A young girl and high technology

Posted on February 22, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

By Jane LeClair

When I was a young girl, I fell in love with science and technology. I was intrigued by famous physicist and chemist Marie Curie and her pioneering research on radioactivity. I wanted to know how such a small piece of uranium could be turned into so much energy. And my curiosity about the nuclear plant that was being built about 50 miles from where we lived only grew as I reached my teens.

My fascination with science was perhaps an unusual passion for a girl at the time. Still, despite the downward pressure that came with trying to navigate a world that pigeonholed women within certain career paths, my passion for science and technology never wavered. In truth, I devoted my life to it, spending nearly two decades in the nuclear industry before leaving for academia and occasionally consulting with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

With changing demographics and retirements, the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts increasing demand for engineers. Yet, when I left the field I became just another statistic and part of an alarming number of women (56 percent) who leave the technology fields by mid-career. We’ll need to reverse that trend to fill the labor gap.

This is why the 11th Annual Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day, on Thursday, February 23, is critical in raising awareness of an important issue: Opportunities for women in engineering. Historically, as a professional field, and as a nation that values scientific achievement, we have failed to engage generation after generation of young women—many of whom with a bit of encouragement, mentoring, and most importantly, acceptance could have grown up to lead the next generation of engineers.

The sobering reality is that many young women don’t understand what a career in engineering offers: A creative outlet, great pay, and a chance to positively impact the world. It is a field for the independent thinker, the individual who loves to solve puzzles and find solutions to problems. A career in engineering is also an opportunity to see the world. Throughout my career, I’ve trotted the globe, from Ukraine to Hungary, Sweden to Vienna, visiting nuclear plants and engineering programs and working with the IAEA. I’ve also visited nuclear plants throughout the United States to bring academia and industry together to meet their mutual needs and the needs of our global community.

As a young girl, I never would have dreamed I would be doing what I’m doing. I’ve faced many challenges along the way as I negotiated the glass maze of prerequisite positions, interviews, qualifications comparisons, time in grade, and other confusing practices typical of high-end technology careers. But I am proud of my accomplishments. If it wasn’t for the encouragement of those close to me growing up, and the help of mentors along the way, none of this would have been possible. I know that many of the women engineers I have worked with throughout my career share my sentiments.

Let’s mark Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day by refocusing our priorities and affording all young women of science the encouragement they need to pursue careers in the technology and engineering fields.

_________________

Dr. Jane LeClair is the Dean of the school of Business and Technology at Excelsior College in Albany, N.Y., and an advocate for recruiting and retaining more women in the technology fields. LeClair worked in the nuclear industry for Constellation Energy for 20 years in various management positions. She was involved in a variety of professional organizations, including the American Nuclear Society, where she served as chair of the Education and Training Division, and the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE), where she was region chair of the St. Lawrence Section of ASEE. She has worked with the IAEA and has chaired several international conferences and collaborated on numerous projects. She blogs on higher education, online learning, women in technology, the nuclear industry, and her experiences traveling the globe at Café LeClair.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Careers, engineering, IAEA, National Engineers Week, Science & Engineering Education

Nuclear energy: The moral choice

Posted on February 21, 2012 by pbowersox| 2 Comments

By Art Wharton

During the 2011 American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, a gathering of ANS members interested in social media and nuclear communications was held, with standing-room-only attendance. As the conversation went around the room, and people discussed their involvement in nuclear communications, a common thread held throughout: The participants felt a moral calling to advance nuclear science and technology through their work, and through their communications via social media. Most participants recounted an obligation that they felt to their community or their family, including the futures of their grandchildren.

Some of these people have been called ”industry shills” by those who oppose the continued use of nuclear science and technology for the benefit of society, implying that a pro-nuclear stance is somehow imposed upon someone by the big bad industry tycoons in charge of a vast nuclear conspiracy. The reality is, I have personally met many people who chose to work in the nuclear industry because they advocated nuclear technology, not the other way around. These are the people who are leaders, or will be the future leaders, in the nuclear field.

Speaking of industry leaders, they recently collaborated on the development of the Principles of Conduct for Nuclear Power Plant Exporters. In the preamble, they call out six principles for focus: “Safety, Security, Environmental Protection, Compensation for Nuclear Damage, Nonproliferation, and Ethics.” I’m personally proud to be part of an industry that operates with these core values, and with a sincere feeling of responsibility for their product.

Nuclear professionals live on the same earth as everyone else, so they have a personal stake in utilizing this fascinating technology for the benefit of society, along with strong core values of safety and environmental responsibility. If you’re looking for the moral high-ground in an energy debate, start with advocating the use of nuclear energy.

I originally decided to work in nuclear energy because it was “cool” to me. When I first learned that the energy density of a single fuel pellet equaled almost a ton of coal, I had to learn more. When I was a young boy camping with a Boy Scout troop, they advocated leaving the campground in better condition than we found had it, so the energy density and cleanliness of nuclear energy compared with other energy sources was compelling to me as a young adult. I followed the “cool” path, in my eyes, not realizing at the time that I was making a moral or ethical choice.

That changed in an unexpected way when I graduated college, and I took an oath called The Obligation of the Engineer. At an overwhelming time, in which the excitement of a new career, the largest paycheck of my life, and a cross-country move to a new region were looming, I had an “aha moment” when I took the oath. Many readers of this blog are engineers, and many are not, but I think the oath carries with it a tremendous message worth ruminating on for all nuclear science and technology professionals:

I am an engineer, in my profession I take deep pride.
To it I owe solemn obligations.
Since the Stone Age, human progress has been spurred by the engineering genius.
Engineers have made usable nature’s vast resources of material and energy for humanity’s benefit.
Engineers have vitalized and turned to practical use the principles of science and the means of technology.
Were it not for this heritage of accumulated experience, my efforts would be feeble.
As an engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, tolerance, and respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and the dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of Earth’s precious wealth.
As an engineer, I shall participate in none but honest enterprises.
When needed, my skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good.
In the performance of duty and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give the utmost.

- The Obligation of the Engineer

How can you tell if you’re talking to someone who’s taken that oath? Look at the pinky finger of their working hand, and they’ll have a modest, non-descript, stainless steel ring on it. I see many who embody this obligation as they uphold their devotion to safely implementing nuclear science and technology. I think that someone who reads this obligation slowly and deliberately can understand why emotions can run high in a time when nuclear science and technology comes under pressure. I won’t write any ad-hominem attacks on those who oppose nuclear science and technology, because I want today’s topic to be on the ethical and moral obligations we uphold in the nuclear science and technology field. I encourage engineers and non-engineers alike to renew their sense of moral focus on how their day jobs provide benefit to humanity, and to their own community.

Electrical power production provides life-saving opportunities. Refrigeration keeps food safe. Air conditioning saves many from heat stroke during the summer, and heating systems preserve life in the winter. The medical industry is dependent on electricity for many life-saving technologies. As you’re reading this paragraph, you’re probably listing out other things that electricity does to preserve and enhance life in ways that many people take for granted. Nuclear energy provides this life-saving electricity with the smallest footprint per unit of energy, and in my strong opinion, makes “the best use of Earth’s precious wealth.”

I have an obligation to give my knowledge, without reservation, for the public good. Sometimes, I don’t have all the answers. Organizations like the American Nuclear Society can be pivotal in our ability to bring knowledge together. I’ve grown as a person and as a professional from my association and participation in ANS events and governance. If you’re a member of the American Nuclear Society, as I suspect many of you are, you will find that ANS is consistent with this message of moral and ethical behavior as a society and as nuclear professionals. The ANS Code of Ethics gets specific, and the number one practice of professional conduct found in the ANS Code of Ethics is consistent with the rest of the industry:

We hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and fellow workers, work to protect the environment, and strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of our professional duties.

