Nuclear Blogger Carnival 256, Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Once again, we are proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers, right here at Yes Vermont Yankee.  The Carnival is a compendium of nuclear blogs that rotates from blog site to blog site, and it is always a pleasure and an honor to host it.

Today is Carnival Number 256.   That's a neat number…it is two to the eighth power.  I've always  liked this number: perhaps because it is so easy to remember.  The Carnival Carnival is posted regularly, once a week. Therefore, this number also represents almost five years of Carnivals:  a true tribute to nuclear blogger perseverance and community spirit!

The News from Asia

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi goes shopping. From Neutron Bytes by Dan Yurman

The prime minister's short list includes nuclear reactors from France and uranium from Canada

One of the things the head of state gets to do when on an international, multi-nation trip is draw up a list of things to buy and bring home. In terms of a trip to France, this isn’t about bringing back vintage wines. For India’s POM Modi, it is about finally settling on the terms of a long pending contract for six nuclear reactors in Jaitapur, and getting the uranium to fuel them, which top the list

Evaporation is not the answer to Fukushima’s Tritium issue.  From Hiroshima Syndrome Fukushima

Commentary by Les Corrice

It seems Tepco will look into any possibility for the reduction of Tritium-laced waters being stored at F. Daiichi in order to dull the pain from the constant socio-political bashing they suffer. However, the latest consideration is nothing more than an exercise in futility… the use of atmospheric evaporation instead of release to the sea.

The West Coast Story

Anti-Nuclear Climate Inaction: California. Northwest Clean Energy blog. Post by Andrew Benson of California, which was originally posted at Actinide Age blog.

The consequences of losing nuclear energy resources: this is a great piece by Andrew Benson via The Actinide Age.  San Onofre closed.  In consequence, greenhouse gas emissions from electricity spiked 35% while bureaucrats talked about replacement by "preferred resources" that may well never be brought on-line.  This post is well-written, well-researched, and worth reading.

Is There Fukushima Radiation on North America’s West Coast? (Updated April 11, 2015) Hiroshima Syndrome blog by Les Corrice

Recently updated post on Fukushima contamination on the Pacific Coast. The post now reflects this week's initial discovery of innocuous cesium traces in shore samples taken at Vancouver Island in Canada.

EN executive board members recognized for service  Northwest Clean Energy blog, by Kevin Shaub

The Pacific Northwest basically runs on public power. In this post, Energy Northwest honors two of its board members who will receive public service awards at the Northwest Public Power Association  (NWPPA) annual conference.  Executive Board Chairman Sid Morrison will receive the Paul J. Raver community service award, while Executive Board Member Senator Tim Sheldon will receive NWPPA’s John M. George public service award.

Can We Learn From History?

Atom and the Fault  Atomic Insights blog, by Rod Adams

Rod Adams introduces a 1984 book by Richard Meehan titled The Atom and the Fault: Experts, Earthquakes and Nuclear Power. 

Meehan is a geotechnical engineer who participated in several controversial nuclear plant projects in California, including Bodega Head, Malibu, and Diablo Canyon. Though the book discusses all of those projects, its unifying narrative centers around the six year long effort to renew the license for the GE Test Reactor at Vallecitos.

There is a new smoking gun included. (Note: "Smoking Gun" is Rod's keyword when he describes an example of the fossil fuel industry's efforts to destroy or discredit nuclear energy.)

Nuclear Anniversaries--April  Another Exceptional Month Nuke Power Talk blog by Gail Marcus

SNAP 10A
1960s

Gail Marcus continues her series on nuclear anniversaries at Nuke Power Talk by reporting on major developments in the history of nuclear power that took place during the month of April.  Drawn from her book, Nuclear Firsts:  Milestones on the Road to Nuclear Power Development, the historical firsts during the month of April range from underground to outer space, from nuclear power plants in their infancy to their "mature years," and more.  And April 15 marks two different milestones!

TVA backs away from Bellefonte  Neutron Bytes blog by Dan Yurman

The giant utility says won’t fund completion of the 1260 MW plant

In a new Integrated Resource Plan released for public comment this week, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) said it no longer has plans to finish the partially complete Bellefonte Unit I nuclear reactor for which construction started in 1974.  With this decision the utility’s work to finish Watts Bar II later this year may turn out to be the last large reactor project at TVA for quite some time.

Is There Anything As Effective As Nuclear in Cutting Carbon Emissions? Well, no.  Can We Learn From History?

This is a useful cap

Cap and trade fiddling while the world burns: CO2 concentration spikes to unprecedented level  Canadian Energy Issues by Steve Aplin

Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues reviews the problems plaguing two of the world's longtime carbon cap and trade systems and wonders why cap-and-trade remains such an automatic go-to plank in the green policy platform.

San Onofre reactions: The Accurate, the Mixed, and the Ugly

The Accurate and the Mixed

In the post at ANS Nuclear Café today, there's an accurate analysis of the San Onofre shutdown: Environmental Impact Evaluation--Seeing the Bigger (Nuclear vs. Fossil) Picture. In this post, Jim Hopf discusses various issues, including San Onofre. Among other things, he notes that old fossil-burning plants at Huntington Beach have been brought out of retirement to make up for San Onofre's power. As Hopf says:  the shutdown will  result in ~2000 MW of additional fossil fueled generation for several decades.

