issue.  Nonproliferation experts in the U.S. worry that one day a future South Korean government might take the next step and develop its own nuclear weapons program.   For now the diplomats will continue to talk with a wary eye on the North.

Bids and finances move up and down

The Czech Republic, which recently released bid documents for up to five new nuclear reactors worth an estimated $28 billion, is looking at providing the equivalent of loan guarantees to investors.  The government may also seek to set guaranteed rates for the reactors over a period of years once they enter revenue service.

S&P Credit Rating System ~ Chart: S&P

South Africa is getting ready to let bid documents out for six-to-nine new nuclear reactors.  A bid process for up to 12 reactor was cancelled in 2007 because neither the government nor Eskom, the state-owned utility, had the money to pay for them.

It’s not clear what’s changed in South Africa which may mean it expects bidders to self-finance turn-key plants with guaranteed rates for the first 15-20 years and sale of the plants in their cash cow phase to investors after that point.  Bidders include the usual suspects plus China’s Guangdong Nuclear Power Group.

Areva, which is a bidder for the Czech project, and an expected bidder for the South African tender, will have a more difficult time attracting capital for these kinds of projects.  Standard & Poors cut the firm’s financial rating to BBB-. This is the last rung on the “investment grade” ladder.

It said it expects Areva’s credit standing and cash flow to remain weak in 2012 with substantial recovery no earlier than 2014. For its part Areva slashed costs and capital investments and will sell over {e}1.2 billion in assets by the end of 2013

Russia’s Atomic Energy Power Corp.. got a boost from Standard & Poors which raised the credit rating for AtomEnergoProm to BBB.  The occasion is that the normally secretive state-owned firm allowed its books to be audited using international financial reporting standards.  S&P went on to say it expects the Russian nuclear company can depend on the deep pockets of the Kremlin for domestic projects. The export arm was not rated by S&P.

# # #

Idaho Samizdat ~ http://djysrv.blogspot.com

Originally posted: djysrv.blogspot.com

Read Original Post

At the end of each year, I like to take stock of the past year and to try to guess what it may mean for the year ahead. This year is a complex year for doing that. While there have been many good signs this year–the start of construction [...]]]> New Directions?

At the end of each year, I like to take stock of the past year and to try to guess what it may mean for the year ahead. This year is a complex year for doing that. While there have been many good signs this year–the start of construction of the first UAE reactor, a variety of licensing actions in the U.S., and progress in several other countries–the year has, of course, been dominated by the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station in Japan.

Much of the discussion so far has focused on what the implications of Fukushima are in the near term. I have been trying to read the tea leaves as to what the accident might mean for the longer term future of nuclear power–that is, after we have implemented any modifications to existing reactors and to reactors currently under construction or in the planning pipeline. I have written and spoken on this subject in several venues in the last few months. Most recently, an article I wrote for the ASME Mechanical Engineering journal on ” Nuclear Power After Fukushima” was published. (I understand the link to the ASME website may not be maintained, so if clicking on the title fails to bring up the article, as an alternative, I have posted a PDF of the article on my personal website.)

While I have no reliable way to predict the future, I have seen repeated references to the fact that some of the more advanced designs now on the drawing board would not have been vulnerable to the main problems that plagued the Fukushima reactors. This has led me to believe that the accident could give additional impetus to what was already a growing interest in advanced reactor technologies and/or small modular reactor (SMR–also sometimes “small and medium reactor”) designs.

Some of the characteristics that seem to be of particular relevance include the use of coolants other than water and the ability of some reactors to continue to be cooled by natural circulation. These two factors alone would make the long-term loss of cooling water and offsite power much less important, and could also allow siting away from tsunami–or flood–prone coastlines or river shorelines. (I mention non-water-cooled technologies only to illustrate a point, and note that there are water-cooled SMR design concepts that should also have less vulnerability to Fukushima-type events.)

On the other hand, of course, these reactors are still on the drawing board, and I am very mindful of Admiral Rickover’s famous quote about paper reactors vs. real reactors. To paraphrase: a reactor (or, for that matter, any other complex technological device) that is still under development always looks perfect; it is when you start to build it that all the problems materialize. (But do look up the original quote–it’s so much better!) Much more work remains to be done to demonstrate that the advanced reactors will perform as anticipated–and even more importantly, that we do not introduce new vulnerabilities. The Mechanical Engineering article discusses some of the issues in greater detail for those who are interested.

One interesting side note about the issue of the journal in which the article appears is that this is a special issue, and the topics for the articles in the issue were selected by ” crowd sourcing.” Using that process, the subject of advanced reactors was identified as one topic of reader interest. I was pleased to learn of that interest and to contribute my thoughts on the subject, and particularly on how the Fukushima events might shape the development of such designs.

With that, I’d like to wish everyone all the best for the New Year! See you back here next year!

***

Nuke Power Talk
Read Original Post