If you browse around the websites of nuclear industry companies, you’ll find that safety and environmental responsibility are consistently called out in their corporate core values. Safety is also the very core of the charter of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Maybe some people can read this and think that we just provide a lot of lip service, and that this is just good PR. Is it? Who pays attention to these things? Do news reporters sift through our corporate values, or Society ethics, or the Obligation of an Engineer before they report the news, or decide which “expert” interviewee to pay more attention to? If they did, I suspect that we’d see different words surrounding “Nuclear” in headlines.

Leaders pay attention to these things. They spend hours arguing over how they want to shape the words to affect the behaviors of the people they lead. They worry about whether they’ve communicated these values often enough, or well enough. If my CEO stopped me in the hallway today and asked me what the company core values were, I could recite them verbatim.

A breach of ethics represents the largest risk we face as we operate, execute projects, or form business deals. I encourage all of you to not only re-familiarize yourself with these values that your employers and your professional societies hold, but to take that confidence with you as you communicate about the benefits of nuclear science and technology. The facts are on your side, the moral high-ground is yours, and the highest standards of ethics and professional conduct will lead you. When in doubt, ask a friend; you have over 11,000 engineers, scientists, administrators, and educators representing more than 1,600 corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies at your disposal here at the American Nuclear Society.

______________________

Wharton

Art Wharton is a principal project engineer at Westinghouse Electric Company LLC in the Nuclear Power Plants product line. He is a member of the ANS Planning committee, the Operations and Power Division Program committee, the Operations and Power Division Executive Committee, is a Pittsburgh Local Section past chair, and is a guest contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe. 

The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of Westinghouse Electric Company LLC.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, engineering, Social Media

ANS’s Loewen visits local sections

Posted on February 20, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

Eric Loewen, president of the American Nuclear Society, kept up his rapid pace last week as he visited the ANS local section in Aiken, S.C., on February 15, and the one in Charlotte, N.C., on February 16. Loewen, as the featured speaker at the meetings of the two sections, presented his personal talk titled “Plutonium: Promise or Peril”.

During the morning on the 15th, Loewen toured the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility on the Savannah River Site, in South Carolina. The facility,which is being built by the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, will convert surplus nuclear weapon-grade plutonium into reactor fuel for use in commercial nuclear power plants starting in 2016. Under a 2000 agreement, the United States and Russia will dispose of 68 metric tons of surplus plutonium, enough material for many thousands of nuclear weapons (see Shaw Areva MOX Services for more info).

Later on the 15th, Loewen was hosted by Stephen Sheetz of the Savannah River National Laboratory for a tour of the lab and other facilities on the Savannah River Site.

At the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility: Zachary Kosslow (ANS), Amanda Bryson (Shaw Areva MOX Services), Eric Loewen (ANS-president), and Kevin Hall (NNSA).

 

NNSA-MOX Federal Project Director Clay Ramsey illustrates with ANS's Loewen how a fuel pellet boat will be used in the MOX fuel fabrication process.

The dinner meeting that featured Loewen on the 15th was attended by about 160 people. The dinner was hosted by Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, in cooperation with ANS. “Dr. Loewen’s presentation was very well received by all in attendance,” said Amanda Bryson, chair of the Savannah River ANS local section. “The event brought together professionals at all stages of their careers from all over the Central Savannah River Area, representing many facets of the nuclear industry in the area. This was one of the best-attended events for ANS–Savannah River in the past year, and provided the opportunity for lively and thought-provoking interaction among our membership and the membership of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness. It was a pleasure and a privilege to have Dr. Loewen visit.”

The next day, in Charlotte,  Loewen was interviewed on WFAE NPR Radio Charlotte. Click the “Listen” button at the WFAE webpage to tune in to the interview via the Comments page, or tune in to the interview directly.

Dr. Clint Wolfe (Exec. Dir. CNTA), Dr. Loewen, Karen Bonavita (CNTA)

“Dr. Loewen had over 100 attentive local section members as an audience,” said Thomas Doering, chair of the Piedmont-Carolinas ANS local section, regarding Loewen’s talk in Charlotte on the 16th. “The Peidmont-Carolinas section historically has drawn nearly 100 local members for over two years; the greater Charlotte area is considered the energy capital of the nation. Dr. Loewen’s talk focused on the misconceptions of plutonium and how other energy sources suffered from a similar beginning.”

When asked about his trip, Loewen said, “I’m just so impressed with the vibrancy and vitality of these sections. They really are greater than the sum of their parts, and their parts are pretty great.”

Carolinas Section Officers James Bakke, Thomas Doering - chair, ANS President Loewen, Myron Koblansky, Andrew Sowder.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Local Sections, Meetings, MOX Fuel, NASA, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Energy Narrative, plutonium, spent fuel

Nominate Young Members for National Awards!

Posted on February 20, 2012 by pbowersox| Leave a comment

By Jennifer Varnedoe and Tim Gnadt

Do you know someone who has worked tirelessly toward integrating young members into the American Nuclear Society? Do you know someone in the ANS Young Members Group who has demonstrated continued overall excellence in many areas? Now is your chance to nominate that person for national recognition of their efforts.

We are now accepting nominations for the Young Members Advancement Award and the Young Member Excellence Award. We invite you to submit a nomination for any eligible and deserving member. Anyone can make a nomination, however self-nomination is not permitted. More information about these awards can be found at Young Members Advancement Award and Young Member Excellence Award on the ANS website, along with the nomination forms. Feel free to contact the YMG Awards and Recognition Committee Lead, Tim Gnadt, for more information.

  • Young Members Advancement Award – Honors an individual or group that has made a significant contribution toward integrating young members into ANS.
  • Young Member Excellence Award – Recognizes a member of the YMG who has demonstrated overall excellence in a variety of areas.

These awards are an opportunity to highlight up-and-coming leaders of the society for their encouragement, hard-work, and enthusiasm. One of the most rewarding aspects of my ANS membership is working toward a common goal with people who are amazingly passionate and brilliant. We hope that over the coming years, we are able to recognize all of the exemplary young professionals and mentors whose contributions make ANS the extraordinary organization that it is!

______________

Varnedoe

Jennifer Varnedoe is chair of the ANS Young Members Group. She is a project engineer with Advanced Programs at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. She has been an ANS member since 2007 and is a guest contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

Gnadt

Tim Gnadt has been the chair of the YMG Awards and Recognition Committee since January 2011, and a member of the YMG since November 2009. He is active duty in the US Navy and works as an instructor at its prototype training facility in upstate New York.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Honors & Awards, Young Members Group

92nd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Posted on February 19, 2012 by dyurman| Leave a comment

This week we’d might as well call the Carnival the “Vermont Yankee” edition because of all the news coming out of that state about this reactor.

Governor Shumlin tilts his lance again announcing an appeal of a Federal District Court ruling against the efforts of the legislature and the governor to shut the reactor down.

The carnival weekly 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.

This Week’s Carnival

Here’s what some of the nation’s nuclear bloggers have to say about Vermont Yankee news generally and CNN in particular.

Yes Vermont Yankee

  • Vermont AG to appeal Federal court ruling – Meredith Angwin writes that yes, we all knew it would happen. The State is appealing the judgment. The State is throwing good money after bad, but Shumlin has to show his hard-core supporters that he really tried.
  • Citizens Rights, State Rights, and Vermont – Everyone knows that the Vermont Attorney General stressed “state’s rights” as he fought Vermont Yankee and two clauses of the Constitution (Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause).  However, once a state begins defying the Constitution, the rights of the citizens are also compromised.