For a mixed analysis, let's go to NEI Nuclear Notes, with an blog post that quotes many California newspapers on the closing: Reactions to San Onofre Closing: It "ought to jolt the governor."  The Sacramento Bee admits:  The plant cannot be replaced solely with sun and wind, at least not with current technology. The Bee notes that Senator Boxer hails the shut-down. The article also notes that the possibility of rolling blackouts: ought to jolt the governor [Jerry Brown], the official who will be held most responsible if California faces rolling blackouts this summer and beyond, as happened during [former Gov.] Gray Davis' truncated tenure. 

Ah yes, I remember it well.  I lived in California during the earlier set of rolling blackouts.

However, according to a recent article in the San Luis Obispo paper, the California System Operator does not expect rolling blackouts due to the plant shutdown. They expect to make up the loss of power with gas systems, renewables, and transmission lines. Earlier articles on the shut-down focused on how tight electrical resources are likely to be: this article is more reassuring. Meanwhile, Jim Hopf's statement at ANS Nuclear Café remains true: closing San Onofre means more fossil generation.

The Mixed and the Ugly: The debate at Huffington Post Live

Yesterday, the Huffington Post Live (webstreaming) sponsored a discussion about San Onofre.  This was an excellent idea.  Instead of reading short quotes, you can hear several people discuss the closing. The four people were:

• S. David Freeman, a former nuclear regulator (against nuclear energy)
• Steve Kerekes, spokesperson, Nuclear Energy Institute
• Jim Riccio, Greenpeace, antinuclear activist 
• Ben Bergman, Reporter, KPCC

I think it always helps to hear people speak directly. The moderator, Jacob Soboroff, kept things going and prevented anybody from hogging the spotlight for too long.  I have embedded the debate below.  If you want to see the comment stream from the listeners (138 comments, including a few from me) you need to go to the web page.

So why do I call this debate "mixed" and "ugly"?  The idea was good, the moderator was good, and so forth.  What more do I want?

The Ugly

My main problem was that Mr. Freeman made the most outrageous assertions and was seldom challenged.

• Early in the debate, Freeman claims that renewable power is a better choice nowadays because now we have storage options for electricity. Huh?  We do?  
• Later, he speaks of cogeneration without mentioning that  cogeneration generally depends on a fossil fuel source being burned within an industrial facility. 
• Similarly, Freeman talks about getting heat and cooling directly from the earth, without bothering to mention heat pumps. Heat pumps are run by electricity.

I expect Riccio to say things about nuclear power that are not true: this doesn't surprise me.  But the Freeman statements bothered me.  Over and over again, Freeman spoke as if there's a free lunch out there: there's grid-level storage, there's co-generation (without mentioning fossil fuels), there's heat right from the earth!

There is no free lunch, Mr. Freeman.  Sorry.

Face Time and Faces

I congratulate Steve Kerekes of NEI for his excellent job at answering some of Freeman's statements. For example, Freeman claimed that large plants decrease the reliability of the grid. Kerekes answered that was a funny thing to say when you had the kind of grid reliability we have had in this country.

However, in order to answer the endless assertions of Freeman and Riccio, Kerekes would have had to take all the time of the discussion. This was clearly impossible.

Another thing: Riccio, Bergman and Kerekes had webcams aimed at them, and you can see them speaking.  Webcams are easily available, but Freeman didn't use one.  Instead of facing a camera,  Freeman chose to show a picture of himself in a cowboy hat. Therefore, you can't read his face as he spoke.  Did Freeman know he was saying some things that weren't true? I wish I could have seen his face on-camera.

More discussions please!

Enjoy the debate discussion below, and go to the web site if you want to see the viewer comments.  We need more of these multi-person events.  I am glad that Huffington Post Live arranged this one.

160th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs: Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Carnival carousel

Some gloom, some light

On Friday, the owners of  San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) announced that they would close the station and decommission it.  That was a very gloomy end to the week.  I had volunteered to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs.  Was I in for a miserable experience, documenting much wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Well, no.  The SONGS closing is a huge piece of bad news, but it is far from the only news in the nuclear world.  So here we go.  Let's start with SONGS.

The SONGS closing (gloom section)

SONGS

SONGS to retire, decommission, posted by Will Davis at ANS Nuclear Café.
The latest news on the recent decision to retire the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California. The post includes information from a press teleconference held by Southern California Edison, and many explanatory links.

San Onofre Closing Wasn't Necessary, posted by Meredith Angwin at Yes Vermont Yankee.

I was a project manager at the Electric Power Research Institute, in the Steam Generator group.  In my post about San Onofre, I assert and explain that the closing simply wasn't necessary.  It shouldn't take the NRC more than a year to determine whether a plant can be run safely at reduced power.  My post also has explanatory links.

The rest of the nuclear world (non-gloom section)

Nuclear Uprates in the U.S., and a new reactor in China. Posted by Brian Wang of Next Big Future.

NextEra Energy has just completed 700 MW of reactor uprates at six plants.  Meanwhile, in China, a 1080 MWe PWR just began commercial operation.

New Tepco groundwater study confirms that isotopic levels are negligible Posted by Les Corrice at Hiroshima Syndrome/ Fukushima Commentary.
Japan's Press says Tepco's recent report of the actual levels of Cesium in F. Daiichi groundwater is a reversal of their previous assessment of it being negligible. To the contrary, the new assessment proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the cesium value in the groundwater is indeed negligible.

Carnival fireworks

Pandora's Promise--The Sundance Film Festival's Nuclear Exposé Posted by James Conca at Forbes.
Academy award-nominated director Robert Stone has premiered a new look at nuclear energy, at the Sundance Film Festival.  The film is due to open in theaters all over America the week of June 12.

Questions and Answers about Nuclear Power Posted by Jessica Lovering of the Breakthrough Institute at ANS Nuclear Café.
The Breakthrough Institute recently compiled some of the tough questions it is frequently asked about nuclear power by fellow environmentalists.  Many careful explanations of how nuclear energy helps the environment, compared to the alternatives.

Vermont Yankee Gets Permission to Install Diesel Posted by Meredith Angwin at Yes Vermont Yankee.
Sometimes "Moot" is good.  The Public Service Board (PSB) was delaying and dragging their feet about allowing Vermont Yankee to install a necessary back-up diesel. When Vermont Yankee sued the PSB in federal court, the PSB decided to give permission for the generator installation. This rendered the federal court case "moot".

Washington Internships for Students of Engineering Posted by Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk.
At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus follows up on an earlier blog in which she discussed a technology policy internship for engineering majors from different schools across the country.  She now reports that this year, she will be serving as the faculty member in residence for the program, and she hopes to provide input from time to time during the summer on how engineering students respond to what they learn this summer about how the government handles technical issues.

-----

Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.

Too often, the nuclear industry in the United States is the bug: for example, SONGs.  But even in the U.S., there is good news: Pandora's Promise is opening, new internships for engineering students, power uprates at existing plants.  And when you look abroad, the situation is even better.

Enjoy the Carnival!

San Onofre Closing Wasn't Necessary

I was a project manager in the Steam Generator Owner's Group at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).  In other words, I am a steam generator expert.

Which led me to a bit of an email battle yesterday about the Southern California Edison decision to close the San Onofre nuclear plants (SONGS). The question under debate was whether the NRC was being reasonable in saying they needed a year to determine whether SONGS would be able to re-open.   My friend said that the delay would improve safety.  I felt the NRC was being unreasonable.

Here is my email to my friend.  I include background and links at the end of the post.

---------

Well, let's say that I am not sure about the existence of "technical questions of safety."  The tube wear issue was caused by an unexpected vibration mode in the steam generators, and changing the power to 70% changes the vibration pattern.  Changing the power output should put the SONGS steam generators into an operational mode in which that type of vibration will not happen.

Also, unless quite a few steam generator tubes break at once, a tube break is not a safety issue that should affect anyone outside the plant. Operating at a lower power is less likely to cause a tube rupture in the first place, and SONGS was going to check the condition of the tubes after six months of lower-power operation.  I would bet a bunch of money (if I could) that the tubes would be fine after the six month test. Then they could run the plant longer.   I don't know why the NRC needs over a year to look at the safety implications of operating a plant at lower power.  It seems excessive to me, and I don't mind saying so.

Look, I am not saying it's a just a public-relations problem or that the utility or the steam generator supplier did everything right and they are being picked on by the NRC, etc.  I am just saying that we have forgotten some basic facts about how steam generators work.

And we may have forgotten some basic facts about the NRC, which may yet lead to closing more plants and never licensing new ones.  The NRC takes insane amounts of time to do anything, and is very vulnerable to intervenor pressures.  For example, they reviewed the Duane Arnold relicense in about two years, and they took over five years for Vermont Yankee. These two are sister plants, but

Los Angeles Smog, 2005

the Arnold plant is not in Vermont.  We have more intervenors, so the NRC takes more time. If you don't believe this is part of the issue in CA, you are naive.

Oh by the way.  Some of the first engineering  projects I worked on were funded by CARB and EPA, about trying to cut NOx pollution in the LA basin.  Gonna be fun, replacing SONGS with gas-burners in that neck of the woods.  I absolutely hate it.  It didn't have to happen.

--------

SONGS Background

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station  (SONGS) consists of three separate plants, two of which were operating and one was retired. The two operating plants added up to more than 2000 MW of capacity. In January 2012, after excessive tube wear was discovered in newly-purchased steam generators, Southern California Edison took SONGS off-line for more inspections and possible changes. The wear was due to an unexpected form of vibration, which caused some tubes to rub against each other.  Edison submitted a plan to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for restarting one of the reactors: the unit would run at lower power (70% power) which should eliminate the vibration.  It would run at this power for five months, and then be carefully inspected.

After a request by anti-nuclear groups, the NRC determined that the proposal to limit SONGS Unit 2 to 70% power would require the plant to obtain a license amendment. The license amendment process requires public hearings and would take more than a year. The NRC made this decision in May.

Faced with this delay and uncertainty about the NRC process, on June 7 (yesterday), Southern California Edison said it would permanently close the two SONGS units.