NEI Nuclear Notes

ANS Nuclear Cafe

On January 19, the Federal District Court in Brattleboro, Vt., issued a court decision in favor of Entergy Corporation, regarding the continued operation of its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.  Howard Shaffer examines the political milieu of the Vermont Yankee court decision in light of states rights issues, shared authority among Federal and State regulators, and the political history of some other rather extreme positions taken by state governors.

Tamar Cerafici has a plain English review of the legal ins-and-outs of the Federal court ruling. It is worth your time to step through the issues because so much is at stake.

Atomic Power Review

Will Davis catches up on various news items from this week, including comments on Fukushima Daiichi, a CNN report, and nuclear energy in various far places in the world.

Next Big Future

Brian Wang reports that the Areva Anteres reactor was selected by the next generation nuclear plant project. Also, he reports on French, U.S., China, India and Ukraine nuclear generation figures for 2011

Idaho Samizdat

Dan Yurman has an indepth report on the selection of Areva’s HTGR design by the NGNP Alliance for process heat applications.

Also, he reports on a major deal involving Areva reactors to be built in the U.K. by EDF as a result of a face-to-face meeting between U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Atomic Insights

Rod Adams writes that MIT’s studies on the future of various energy fuels are important guides for policy makers. The contrast between strong optimism over the future of natural gas compared to a far more pessimistic view of the future of nuclear energy is stark and difficult to ignore.

An explanation might be found in the amount of natural gas money and the number of natural gas salesmen on the Advisory Committee for the study on natural gas when compared to the more neutral funding source for the study on the future of nuclear energy. He asks if the MIT Energy Initiative has been captured by natural gas money?

Nuke Power Talk

Gail Marcus is pleased to be able to pass on information provided by a reader of her blog providing more details on the Japanese personnel practice called ‘amakudari,‘ the institutionalized system of moving Japanese government retirees into positions in the organizations they used to regulate.

Nuclear Diner

Cheryl Rofer has a unique report that Peter Alaric DeSimone tells how he makes music from the random disintegration of radioactive isotopes and provides MP3 files and videos of the process.

Also, she reports that the National Research Council released a report this week on nuclear technologies NASA needs, including nuclear rocket propulsion, nuclear reactors for power in space, and radioisotope power systems. Susan Voss presents the details.

# # #

 

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Carnival of nuclear bloggers, News

Czechs temper expectations at Temelin

Posted on February 16, 2012 by dyurman| Leave a comment

Europe’s biggest nuclear project is chopped down from five reactors to two

By Dan Yurman

An ambitious plan to build five nuclear reactors in the Czech Republic worth an estimated $28 billion has been scaled back to just two units. The Czech Republic won’t build the other three anytime soon, even though Germany and Poland may have been counting on those units to supply electricity. Germany has closed eight of its oldest nuclear reactors and will close another nine by 2022.

In an unrelated move, Poland just delayed the start date of a new nuclear power station by five years to 2025 three years after Germany has closed its last reactor.

Power that Europe thought it could buy from Czech state-owned utility CEZ has evaporated before it lifted off  the drawing board. The real winner in the short term will be Russia’s natural gas supplier Gazprom.

Newly installed Czech Industry & Trade Minister Martin Kuba down shifted CEZ’s ambitious plans calling the five-reactor plan “unrealistic,” but he did not say what energy mix would be used in its place to meet growing demand for electricity in central Europe. The primary problem likely is how to finance the combination of two new units at Temelin, one at Dukovany, and two more at the Jaslovske Bohunice site in Solvakia.

The Czech government proposed that reactor vendors provide a complete turnkey solution, including up to nine fuel reloads for the new units. As part of the financing, the Czech government would guarantee rates and provide loan guarantees to CEZ as lures to investors.

What may be “unrealistic” is the expectation that investors and reactor vendors would be willing to pump $28 billion into a nuclear power project spread across five new units at three sites.

However, a plan for two reactors worth $10 billion at one site, Temelin, seems more likely to fly, especially since the United States just last week licensed two new reactors planned for the Vogtle site in Georgia said to cost $14 billion.

The Czech energy plan under Kuba’s predecessor, Martin Kocourek, called for up to 80 percent of the nation’s electricity coming from nuclear reactors by 2060 and being a net exporter of electricity to Germany. Kocourek, however, quit in a financial scandal unrelated to his government job. While Kocourek was a stalwart supporter of the five reactor plan, he got into legal trouble in a complicated divorce proceeding in which he hid assets sought by his now former wife in the settlement agreement.  It’s not clear where the money came from. This revelation in his private life made it impossible to continue in a role of public trust.

What’s realistic now?

Now at the helm so to speak, Kuba believes it is realistic to build the next two reactors at Temelin where power transmission infrastructure is already in place. It has approximately 2000 MW at a site near the Austrian border.

Also, Kuba wants to extend the life the reactors at Dukovany, which are four Russian-built VVER designs of about 470 MW each. They were completed in the mid-1980s. The two units at Temelin that are currently in service are also Russian-built VVERs at 963 MW each. These reactors are relatively new, having been completed in 2000 and 2003.

So, where will the money come from for even just two new reactors? CEZ chief financial officer Martin Novak thinks that some form of shared risk with investors will draw them in. Although Novak claims that CEZ is solvent enough to build two units in the range of 1000 MW each out of cash flow, he’d like to leverage other people’s money for about half of the costs.

At a hypothetical cost of $4,000/Kw, the two units would require $8 billion for which CEZ would have to come up with half and then offer the other half to investors. Leveraging support from investors for the nuclear plants will allow CEZ to build other power plants including natural gas.

Another sweetener would be for the government to offer CEZ guaranteed rates of return for the plants. CEZ chief executive officer Daniel Benes said that the way the model would work is that the government would step in with payments if the market price of electricity dropped below a certain level. On the other hand, if the rates increased on their own, the utility might wind up paying the government the difference. In effect, the government would subsidize the rate of return without directly impacting rate payers.

There isn’t agreement on any of these ideas across the government. Some ministers are opposed to any financial support for new nuclear plants.

And here’s a few more ideas

Vaclav Bartuska, the man in charge of the Czech government’s drive to see the plants built, said that having guarantees for power prices in turnkey projects is the only way such massive investments are possible.

Neither CEZ nor the government have explained in detail the extent to which loan guarantees would also be part of the financial package, though Bartuska has mentioned them. If the government offers loan guarantees, it would make the two Temelin reactors more attractive.

Given the shadow of sovereign default that has spread across Europe, however, a government loan guarantee is no longer a punched ticket to financial success. There still would be a risk premium based on how solvent the Czech government is or how well it can convince investor and rating agencies that it is solvent.

And Bartuska isn’t done with ideas about how to get the other three reactors built. His latest brainstorm is to use decommissioned military bases as sites because the government still owns them. He added that the government could use the sites also as interim storage locations for spent nuclear fuel. In any case, the government is worried about a public backlash if it starts demolishing privately held sites for new reactors.

It may get a backlash anyway with its idea for using decommissioned military bases. Now some of the abandoned sites have reverted to the status of de facto nature preserves with wildlife. Green groups are said to want to protect them. However, the military reservations are also contaminated with chemicals and unexploded ordinance. Contracts to clean up the sites are being offered for bid.

Meanwhile, the bidders for the now downsized Temelin project are going ahead with their proposals, which are due next July. These three short-listed bidders are Westinghouse, Areva, and Atomstroyexport. CEZ hasn’t changed the date for the award of the contract, which is early 2013.

All three vendors are inking memorandums of understanding with local manufacturing firms to improve their localization scores with the selection board. CEZ has said that local manufacturing content, and the jobs that come with it, will be an important element of the evaluation regardless of the size of the project.

Poland pushes back plant start dates

Polish state-controlled energy group PGE announced last week that it will delay by five years completion of the first of two new nuclear plants to 2025. The utility did not state a reason for the change in schedule, which was announced as part of the rollout of a larger energy strategy plan. A second unit would come online in 2029. PGE is reported to be aiming at 3000 MW for each site. Each power station could be composed of two to three reactors.

The sites for the reactors tentatively selected include Choczewo, Gaski, and Zarnowiec. Local support for any of the sites may be thin as the country has considerable anti-nuclear sentiment stemming from the Chernobyl accident.

Later this year, Poland will issue a request for proposals for the first unit. So far, GE-Hitachi and Westinghouse have been gearing up their supply chains as part of their planned response. PGE is looking for equity investors in the plants and plans to hold a 51-percent share for each of them.

# # #

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Atomstroyexport, News, Nuclear events, reactor designs, Westinghouse

NOW CASTING: Discovery Channel’s Top Engineer!

Posted on February 15, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

Discovery Channel seeks America’s top inventors, machinists, and engineers to compete for a huge grand pr1ze

Televised musical contests like American Idol are no doubt a perfectly suitable route to fame and fortune for many of the talented nuclear scientists and engineers who are avid readers of the ANS Nuclear Cafe.  BUT what if you happen to be a talented nuclear technician, engineer, or scientist who can’t carry a tune? What then?

You may be in luck, dear reader! You may be even more suited to star in the Discovery Channel’s upcoming reality competition: “TOP ENGINEER!”

From the Official Casting Call: “The Discovery Channel is looking for America’s most creative and daring techies, machinists, inventors, and engineers to design, build, and BLAST their way to a Grand Prize.”

From the sound of it, our readers with intimate knowledge of nuclear engineering and technology will clearly carry an advantage in some of the competitions—although using their entire skills set might require special negotiations with the Producer.

So, represent the nuclear community, get out there, and win big! Or at least get on TV, and be sure to put in a plug for nuclear technology while you’re there. Email TopEngineerCasting@gmail.com—click on the picture below for all the info.  Deadline is March 7, 2012.

 

→ 1 Comment

Posted in engineering, News

Lise Meitner’s fantastic explanation: nuclear fission

Posted on February 14, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

By Paul Bowersox

On February 11, 1939, a Letter to the Editor titled “Disintegration of Uranium by Neutrons: a New Type of Nuclear Reaction” appeared in the science journal Nature. The letter provided the first theoretical explanation for the splitting of the atom, and coined a new term in physics: fission. The woman who co-authored the letter, and co-discovered the power of nuclear energy, is perhaps not quite as well-known as some of her contemporaries. Elise Meitner—how could hers not be a household name?

Meitner was born November 7, 1878, the third of eight children in a Jewish family in Vienna, Austria. Although she excelled in math and science, at that time and place girls did not attend school past the age of 14. Lise’s parents, however, made sure that their daughters received the same education as their sons, through private tutors. After studying for years to gain entrance at the University of Vienna, Meitner eventually became only the second woman to earn a PhD in physics there.

A battle for the ultimate truth

Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner

Meitner’s nephew, Otto Robert Frisch, said that Meitner’s university teacher, Ludwig Boltzmann, “gave her the vision of physics as a battle for the ultimate truth, a vision she never lost.” Meitner was one of the true nuclear pioneers–her career spanned from virtually the discovery of radioactivity, through to her own co-discovery of nuclear fission, and well beyond. A few years after earning her PhD in 1905 ,she met the research partner that she would work with for 30 years, Otto Hahn, and soon they discovered several new isotopes. In 1917, the duo discovered the first long-lived isotope of the new element protactinium, and in 1922 she discovered the cause for electron emissions from surfaces known as the Auger Effect. From 1924 to 1934, the Hahn-Meitner team became well-known internationally as scientific researchers of the first rank, and were nominated for the Nobel Prize for 10 consecutive years.

A search for new elements

In the 1930s, researchers began to speculate that elements even heavier than uranium—at that time the heaviest known element in nature—might be possible. Such a discovery and achievement would be a sure-fire Nobel Prize winner, and many of the top scientists in the world endeavored to create the hypothetical new element. Hahn and Meitner collaborated in much research toward this end, but history intervened.

 

Flight from Hitler’s Reich

Meitner converted from Judaism to Christianity in 1908, but in Hitler’s Reich that counted for nothing. Bigotry, racism, and prejudice were translated into government policy by Hitler, and Germany’s takeover of Austria in 1938 brought Austrians like Meitner under German law. She barely escaped with her life, with the help of scientists both within and outside the Reich. But Meitner continued to exchange letters almost daily with her research partner Hahn, who was still inside Germany. But Hahn snuck out of Germany to meet with Meitner to discuss new experiments. Hahn was a brilliant, methodical, and precise chemist, while Meitner was a brilliant theorist attempting to puzzle out his laboratory results. It was a perfect scientific partnership.

A fantastic explanation

At their secret meeting in 1938, Meitner urged Hahn and his laboratory partner Strassman to perform additional tests on neutron-bombarded uranium. Hahn and Strassman finally determined that the end result included the much lighter element barium, not the expected heavy element radium. This was very puzzling. Hahn recognized that uranium atoms completely breaking apart into much smaller atoms would be an explanation, but how could that happen? Hahn wrote to Meitner: “Perhaps you can come up with some sort of fantastic explanation. We knew ourselves that [uranium] can’t actually burst apart into [barium].” 

Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch, while outdoors skiing, realized Bohr’s “liquid-drop” model of the atomic nucleus could explain the result mathematically. They scribbled formulas on a scrap of paper in the woods:  A uranium atom could elongate when bombarded by neutrons, and occasionally some of the uranium atoms could split apart into two “smaller drops.” In fact, the uranium atoms in Hahn’s experiments had split to form the much lighter atoms barium and krypton, and ejected neutrons and a very large amount of energy, with a loss of some mass. Meitner was the first to realize Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 was at play here, converting mass into energy.

The most deserving scientist never to win a Noble Prize

Hahn published his chemical evidence for fission without listing Meitner as a co-author—understandable, as he was in Hitler’s version of Germany and she was of Jewish heritage. Hahn, however, continued to maintain that he was the sole discoverer of fission, through accepting the Nobel Prize in 1944 and for the rest of his life. Meitner’s explanation for this was that Hahn was “simply suppressing the past (in Nazi Germany). I am part of his suppressed past.” 

The forgotten discoverer, remembered

Although not a Nobel-winner, Meitner was quite famous enough for U.S. President Truman in 1946 to quip, “So, you’re the little lady who got us into all of this!” Meitner and Hahn had little idea that their basic research would turn out to be useful in making weapons of awesome destructive force, however. When asked to join the Manhattan Project in 1943, she replied, “I will have nothing to do with a bomb!”

Instead of a Nobel Prize, Meitner has been honored with an even more enduring legacy: Element 109 is named meitnerium in her honor.

And since today is Valentine’s Day, allow me to close with a quote from Meitner: “Science makes people reach selflessly for truth and objectivity; it teaches people to accept reality, with wonder and admiration, not to mention the deep awe and joy that the natural order of things brings to the true scientist.”  To this author, this reads like a love letter to the universe! Lovely, indeed.