References:  

Matt Wald of the New York Times on closing San Onofre

Will Davis at ANS Nuclear Cafe on closing San Onofre: Excellent overview and links

Will Davis blog post on Steam Generator Design, at his blog, Atomic Power Review

My post on Steam Generator Design and Testing, also at Atomic Power Review

Bloomberg news on regulatory battles on shut-down costs
Nuclear Energy Institute blog post on the need for a predictable regulatory process

Let me finish with a quote from Will Davis at ANS Nuclear Cafe.  He sums up the situation beautifully:

Some might quickly respond that it was technical problems that killed the plant. Perhaps in the bigger picture, this is correct; but in the earlier days of nuclear energy, quite a large number of technical problems were encountered in nuclear plants and overcome after testing periods. 

As I said above: This shutdown didn't have to happen.

Guest Post on San Onofre by Nuclear Engineer Ken Schultz. Steam generators not a safety issue

Combustion Engineering steam generators
are similar to this Westinghouse version

I recently blogged about how I "told you so" about the San Onofre Steam Generators: Steam Generator Thoughts and Future. I told you so. I noted that the new steam generators have problems, and I referenced my previous predictions that the SONGS plants will be restarted with lower water speeds and lower power output.

On October 9, the NRC held a public meeting near the plant.  (Here's the L A Times report.) At the NRC meeting, a set of panelists expressed their views on the steam generator issues, followed by questions from the audience.  One of the panelists was Ken Schultz, who is a nuclear engineer and a registered professional engineer in the state of California. Dr. Schultz has graciously allowed me to use his opening statement as a guest post.  A summary of his statement might be: "Steam generator tube ruptures at San Onofre will not be a safety issue."

Remarks to NRC Pubic Meeting, Tuesday 9 October 2012 on San Onofre Steam Generator Tube Leakage

Dr. Kenneth R Schultz, Ph.D., P.E.

Hi, I’m Ken Schultz and I live in Leucadia about 25 miles downwind of San Onofre.  I am a Registered Professional Nuclear Engineer and retired a year ago after a 40 year career at General Atomics, working on a variety of nuclear projects.  I have never worked for Southern California Edison nor for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.  I have no financial ties to either of them and am not being paid to attend this meeting, something I’m get used to being retired.  My knowledge about SONGS comes from my general training as a nuclear engineer and from the press.  I am the chair of the local Section of the American Nuclear Society, which is the professional technical association for people working in all aspects of nuclear energy.  Our members include people throughout Southern California, including people working at SONGS.  My remarks today are my personal opinions and do not necessarily represent positions of the ANS

We are here to discuss the NRC’s current regulatory oversight status of SONGS.  I have interacted with members of the NRC during my career and have always found them to be technically skilled, extremely conscientious and critical of all data and conclusions given to them.  In my interactions with them on advanced nuclear reactor designs, they were always interested in new designs with improved safety characteristics, and encouraged their investigation.  I have no doubt that the NRC staff are applying the same skills and dedication to their oversight of San Onofre.

I am concerned that the press is saying the NRC thinks this may be a long investigation.  I think it’s important to keep perspective that the size of the investigation is consistent with the size of the risk.  A case in point is the SONGS steam generators situation.  These are clearly important pieces of equipment and cost a great deal.  They appear to have been incorrectly designed and to be wearing out prematurely.

Now, everything in a nuclear power plant must be investigated from a safety perspective, but the steam generators appear to not be a serious safety issue.  Based on the tiny radiation dose that resulted from the failure of the Unit 3 steam generator tube, I estimate that even if all the 515 steam generator tubes that are affected by the premature wear problem were to fail simultaneously, the radiation released to a person standing at the worst place on the site boundary for the full duration of the accident would result in a dose of less than 1 µSv.  Let’s put that in perspective. Low doses of radiation are a natural part of our environment.  Life on earth evolved in the constant presence of low level radiation.  Every year each of us living in Southern California receives about 3,000 µSv of radiation from cosmic rays, radioactive minerals in the earth and our food, and from medical and dental x-rays.  If we live at higher elevation, like Denver, we’d receive about 6,000 µSv/year.  If we fly a lot we’ll get an extra 2,000 µSv/year.

So that extra µSv from a steam generator accident would be like spending less than a day in the mountains, or taking less than one airline flight.  I don’t see this as a safety issue.  Further, there is growing scientific evidence that low level doses of radiation are not only not harmful, but may be beneficial in stimulating the body’s cellular repair systems. Again, I don’t see the steam generator problem as a safety issue and urge the NRC to proceed with their investigation.

San Onofre Thoughts and Future. I told you so.

New Steam Generator Support Plates
picture courtesy of Areva

Steam Generators in my life

When I was project manager at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), my speciality was corrosion prevention in steam generators.  Due to this background, I am very interested in the problems at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) new steam generators.  I care, even though SONGS is far away from Vermont.

SONGS problems are due to vibration, and my expertise was materials and water chemistry.  But still. The Steam Generator Project Office was a pretty small group at EPRI: there were about ten of us.  We all learned about everything concerned with steam generators. We held formal seminars for our utility sponsors, and we had informal talks and seminars within the group.  EPRI wouldn't have asked me to perform a vibrational analysis (I'm a chemist), but we all discussed the steam generator research results.