_____________

Bowersox

Paul Bowersox is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe, and quite privileged to have the opportunity to write about the work of the nuclear pioneers.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Education, Nuclear pioneers, physics

Reflections on the Cedar Creek Room

Posted on February 13, 2012 by pbowersox| 4 Comments

By Howard Shaffer

On January 19, the Federal District Court in Brattleboro, Vt., issued a court decision in favor of Entergy Corporation, regarding the continued operation of its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Entergy had sued the State of Vermont on several issues, but mainly on Act 160, a Vermont law that was crafted to block the continued operation of the plant. The plant needs a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) from the state in order to keep operating, but Act 160 says that the state’s Public Service Board needs legislative approval before it could release its findings on the application for the CPG. Without the new CPG, the plant would have had to shut down when the original one expires, on March 21, 2012. The federal court’s decision “permanently enjoined” the state from using Act 160 to deny a CPG to Entergy; the basis for that decision is the supremacy of federal law over state law.

States rights and Vermont

Supporters of the law that was struck down have raised the the issue of “states rights.” They assert that the state has the right to rule on the plant’s safety, even if the federal government has already ruled. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over nuclear radiological safety, by law, as affirmed by prior court cases. But the supporters further argue that only some members of Vermont’s legislature have spoken of safety, and that in fact Act 160 is based on energy policy and economics.  Yet a review of the federal court’s decision by law professors has pointed out that the state did not introduce any evidence that the law had any other basis than safety.

The Cedar Creek Room

The Cedar Creek Room is the reception room in Vermont’s state capitol building, across the hall from the governor’s ceremonial office. It should be a reminder that the Civil War settled the issue of states rights. Press conferences and many other events are held in the Cedar Creek Room. One wall displays a mural-sized painting of the battle that gives the room its name. The battle was a turning point in the Civil War, by ending Confederate effectiveness in the Shenandoah Valley. Vermont units were prominent in the Union forces at that battle, and five of the 21 Medals of Honor awarded for the engagement went to Vermonters.  Vermont’s participation in the battle was a continuation of the strong abolitionist sentiment inVermont, and of its proud participation in the Underground Railway to Canada. Vermonters are justly proud of their heritage.

Painting of the Civil War Battle of Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek Room, Vermont State House

Political history being repeated

Meanwhile, some parts of political history are being repeated. Taking extreme positions can win elections, even though the positions do not get enacted. For example, the late Governor Orville Faubus of Arkansas ran as a moderate on segregation. In 1957, in an apparently politically motivated move, he used the Arkansas National Guard to prevent integration of Little Rock High School. President Eisenhower federalized the Guard and sent them away. Eisenhower then sent in the 101st Airborne Division to protect the students.

In Alabama, George C. Wallace ran for governor as moderate  and lost. He vowed never to lose again, became a staunch segregationist–and won. In 1963, he  “stood in the school house door” at the University of Alabama to block integration, by this action asserting states rights. He backed down to federal marshals and the National Guard.

Vermont’s Governor Peter Shumlin lost the lieutenant governor’s race in 2002, when a Progressive candidate split the vote. For his 2010 run for governor, Shumlin wanted to be sure that no Progressive ran against him. According to political commentators, Shumlin agreed to run on a platform of shutting down Vermont Yankee if the Progressive candidate would not run. Political pundits say that 14 percent of Shumlin’s vote was  from the anti-nuclear block. He won by one percent. The plant’s opponents are talking about mass non-violent civil disobedience, and holding training for it. Will the court have to enjoin the protesters? Will the federal government have to remove them? Meanwhile, Shumlin is sitting in the governor’s chair.

In the 1980s, in another example of federal versus state authority over nuclear power, Massachusetts sued the NRC over its regulations concerning the bordering Seabrook plant in New Hampshire. Massachusetts appealed up to the Supreme Court and lost. The Massachusetts governor was against the plant, and the appeal appeared to his anti-nuclear constituents that he had done all he could. Vermont is expected to appeal all the way for the same reason.

Federal and state regulation

The federal court has made it clear that the NRC has sole regulation of nuclear power plant radiation safety, and that the states have authority on reliability, rates, the environment, esthetics, and the “public good.”

In addition, states share regulatory authority with the federal government in many areas, including nuclear matters, and have the right to do so.

In Vermont, the Department of Health takes measurements and samples around the Vermont Yankee plant, and reports results. It inspects and oversees radiation safety in facilities other than power plants. The state has set a lower limit than the NRC’s for the annual fence line dose.

The Agency for Natural Resources issues permits for water quality, under the federal Clean Water Act.

Those talking about “states rights” don’t seem to notice that regulatory power is being shared. Perhaps they have forgotten what the Civil War settled, even as they pass by the picture in the Cedar Creek Room.

The latest 

Entergy has petitioned the Public Service Board to act on its application for a new or renewed CPG. Now the Vermont Yankee battle moves to a quasi- judicial venue, with the same politics and the same opponents. This time, however, a ruling from a federal judge makes it clear what can and cannot be heard as evidence. The plant is a big step closer to continued operation, but is not there yet.

_______________________________

Shaffer

Howard Shaffer has been an ANS member for 35 years. He has contributed to ASME and ANS Standards committees, ANS committees, national meeting staffs, and his local section, and was the 2001 ANS Congressional Fellow. He is a current member of the ANS Public Information Committee and consults in nuclear public outreach. 

He is coordinator for the Vermont Pilot Project.  Shaffer holds a BSEE from Duke University and an MSNE from MIT. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Entergy, lawsuit, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, View from Vermont

91st Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

Posted on February 12, 2012 by dyurman| Leave a comment

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

Nuclear abstract

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.

# # #

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Carnival of nuclear bloggers, News

Let’s find another word for safety – Entergy v. Vermont in plain English

Posted on February 10, 2012 by pbowersox| 15 Comments

By Tamar Cerafici

Entergy’s Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant’s operating license would have expired on March 21, 2012, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission extended the license to 2032. Vermont’s legislature and a vocal part of the state’s population don’t like the idea of Vermont Yankee’s continued operation. So, when confronted with an unpopular federal agency’s decision, what’s a concerned state legislature to do?

Pass laws against the plant, that’s what. Take as much legislative control over the operation of a privately held, federally licensed merchant nuclear plant as you possibly can. Tell your Public Services Board to consider radiological health as an economic issue. Base these activities on a misreading of a badly written Memorandum of Understanding. Do this during an election year.

There’s a problem with this strategy. It doesn’t work, at least according to Federal District Court Judge Gavan Murtha. On January 19, 2012, Murtha allowed Entergy to operate past the March 2012 deadline imposed by the Vermont legislature. The 102-page, historically rich ruling is instructive and clearly describes Vermont’s intentions about Vermont Yankee. But despite valiant efforts to slip through a preemption discussion, the legislature clearly overstepped its boundaries.

Vermont’s legislative efforts to limit the operation of Vermont Yankee

Better minds than mine have tackled the history of Vermont’s relationship with Entergy and Vermont Yankee. The matter came to a head when the state legislature passed several statutes that essentially prohibited Entergy’s ability to operate the plant after March 21, 2021. To understand Judge Murtha’s ruling and to put to rest any confusion that Vermont’s governor Peter Shumlin may have about it, here is a quick rundown of the offending legislation:

Act 160 enacted three substantive provisions governing Vermont Yankee.

  • The first section (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, § 248(e)(2)) provides that “[n]o nuclear energy generating plant within this state may be operated beyond the date permitted in any certificate of public good . . . unless the general assembly approves and determines that the operation will promote the general welfare.” This section gives Vermont the right to “pocket veto” any application from a nuclear plant for a certificate of public good (CPG), or by inaction allow an existing CPG to lapse. The legislature must pass a law affirmatively allowing continued operation.
  • Another section (248(m)) requires the Public Safety Board to consider current assumptions and analysis—rather than the supporting information for the existing CPG—in any review of a petition for continued nuclear operations.
  • Section 254 requires the board to analyze public health factors in a petition for renewal, including public health issues relating to dry-cask storage of spent fuel.

Act 74 contains provisions that allow Vermont to:

  • Require a CPG before implementing any uprates or construction of a spent fuel storage facility.
  • Requires legislative approval of spent fuel storage derived from the operation of Vermont Yankee after March 21, 2012.

Entergy cried “foul,” claiming that Vermont was preempted from enforcing the legislation, and Judge Murtha agreed.

How can this decision be confusing when the answer’s in the Constitution?

Shumlin, the governor of Vermont and a former legislator, is shocked and has implied that Vermont’s assistant attorney general had been badly outgunned by well-respected Washington, D.C. litigator Kathleen Sullivan. He even complained, “The first consideration is how do you take a disappointing decision that doesn’t make a lot of sense and ensure that you proceed in a way that meets the objectives of the state of Vermont.”

The home-team reaction to the result is a little naive. NRC authority clearly preempts Vermont’s authority to regulate Vermont Yankee’s operation.

The NRC’s power springs from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Before 1787, the former colonies had sovereign power, and joined together in a loose confederation. As every fifth grader knows, this did not work. The states agreed to let Congress decide which powers they (the states) could keep. In other words, federal laws passed by Congress became the “supreme law of the land,” preempting any conflicting state law.

Judge Murtha’s ruling simply follows a long historic line. How is that confusing?

If it looks like a duck ….

There are several tests to determine whether a state’s activities are preempted by federal law. Judge Murtha used all of them. Primarily, the judge used what I call the Duck Test, which I borrow from that great legal philosopher Douglas Adams:

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.

The Vermont legislature tried like crazy to avoid crossing into the NRC’s turf, and they didn’t even try to hide it. In fact, Shumlin and the rest of the legislature knew they were trespassing on federal turf when they crafted the law. Judge Murtha dedicated at least 40 percent of his opinion on legislative bon mots like:

“Okay, let’s find another word for safety.” – Senate Finance Committee Chair

“…we don’t say safety when we’re talking Vermont Yankee in this room.” – unidentified representative

The legislature could consider a “broader range” of issues than the [Public Service] Board, referring to “three-headed turtles and sterile sheep” – unknown senator

“[W]e also intend to change the title, an act relating to an independent audit rather than a safety assessment.” – Sen. Peter Shumlin

“editorial changes … deleting the word safety and putting the word emergency, things like that.” – Chief Legislative Counsel

Witnesses also urged the legislature to assert oversight authority over dry cask storage, because there was “very little faith in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”

Judge Murtha’s decision makes complete sense. His conclusion is straight out of the Federalist Papers. The authority retained by the federal government invalidates any state legislation that conflicts with federal law or authority. So, the NRC’s federal power to regulate safety at nuclear power plants preempts Vermont’s right to legislate a nuclear power plant out of existence.

Whither now?

Entergy must still get its extended CPG to continue operations. The CPG was already leaning toward extension. Vermont’s attorney general can appeal the ruling, but that seems unlikely. Decisions like this are treated with great deference on the appellate level.

Barring any economic decisions from Entergy, it looks like Vermont Yankee will still operate long past March 21.

____________________

Cerafici

Tamar Cerafici is an environmental lawyer practicing in the areas of environmental, nuclear, and sustainable development law. Feel free to use any material in this guest post; just give credit where credit’s due: to Dan Yurman for asking me, and to me for writing it.

→ 15 Comments

Posted in lawsuit, News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, View from Vermont

NRC issues licenses for Southern’s Vogtle project

Posted on February 9, 2012 by dyurman| 8 Comments

By a 4-1 vote, the agency opens the door to $14 billion in new construction of two Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors

By Dan Yurman

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on February 9 in a 4-1 vote cleared the way for its Office of New Reactors to issue a combined construction and operating license (COL) to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company for two 1100-MW Westinghouse AP1000 model reactors to be built at the company’s Vogtle site, in Waynesboro, Ga. (NRC final order) NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko made the one dissenting vote.

The Vogtle site is already home to two existing nuclear reactors owned by Southern that started commercial operations in the late 1980s.

In a statement, Jaczko said that he wanted the COL issued only on the condition that Southern implement the agency’s Fukushima safety agenda. Said Jaczko:

I cannot support the issuing of this license as if Fukushima had not happened.

NRC Commissioner Kristine Svinicki, speaking for the four commissioners who voted in favor of issuing the COL, said that Jaczko was mistaken if he thought that his peers on the NRC had disregarded the Fukishima crisis. In a statement that cut through Jaczko’s dissent like a samurai sword,  she said:

There is no amnesia individually or collectively regarding the events of March 11, 2011, and the ensuing accident at Fukushima.

Svinicki added that there was no recommendation by the NRC staff to amend the COL to take Jaczko’s requirements into account. Said Svinicki:

We found that it would not improve our systematic regulatory approach to Fukushima nor would it make any difference to the safety of operating or planned reactors.

Paradoxically, in December 2011 when the NRC approved the amended design for the AP1000, Jaczko said that he voted for it based on the “enhanced safety margins” provided by “innovative safety and security functions.”

In dissenting against the COL on February 9, however, Jaczko went against the recommendations of his own agency.

New Part 52 process comes in on time

The original application under the new Part 52 rule for the Vogtle site’s COL was submitted in March 2008, followed by a supplemental document submitted in October 2009. True to its word, the NRC reached a decision in just under 48 months. Along the way, the NRC had considered safety and environmental issues and held multiple public hearings to get testimony on them.

An independent review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was submitted in its report in January 2011. The NRC’s final safety evaluation report was completed August 9, 2011.

The NRC previously certified the amended Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design on December 30, 2011.

Economic impacts

NRC spokesman Scott Burnell told financial wire services that the agency will issue the COL immediately, which will kick off a huge construction boom in Georgia. The Shaw Group, which will be building the two units, announced plans to hire 3500 workers for the $14-billion construction phase that is expected to take until 2016 for the first unit and an additional year for the second.


When operating, each reactor will employ about 800-1000 people. The supply chain for components will stretch across the entire United States.

The Vogtle project will be seen as a major test of the ability of Westinghouse and its contractors to bring in the two reactors on time and within budget. Westinghouse is already building four of the new reactors in China, with the first one expected to enter revenue service in 2013.

Tenacity wins

Southern Company chief executive officer Thomas Fanning said in a statement that “this is a historic accomplishment,” and Georgia Power CEO Paul Bowers told the Atlanta Constitution, “We never wavered.”

Marvin Fertel, head of the Nuclear Energy Institute, focused on the historic nature of the decision, the first of its kind in more than three decades. Said Fertel:

Today’s licensing decision sounds a clarion call to the world that the United States recognizes the importance of expanding nuclear energy.

Instant opposition

A coalition of nine anti-nuclear groups announced plans to challenge the NRCs decision. The groups, echoing the views of the NRC’s Jaczko, said that the NRC is violating the law without taking the safety issues associated with Fukushima into account. They said that they would file a lawsuit in federal district court.

The groups also plan to challenge the safety certification of the AP1000 design, and one of the groups plans to challenge the Department of Energy’s $8.3-billion federal loan guarantee for the Vogtle project.

The legal challenges pose a near-term risk to the project as the groups plan to ask the courts to issue an order stopping construction until their case can be heard, which, if granted, could take many months.

What’s next for the nuclear renaissance?

Within the next month, the NRC is expected to issue two more COLs for construction of Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at South Carolina Electric & Gas Company’s (Scana) V.C. Summer nuclear plant in South Carolina. That project is expected to cost about $10 billion. Scana did not apply for a federal loan guarantee. If the license is approved as expected, Scana would complete both of its reactors by 2018.