Steam Generators at SONGS

SONGS recently replaced its steam generators, but the new ones didn't work well.  They showed a great deal tube-to-tube wear. Due to vibration, the tubes bump into each other and fret each other.

The steam generators at Unit 3 suffered a lot of  tube-to-tube wear, and one tube even had a small leak. Due to the leak, the operators shut the plant down.

Unit 2, on the other hand, had only two tubes with indications of significant tube-to-tube wear. These tubes have been plugged.  Five hundred more tubes were plugged as a preventative measure.  Steam generators have huge numbers of tubes (more then 9700 tubes per generator at SONGS).  When a generator is built, it is assumed that a certain percentage of tubes will be plugged over the lifetime of the plant.  The tube plugging at Unit 2 is a lot for a young plant, but hardly near any kind of limit.  Five hundred tubes is about 2% of the tubes.

Aerial view of SONGS from Wikipedia

Will more tubes need plugging in the near future? Probably not. Edison plans to stop the vibration by changing the water velocities.  The plant will be run at 70% power, and be checked after half an operating cycle.  This should fix the problem.

I think the most complete description of the tube situation is in the letter from Southern California Edison to the NRC, explaining how the NRC criteria for restarting Unit 2 will be addressed.   More information can be found at the SONGS site: the Information Package is especially readable.

Vibration at SONGS Or "I Told You So"

Luckily, vibration problems are usually comparatively easy to fix.  Change the speed of the liquid, and the vibrational mode will change.  It can be as simple as that.

In April, I wrote a guest post at Atomic Power Review: San Onofre and Steam Generator Design. In this post, I wrote:

The root cause analysis will come up with something vibration connected. 

To cure it, some kind of derating of water flow (primary side and/or secondary side) with ameliorate the problem well enough to keep the generators in operation while the owners and the manufacturers sue each other. The generators will be replaced early.

Well, the last part hasn't happened, but the first part is on its way.

In July, a post at my own blog called San Onofre, Gundersen and Vermont Yankee received quite a few comments. In the comment section, I predicted that San Onofre would be back on-line in a few months---except that it might take a long time to convince the NRC that the new vibrational models were correct.  This also seems to be exactly what is happening.

Also, starting Unit 3 will be harder much harder than starting Unit 2, because the damage at Unit 3 was greater when discovered.  My crystal ball was good, but not perfect.

Am I Being Boastful?

Well, yes I am.  The vibrational problems at Unit 2 are solvable, just as I predicted.

I am tired of those who predict doom claiming to always be right, while people who know something about nuclear power, and people who predict good things on occasion--we don't bother to take any credit.

In other words, I'm not boastful.  I am just standing up for  the nuclear industry!

Oh.  Okay. I'm boastful. In other words: "I told you so."

-----

More Resources

• Atomic Power Review on how steam generators are designed
• Atomic Power Review on SONGS, with good links
• Atomic Power Review, my guest post on Steam Generator development at EPRI
• Rod Adams on whether nuclear power has been captured by overly-conservative group-think.  
• SONGS website on issues, with many links to documents.
• Find out about NRC meeting yesterday by searching on twitter for #SanOnofre

Next Big Future: Carnival of Nuclear Energy 125

Next Big Future: Carnival of Nuclear Energy 125.  Once again, Brian Wang has put together an excellent Carnival.

Uranium 233 as a resource for the future; Japan's new nuclear safety authority (is it good enough?); x-rays and science; the use of nuclear "waste" to promote safety and health; detailed post on potential San Onofre restart; public pro-nuclear activities in Tennessee, Quebec and Japan; new plants under construction...in Japan; and the closing of a library (the Nuclear Information Library)..also in Japan.

Come to the Carnival. You never know what you will find there!   But it is fun to take the trip!

San Onofre and Gundersen and Vermont Yankee

When I was in the nuclear power industry, I was a specialist in preventing corrosion in steam generators in pressurized water reactors.  Recently, replacement steam generators at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) showed unusual wear, and Arnie Gundersen wrote that this was because the replacement generators weren't just like the old steam generators. They even used a new alloy!

This assertion steamed me a bit (pardon the pun) because the whole point of the research we did at the steam generator project office at EPRI was to improve steam generators.  Replacement steam generators aren't supposed to be just like the old steam generators, they are supposed to be better.

Steam Generators

In April, Will Davis of Atomic Power Review asked me to write a guest post about steam generator research and improvements. I did, and the post got a lot of hits.

Writing the post for Atomic Power Review also meant I get some invitations and phone calls based on my steam generator knowledge. Recently, the NRC has issued various reports about the San Onofre steam generators, and I received an invitation to a conference call yesterday.

I was invited to a Southern California Edison conference call about the steam generators. This call was very informative, and Dan Yurman of Idaho Samizdat has written a clear, well-researched post about the NRC reports, San Onofre, and what we learned at the conference call.  It is going to take a lot of work to figure out the next steps at San Onofre, but nobody is in danger, and (I believe) SONGS will be back on line in a few months. Yurman's well-referenced post, A Long Hot Summer Ahead for SONGS does not underestimate the problems SONGS faces.  However, Yurman's post  is  a good antidote to overblown negative predictions.

Arnie Gundersen has been supported by Friends of the Earth to write reports on San Onofre.  It should surprise nobody that his reports put the worst possible spin on the San Onofre steam generator problems.