South Carolina and Georgia have in common a regulated rate structure and the ability of the utilities to request new rates to cover the costs of the construction of the reactors while they are being built. The measures save millions in interest charges.

In related news, the Tennessee Valley Authority said in a financial document issued this week that it expects to complete the Watts Bar-2 reactor in 2014 and that it has issued a construction contract to complete the Bellefonte reactor by 2020. It will start work on Bellefonte once Watts Bar-2 is done. In 2007, TVA completed a reactor at Browns Ferry.

Plans to build new nuclear reactors in states using the merchant model—where costs cannot be recovered until the plant is in revenue service—have faltered, including Calvert Cliffs-3 in Maryland.

Exelon CEO John Rowe said of the Maryland project that the expected long-term low cost of natural gas makes such a nuclear energy investment there “inconceivable” given the speed at which a combined cycle gas plant can be brought online.

Constellation previously walked away from a loan guarantee for Calvert Cliffs-3, citing the high cost of the credit risk premium calculated by the federal government. The risk premium for the Vogtle plant is said by industry sources to be very low in comparison.

Yet, there may be policy changes in the future. In Ohio, for example, the government is reviewing fracking practices after fluid injected in a waste disposal well set off earthquakes near Youngstown. And, at a national level, a future U.S. president and congress may revive carbon taxes.

Nothing is certain today except for the NRC’s vote.

____________

Yurman

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy, and is a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 8 Comments

Posted in News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Wind power to nuclear power infographic comparison

Posted on February 9, 2012 by lscheele| 12 Comments

By Jason Correia

This article is the first in a series of info-graphic presentations about nuclear energy. This graphic compares the energy density of nuclear to that of wind power.

Please click to see a full-sized PDF of this info-graphic poster

Wind power is dilute and variable so some may argue this isn’t a fair comparison. Yet, we often read in news stories about a wind turbine being built that “can supply energy for 300 homes”. This limited information creates a misleading impression that one turbine will produce that power continuously.

If wind power is compared to a yearly megawatt hour (MWh) figure that a nuclear plant can produce, the impression of what wind can power dramatically shifts. The numbers cannot be fully appreciated until they are fully visualized.

Wind generators, or wind turbines, have become a popular symbol of clean carbon free electricity. Unlike other sources of renewable energy such as hydro-electricity or geothermal, wind and solar power are variable producers of electricity. Since the wind does not always blow nor the sun always shine, any given wind turbine will never produce its full capacity rating for an extended period of time.

Capacity factor

The ratio of electricity produced to the quantity it could produce over a year if it was running at full capacity is known as the capacity factor. For wind power, the average capacity factor is 25 percent, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Capacity factor is the feature highlight of this info-graphic poster. To make a graphic representation of how this compares to one nuclear power plant rated at 1154 megawatts (MW), this shows the full count of all 2077 2-MW wind turbines in a 24”x36” poster. This is what would be required to match the nuclear power plant output even if this array of turbines could hypothetically run continuously at only 25 percent of its rated capacity.

The nuclear power plant can run at least at 90 percent of its capacity factor over a year. In fact, it probably could run at 100 percent of its capacity factor for up to 18 months—and this has been done by many nuclear power plants. The 9,000,000+ MWhs it produces could power a city of almost a million people.

To achieve the same result with wind turbines, simply adding more turbines will not necessarily result in a greater amount of electric power or level it out to a continuous flow. Sometimes the wind is slow, non-existent, or even too fast for the turbines to use safely. Thus, this graphic shows a representation of how average wind-power performance could achieve the same amount of power as a nuclear power plant. Unlike a nuclear power plant, however, the output of wind is too variable to power a city. Like most electrical generators, the power output from nuclear and wind are integrated throughout the grid, although wind as a variable source does present some challenges for grid operators.

Placement of wind turbines

Wind turbines on wind farms would not be packed closely together as shown in this graphic. Optimally, wind turbines should be placed at least 7-15 diameter widths apart. Given that one 2-MW turbine can be taller than the Statue of Liberty, this can cover an enormous amount of land area with extremely tall structures. With this imaginary wind farm array, a minimum amount of land area required would be about 318 square miles and could include more for access roads, ground leveling, and tree removals. Wind farms are typically built in groups where the name-plate capacity can be 30-50 MW by 10-30 or more turbines. Thus, we will never see a group of 2077 2-MW (4154 MW name-plate capacity) wind turbines.

The 1154-MW nuclear power plant can typically occupy about 50 acres of land, often with a buffer space of land area of at least 1 square mile. The nuclear plant in this graphic is shown without an optional cooling tower, which can be up to 200 meters high.

The purpose of this graphic is to show a visual comparison of wind power to nuclear power with respect to capacity factors. Although there are many other factors to compare, capacity factor is a straightforward data-driven comparison that is an easy concept to understand—but often overlooked.
___________________________________

Correia

Jason Correia is an independent graphic artist and web designer who has worked on projects with PopAtomic Studios and Atomic Insights. He is dedicated to producing innovative and creative graphics and presentations to promote nuclear energy education and awareness. He has a BA in Industrial Design from San Francisco State.

→ 12 Comments

Posted in infographic, Nuclear Literacy Project, wind power

How to Survive an NRC Public Meeting

Posted on February 8, 2012 by lscheele| 6 Comments

By Suzy Hobbs Baker

Several weeks ago in the quiet community of Gaffney, South Carolina, I attended a public meeting held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to discuss the potential environmental impact of Duke Energy’s proposed William States Lee III site. About 100 anti-nuclear activists also descended on the meeting.

The funny thing about this meeting is that of the dozens of people who spoke out against the proposed nuclear plant, not a single one of them was from Cherokee County, which is the location of the Lee III site. In fact, the vast majority of them were not even native to South Carolina. This was a group of volunteers organized by professional anti-nuclear activists who were bused down from Asheville, North Carolina. Many who spoke had well-rehearsed speeches about sick children, multi-billion dollar proposals that benefitted their own solar companies, and even one very long “Occupy” chant that had little to do with anything as far as I could tell.

This is not the first time that activists based in western North Carolina have organized against nuclear projects in other communities, in other states. In fact, it has become protocol. In the past two years, activists from the Asheville area have hiked to Oak Ridge, Tenn., to protest, bused to the Savannah River Site, S.C., to speak to the Blue Ribbon Commission, flown to Florida to fight the Crystal River nuclear power plant, and donned zombie costumes in Knoxville, Tenn. I’m sure that some American Nuclear Society members have had experiences with these same activists in the past.

So, why do I care about these anti-nuclear activities, and why should you?

I’ll start by explaining why this particular meeting was important to me. The Lee nuclear project will be built 15 miles from where my husband and I just bought our first home. We are located in the rural region between Greenville and Spartanburg, S.C., near the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. This beautiful area has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, as well as one of the highest poverty rates in the state (20.6 percent in Cherokee County, more than double the national average).

A 2006 survey published in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance suggests that building a new nuclear plant is one of the best ways for a community to grow. Like the majority of local citizens, I would love to see new jobs, flourishing cultural activities, and increasing home values. Sadly, this vision for future prosperity was overshadowed by the chanting, hollering masses of activists during this particular meeting (the presence of four armed guards suggests that things have gotten quite heated during past meetings at this location).

Unfortunately, my experience was not the exception but the rule when it comes to these meetings. Anti-nuclear activists have found effective ways to disrupt the NRC’s public comment periods, and to create a false sense of community opposition to nuclear projects. This often translates into real delays in licensing and construction, increased cost, and sometimes litigation, which are serious reasons why nuclear professionals should care about how we respond as citizens and as an industry.