Gundersen and Vermont Yankee

On the conference call, someone from Southern California said that Gundersen supports continued operation of Vermont Yankee.

"What what what what what?" I sputtered.  Gundersen supporting VY was news to me! After all, I debated Gundersen about 18 months ago.  I took the "Keep Vermont Yankee Running" side of the debate, and Gundersen took the side of "Shut Vermont Yankee Down." Here's a link to a blog post with a video of the debate.  If you watch even a little of this debate, you would hardly think that Gundersen supports the continued operation of Vermont Yankee. What on earth were these people talking about?

Well, they were talking about what Gundersen said on a radio show in California.   To listen to his words, you have to go to this KPBS web page, then go to the KPBS Midday Edition, and then move the cursor to the 8 minute mark (more or less).  Alternatively, I will simply transcribe the section for you, below.

Interviewer: Arnie, I introduced you as a nuclear consultant, but just to be clear. Tell us, are you also an anti-nuclear activist?

Gundersen: No, you know, I have a bachelors and masters in nuclear and was a senior VP. Two..three years ago,  consulting for the state of Vermont, I signed a report saying that Vermont Yankee, our nuclear plant here in Vermont, could run for another twenty years. So, I don't know many nuclear activists who sign reports authorizing nuclear plants to continue to operate.

The Public Oversight Panel report

Gundersen is telling the truth here.  He did sign a report (Public Oversight Panel report, March 2009) that concluded that Vermont Yankee could continue to operate.  Actually, it said that operation of the plant is possible if the recommendations of the panel report were put in place by Entergy and carefully verified by strengthened government institutions, etc.  Read the report for yourself, especially page v, "Panel's Overall Conclusions."  It isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the plant or anybody who supervises it, including the NRC.

The Public Oversight Panel report was a joint effort. There were usually four people on the panel. My understanding of Gundersen's views on Vermont Yankee lead me to believe that he probably fought against  every positive word in that report.  However, I wasn't there when the report was written, so that statement is just my opinion. I formed that opinion by debating Gundersen and from other things he has said.

Gundersen's radio statement on California radio may have convinced some people that he is a nuclear consultant, not an anti-nuclear activist.  After all, he signed a report recommending continued operation of Vermont Yankee.

Maybe. I encourage people to read the report and draw their own conclusions. Personally,  I still see Gundersen as an anti-nuclear activist, and that remains my opinion.

I also don't know why Gundersen is making such a point of not being called "an anti-nuclear activist."  On this blog, my profile has always stated: "I am a pro-nuclear activist and a writer." I don't have any issue with stating that, being introduced as a pro-nuclear activist, or whatever.  Of course,  I also want people to know that I have an educational and career background in nuclear energy, and I understand why Gundersen makes the same point about himself.  But why does he object to being called an "anti-nuclear activist"?  Just wondering...

103rd Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs

Yes Vermont Yankee is proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs this week.  We have some truly excellent posts this time.  We'll begin with a group of blog posts that I call "the Debunking Blogs."

The Debunking Blogs

In a group of posts, nuclear bloggers debunk various anti-nuclear scare stories.

Debunking Kelp: At Nuclear Diner, RADIOACTIVE KELP--Now What!! Susan Voss looks at newspaper stories of radioactive kelp washing ashore in California. She also helps her 8th grade son with a project on radioactivity in soils around Los Alamos.  In both cases, radiation is not present at levels measurable above background.

Debunking Cost: The Canadian Nuclear Association responds to Greenpeace Canada’s claims that nuclear energy is responsible for Ontario’s rising electricity rates. The post Nuclear Main Source of Affordable Clean Energy in Ontario, shows that the more likely culprit for electricity price rises is the “Billions of dollars [committed] to renewable energy without fully evaluating the impact, the trade-offs, and the alternatives through a compre­hensive business-case analysis.” Nuclear energy provides over half of Ontario’s electricity, it’s enabling the province to be coal-free by 2014 and provides the stable base needed to bring renewables onto the grid.

Debunking Collapse: For a little comic relief, Rod Adams  of Atomic Insights posts a video clip of a No Agenda podcast, which takes aim at Robert Alvarez and his fear-mongering story of the "catastrophic" risk from Fukushima Daiichi unit 4 spent fuel pool.  No Agenda is produced by Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak, and in the Atomic Insights post about the Spent Fuel Pool Fable, you can hear Dvorak call Alvarez a "hysteric." It's not nice to call names, of course, but it is sometimes fun to watch other people calling names.  Especially when the names are justified.

Debunking Daydreams: Reality bats last, after all.  Be Here Now and the Debate. Meredith Angwin at the ANS Nuclear Cafe discusses her participation in a recent nuclear energy radio debate on station WHMP in Northampton, Massachusetts -- from the perspectives of mindfulness, being in the moment, and accepting reality as it is (includes a very interesting discussion in the 'comments' section as well).  (I thank ANS Nuclear Cafe for choosing my post as the one to submit this week)

Debunking the Joys of Being Nuclear-Free: As of yesterday, Japan has no operating nuclear reactors.  At HiroshimaSyndrome, Leslie Corrice writes about the shuttering of Japan's last operating nuke. Japan is "nuclear free" for the first time in 42 years, and the future looks ominous.