It would be fabulous if the NRC would implement a few common sense guidelines to make public meetings more community focused, and less of a circus. Simple steps like reserving comments at public meetings for community members, and asking out-of-state citizens to submit their comments by mail or email would add value to this process.

Of course, I don’t see this happening any time soon, so I wanted to share some tips on how to survive an NRC public meeting. Many nuclear professionals understandably avoid these meetings, but the reality is that with new nuclear builds in the works, we should all become actively engaged in this process:

  1. Take a tip from the opposition and think of public meetings as a social event. Call your like-minded friends and family; go out for a nice meal together before or after the meeting.
  2. Use your local network. Send an email out to your ANS chapter, as well as other non-profits you may be a member of (NA-YGN, WiN, etc.). The more the merrier!
  3. Call the NRC in advance and request a table. And bring cookies. Seriously, sweets go a long way in win hearts and minds. So does smiling, it’s very effective.
  4. No suits! If you are attending a public meeting as a citizen, then dress like a citizen. Grab your favorite pro-nuke t-shirt, or something colorful and casual.
  5. This is more of a lesson learned, and is a little harder to pull-off, but it can be achieved by arriving a few minutes early and asking nicely of the NRC. For example, if you have a group of a dozen people, and you all sign up to make a comment, request to be spread out through the meeting. Then, as accusations and false information arise, you can take notes and directly counter particularly inflammatory statements.

In case you are ready to go kill ‘em with kindness and cookies at the next NRC meeting, here is the schedule.

And finally—as proof that with a little planning, an NRC meeting can actually be fun—here are some pictures of our crew of nuclear supporters in Gaffney last month.

Our outreach table with free t-shirts and cookies!

From left: Suzy Hobbs Baker (PopAtomic), Jennifer Saucier (NA-YGN), Rod Adams (Atomic Insights), Kasey Baker (PopAtomic), Brian Dyke (ANS Savannah River Section)

NA-YGN Carolina Chapter

 

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Nuclear Literacy Project, nuclear opponents, PopAtomic

Not so strange bedfellows – Sierra Club accepts natural gas money

Posted on February 7, 2012 by radams| 14 Comments

By Rod Adams

On February 2, 2012, Time Magazine’s Ecocentric blog published a post titled Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry—and Why They Stopped that has rocked the environmental community and the established energy industry. The story included the shocking news that the Sierra Club had accepted donations from Chesapeake Energy or its executives totaling nearly $26 million during the period from 2007-2010.

Some longtime members of the Sierra Club have expressed feelings of betrayal; Chesapeake Energy is one of the largest domestic natural gas producers in the United States with most of its production based on using the increasingly controversial technique of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). A number of concerned environmentalists and local chapters of the Sierra Club worked hard for several years to convince Carl Pope, Michael Brune, and the rest of the Club’s national leadership to take a principled stand against fracking.

What they saw instead was their national leadership promoting new technologies for producing natural gas alongside people like Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake Energy’s chief executive officer, and T. Boone Pickens. The Club’s official policy on fracking was that it could be done responsibly and safely and that with plenty of regulation it could be a bridge to a renewable energy future.

Finally, as the industry matures, a series of best management practices will emerge, some already identified, some evolving with time. These best management practices should, to the maximum extent possible, be swiftly incorporated into regulatory requirements as they are developed. The Club opposes any unconventional or conventional drilling projects that do not comply with best management practices, even in regions where state or federal law may permit lower standards of environmental management.

The Club will use these standards as a yardstick for any regulatory reform efforts it undertakes or supports, and to judge which new drilling projects, if any, cause unacceptable environmental damage and warrant opposition.

Chapters are encouraged to press for effective regulatory frameworks to control the impacts of deep shale gas and may oppose specific projects that are inappropriately sited or that fail to comply with best management practices.

Board of Directors, December 21, 2009

Now, perhaps the disillusioned members will see the real politik reason why they did not get the support they expected from their globe-trotting leaders.

Michael Brune, who took over as the Sierra Club’s executive director in early 2010, published a blog post titled Sierra Club and Natural Gas that describes his decision to stop taking donations that are tightly linked to the natural gas industry.

By the time I assumed leadership of the Club in March 2010, our view of natural gas had changed—so I made sure our policy did, too. We created a strong natural gas campaign comprised of staff and volunteer leaders. Some chapters sought to establish tough safeguards at the state and federal level to protect their air and water; others sought to suspend fracking completely until those standards were in place. By mid-August 2010, with gas industry practices and our policies increasingly in conflict, I recommended to the Board, and it agreed, to end the funding relationship between the Club and the gas industry, and all fossil fuel companies or executives.

Unfortunately for Brune, words and videos published on the Internet do not disappear and can be recalled with a few simple searches. Before his action to stop taking natural gas industry funding in August 2010, Brune appeared on Jim Cramer’s Mad Money with some words that were welcome to the people who believe that natural gas is a terrific fuel for electrical power plants. That was not an isolated event; Brune made the following statement in November 2010:

Concerns about natural gas extraction have been on the rise not just in Dimock, but in places across the country, from West Virginia to Texas to Wyoming. And yet even given these important issues, natural gas still has a relatively lighter footprint than coal or oil. Gas is not a clean fuel, but it can be cleaner.

(Emphasis added.)

It would be difficult for Brune to prove that those positive words were not influenced by the generous contributions that Chesapeake Energy was providing to the Sierra Club.

This story, however, should not be seen as an isolated incident, but as part of a continuing effort within the energy industry to use whatever means are available to obtain a favorable position in one of the world’s largest, most profitable, and competitive commodity businesses. Here is a quote from an email written by Jim Gibson, a member of Chesapeake’s communications group:

Over the years, Chesapeake has been proud to support a number of organizations that share our interest in clean air and agree that America’s abundant supplies of clean natural gas represent the most affordable, available and scalable fuel to power a more prosperous and environmentally responsible future for our country.

Read that carefully. Here is my paraphrase: Chesapeake has supported a number of organizations that agree that natural gas is the best fuel to power our country’s future. Their funding efforts have not just been limited to the Sierra Club and have not just been limited to efforts to fight coal. Some free market focused observers find nothing inherently disturbing about efforts to obtain competitive advantage through arguably sneaky means:

Hey… this ain’t bean bag.

See… I could at least respect that. NG competes with coal, and you do what you need to do in order to gain an edge in a very competitive market. But jumping in bed with the Sierra Club? That leads to big problems, mostly because our recent success in natural gas exploration relies largely on fracking and other developing technologies.

Here is the important part of this story for nuclear energy advocates to understand. Our technology competes with both natural gas and coal for market share in the lucrative energy business.

The Sierra Club has a well known aversion to nuclear energy and has not been shy about doing all it can to halt the growth of nuclear energy and to speed the early termination of as many operating nuclear power plants as possible. The acknowledged financial relationship between the Sierra Club and the natural gas industry may be a partial explanation for the reason why an organization that has placed fighting climate change near the top of its priority list is such an ardent opponent to the most reliable form of virtually emission-free power in favor of a fuel that is only “low carbon” in comparison to coal.

We all might benefit from an improved understanding of the world if more journalists pull this thread to determine if there are other questionable financial relationships between groups with ardent stances against nuclear energy and industries that stand to benefit from reduced competition with nuclear energy developments.

Final note: I wrote about Chesapeake’s financial support for anti-coal efforts for Atomic Insights in December 2010.

_____________________________

Adams

Rod Adams is a pro-nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Adams is a former engineer officer, USS Von Steuben. He is the host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast. Adams has been an ANS member since 2005. He writes about nuclear technology at his own blog, Atomic Insights.

→ 14 Comments

Posted in Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, nuclear opponents