The end of an era, or, the onset of Japan’s economic and energy collapse

Drilling rig
Barnett Shale, Texas

With Gas So Cheap, Do We Need Nuclear?

Now that we are talking about Japan, it's a good time to talk about the effect of low natural gas prices on nuclear energy. Several blogs review various aspects of this situation on nuclear power in America, and World-wide.

Are We the Grasshopper or the Ant? At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus discusses ways to take the longer view with her post: Building the Energy Future

A Reactor Build Slow-Down in Florida: At Idaho Samizdat, Dan Yurman writes that Progress Energy reboots Florida Reactors Back to the Future. Dan reports Progress Energy has pushed back the completion dates for its planned twin Westinghouse 1,100 MW Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at its Levy County site on Florida's west coast. The first reactor is now expected to enter service in 2024, not 2020, and costs have also risen.

We Need Nuclear, World-Wide: Brian Wang of Next Big Future takes the international perspective with three posts:

• Economist Jeffrey Sachs says that Nuclear power is the only solution to climate change
• In Russia, Kalinin 4 is completing final tests before full operations starting September, 2012
• India can build nuclear reactors for $1700 per kilowatt of plant electrical generation

Nuclear is Cost-Effective, Right Here:  Brian Wang of Next Big Future shows that power uprates to American nuclear plants are still cost effective despite cost increases

We Need Nuclear to Combat Global Warming: At Atomic Insights, Rod Adams posts that Human Technology is Changing the Ocean Chemistry: What Do We Do About It? Rod discusses the argument that puny humans can't hurt the planet.  He discusses the argument that we should fight nuclear AND fight global warming.  He discusses the argument that we cannot have decent living standards on a livable planet. These are all incorrect arguments. Instead, we can use high energy density, emission free, abundant uranium and thorium to address many pressing problems.

Technology and Problem Solving

Technology is all about problem solving and we have some great technology blog posts this time.

What Is Happening:   Every few days, Will Davis of Atomic Power Review writes an update about Japan.  In his May 4 post on Japan, Davis tells how TEPCO started a new web page to combat those who spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt about the situation in Japan.  He also gives a nice little hat-tip to me (Thanks Will!).  I wrote a guest post on his blog.  In that post, I wrote that the San Onofre steam generators would probably be down-rated to change the vibration pattern. I predicted that the steam generators would come back on line, and then everyone involved would sue each other. My predictions seem to be coming true, and Davis was nice enough to do a follow-up.

Where to Find Out About What is Happening: In another post, Davis offers links and descriptions to three nuclear websites worth seeing and bookmarking.

Handling Radioactive Material:  In a series of posts at the Science And Technology Blog, Robert Hayes writes about How to Ship Radioactive Material, and How to Handle Radioactive Material. These posts are part of a series, and can serve as a useful resource to debunk some scare stories.

Dry Casks Can Solve Problems, Or Be Deployed for Non-Problems:  At Neutron Economy, Steve Shutnik writes Overheated Rods and Rhetoric. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) visited the stricken Fukushima Daiichi site and called for quicker action on spent fuel being relocated into dry storage casks. Robert Alvarez has gone as far as to call the situation at the spent fuel pool at Unit 4 "worse than Chernobyl." He calls for all spent fuel in cooling ponds to be immediately relocated into dry storage. The problem with both well-meaning non-experts, aside from their extremely limited understanding of the technical issues involved, is that their rush to apply a solution in search of a problem may do more harm than good.
--------------


What a feast of a Carnival! I am proud to be hosting a Carnival with so many great posts!

102nd Carnival of Nuclear Energy At Next Big Future

The 102nd Blog Carnival is posted at Next Big Future.  Once again, Brian Wang has done a splendid job of putting together a great Carnival.  Rod Adams on an Australian project on climate change, Stephen Aplin on how PBS story on water in Africa manages to omit the fact that the new purification methods require electricity, me about San Onofre at Atomic Power Review blog, and me about KI pills at this blog.  And there's more: Gail Marcus and Brian Wang on world-wide events, Steve Skutnik on how nuclear proponents have a "tin ear" for what might persuade their audiences, and a provocative post from Charles Barton on Uranium as a Renewable Resource (think sea-water!)  And more, too!

It's a great Carnival.  Stop by and visit.  Enjoyable reading for a spring evening!

San Onofre Steam Generators: My Post at Atomic Power Review

Introducing my post, San Onofre and Steam Generator Design at Atomic Power Review.

History

An excellent post by Dan Yurman, Debunking Some Nuclear Nonsense, introduced me to the controversies about the new steam generators at San Onofre.  The steam generators are newly installed, and having unexpected problems.  His post also introduced me to Arnie Gundersen's critiques of the San Onofre steam generators, how they were made, how they were designed, etc.  These critiques were  funded by Friends of the Earth.

I try to stick to energy issues in my own region, the Northeast, but this situation got under my skin.  You see, I actually know a great deal about steam generators and their issues.  I was a project manager in the Steam Generator Owner's Group at EPRI.  When I left EPRI to start my own company, I had contracts to help utilities with steam generator chemistry decisions. My contracts were in the U.S. and abroad. My expertise was in demand.

So, of course I fired off a geeky letter to the ANS mailing list about steam generators.  Will Davis of Atomic Power Review asked me to de-geek the letter a bit. He said he would put it on his blog, Atomic Power Review.

My post is up at Atomic Power review today.  I'm proud of it, and I very pleased that Will Davis encouraged me to write it.  It's getting a lot of hits...

Update: I was going to put in a series of links to other SG articles, but the NEI blog post today has done it for me.  A Reader's Guide to the San Onofre Steam Generator Situation.  Great guide to SG posts by Barq, Davis, Yurman, and people at Southern California Edison.  Thanks for the comprehensive guide to steam generator issues at SONGS.

------------------
Graphic of steam generator support plates courtesy of AREVA.

Two Carnivals and an Update Link on the Pilgrim Debate

Update:

Howard Shaffer's post on his debate with Gundersen about the Pilgrim plant is posted today at ANS Nuclear Cafe. You can view it here: The Nuclear Debate on the Road.

The 98th Carnival

I was in Arizona last week, and I didn't link to the 98th Carnival of Nuclear Energy, compiled by Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat. Do visit the Carnival for links to NEI's review of Arnie Gundersen's claims about radioactivity in Japan (Gundersen won't show anyone the data), the NRC granting licenses to V C Summers reactors, a new nuclear plant coming on-line in China, and Steve Skutnik looking at the EPA rules about coal pollution and carbon caps. Steve asks if this is a step forward in pollution control, or a give-away to the natural gas industry? Will Davis at Atomic Power Review begins a new series on nuclear energy history.

Gail Marcus, of Nuke Power Talk wrote the book on nuclear energy history (Nuclear Firsts). In her blog post, she describes today's nuclear power as two steps forward and one step back. She includes an inspiring excerpt from a recent speech by President Obama on nuclear technology. Oh heck, I'm going to quote some of his speech from her blog:

...let’s never forget the astonishing benefits that nuclear technology has brought to our lives. Nuclear technology helps make our food safe. It prevents disease in the developing world. It’s the high-tech medicine that treats cancer and finds new cures. And, of course, it’s the energy—the clean energy—that helps cut the carbon pollution that contributes to climate change.

And also, a big welcome back to Charles Barton and Nuclear Green, with the history of power development at Oak Ridge.

99th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

This week's Carnival went up today at NEI Nuclear notes. Nuclear Green looks at the Clinch River reactor, and Gail Marcus takes a hard look at the latest Mark Cooper claims about nuclear energy economics. (Cooper is a member of the Vermont Law School adjunct faculty who himself claims to be an economist.) Idaho Samizdat looks at the conditions set for restarting San Onofre, and Brian Wang of Next Big Future and Will Davis of Atomic Power Review catch up on recent developments. A Carnival with many controversial posts and thought-provoking ideas!

--------

We had a family celebration in Arizona last week, and I wanted to share some pictures of desert flowers that I took at Hassayampa River Preserve, near Wickenburg, Arizona. Hey, it's my blog, and I'll include some pretty pictures if I want to!

Have a great spring!

Tritium, Oil, and Kale

With all the endless hassles about "who said what to whom" about piping at Vermont Yankee, I decided to do a cheerful post for once. Just for a change. Then I will return to our regularly scheduled difficulties.

First of all, a big thanks to Rod Adams for his perspective on the tritium leak at Vermont Yankee. He points out that the EPA describes tritium as one of the "least dangerous radionuclides." A person would have to drink swimming-pools worth of the stuff to receive a lethal dose. They'd drown first. Rod compares this tritium leak to massive oil spills that are ignored by the press.

Oil spills are dangerous. Oil is carcinogenic. In general, the negative health effects of petroleum hydrocarbons are ignored by the press and the population. It would be funny if it weren't sad.

In Montpelier, my friend Howard Shaffer told a legislator that this tritium leak was a spill, like spilling oil on the floor of your garage, but just like the oil, it could be cleaned up. "Well, at least the oil won't give me cancer," the legislator answered. (She will be not be named in this blog. I try to protect the clueless.)

Hydrocarbons are sources of cancer-causing compounds. Here's a nice little how-to article about changing your oil, with the usual warnings about not getting it on your skin, and a note that most landfills will not accept used oil, even in sealed containers. The government warns you to avoid prolonged contact with motor oil, as it caused skin cancer in laboratory animals.

Another thanks is due to John Wheeler, whose podcast compares this tritium leak with earlier leaks at San Onofre. John uses a Brazil nut analogy instead of the banana analogy I used, to compare drinking from the test well with ordinary exposure to beta-particles. We both point out that the amount of radiation in the test well is a fraction of the amount we get on a daily basis.

Sometimes there are unintended consequences to blogging. I fear that someone will read this and decide to give up bananas and Brazil nuts. I may have scared some people. They may be coming to the erroneous conclusion that tropical fruits are radioactive.

I hope these readers understand that potassium is slightly radioactive, but it is also a necessary part of everyone's nutrition. (However, people with some types of kidney disease must avoid potassium.) If you don't have kidney disease, and you don't want tropical fruits, please eat some spinach or kale. Half a cup of cooked greens has about the same amount of potassium as a banana.