Nuclear Energy Weekly News Digest 351

Toronto Globe and Mail staff await news of D-Day

Nuclear Energy Weekly News Digest

This is an occasional summary of the best posts from the pro-nuclear blogging community in North America. This week’s collection comes from items submitted for the week ending March 19, 2016. The previous digest was posted on March 12, at Neutron Bytes.

Fukushima Commentary--Les Corrice

Fukushima 6-years-on: Part 1  Japan’s Press subverts Fukushima repopulation
Japan’s popular Press has effectively disrupted the efforts of Tokyo Electric Power Company and the Tokyo government to return the Fukushima evacuation zone to some semblance of normalcy. But one outlet – Fukushima Minpo – has been an objective ray of sunshine, posting more positive articles than the rest of Japan’s popular Press combined.

Fukushima 6-years-on: Part 2  Positive and negative Fukushima 6th anniversary articles
Fukushima accident anniversary articles literally flood the Japanese and international Press. In the past, nearly all focused on the dire and gloomy. This year, most of the reports were once again dedicated to the negative. However, some enterprising news outlets bucked the tide and took the positive approach.

Fukushima 6-years-on: Part 3  Fomenting Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD)
Fukushima FUD has plagued the internet since March, 2011. The frequency of antinuclear scare-mongering posts increases every year to “celebrate” the March 11 anniversary of the nuclear accident. We are identifying only a few of the disreputable postings concerning this year’s anniversary, rather than give all of them free publicity.

Nuke Power Talk-- Gail Marcus

Energy and Jobs: A delicate balance
At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus discusses the issue of jobs lost when any major facility, be it a mine or a factory or a power plant, shuts down.  These job losses can be devastating for the individuals involved and for the communities that host these facilities.  She cites an article by someone who grew up in coal country who argues that plans to reduce the emissions from burning coal need to take a multi-pronged approach that includes planning for assistance to workers affected by these policy decisions.

Forbes--James Conca

NuScale’s Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Keeps Moving Forward
NuScale Power is on track to build the first small modular nuclear reactor in America, having been notified that their first-ever SMR Design Certification Application was accepted for full review by the NRC after only two months - light speed for our nuclear bureaucracy.

The Beguiling Promise Of John Goodenough's New Battery Technology
A new fast-charging battery technology from Jack Goodenough, the inventor of the Li battery, will again revolutionize electric vehicles and smart phones, using a glass electrode instead of a liquid one, sodium instead of lithium, having three times as much energy density as Li-ion batteries and doesn’t get hot.

ANS Nuclear Cafe--Meredith Angwin

Pro-Nuclear Advocacy
Historically, nuclear advocates have been effective when they take action in their own communities.  As Tip O'Neill said: all politics is local.  (Post includes links to several organizations that take local action.)

Neutron Bytes - Dan Yurman

Banner Week for Progress on U.S. Advanced Reactors
Four major announcements were made this week by developers of advanced nuclear reactors in the U.S. All of them indicate progress towards completing designs and engagement with nuclear safety agencies.

There are significant distinctions between them in terms of technical details of the designs and there are also a range of commitments in terms of the key success factor – paying customers.

Thirty Jobs by Year-End. Vermont Yankee Job Elimination

Thirty Jobs to Be Eliminated at Vermont Yankee

On July 20, I wrote a post Layoffs Possible at Vermont Yankee.  At that time, the best estimations I could get were that 65 jobs would be eliminated at Vermont Yankee.

July 30 was the official announcement. As Susan Smallheer at the Times Argus reported: "Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant will lose 30 of its 650 employees by the end of the year."  It wasn't just chance that the announcement was July 30: that was also the day that Entergy announced its second quarter earnings and had its earnings call.

Jobs Before the End of the Year

Judging from various reports, Entergy announced an initiative called "Human Capital Management" some time ago. They acknowledged that this initiative would lead to workforce reductions. (Snark alert: "Human Capital Management."  Don't you just love these corporate euphemisms?  End snark.) However, until July 30, Entergy did not announce how many jobs would be eliminated.

During the earnings call,  Entergy CEO Leo Denault announced that 800 jobs would be eliminated, company-wide.  After the call, Terry Young, an Entergy Vice President, spoke about the merchant plants, and was quoted by Smallheer:

Indian Point

Young said it would mean the loss of about 30 jobs at Vermont Yankee, and similar losses at Pilgrim Nuclear in Massachusetts — in both cases a 4 percent reduction in the workforce. The FitzPatrick plant in Oswego, N.Y., will lose 35 positions, or about 5 percent.
At the Indian Point nuclear plant outside New York City, which is a two-reactor site, job losses will affect 75 people, a 7 percent cut in the workforce. 

Whose Jobs?

The number of jobs to be eliminated is known at this point: 30 jobs. However, whose job will be eliminated is not yet known.  The Vermont Yankee organization has been redesigned. New organization charts are being distributed.  Current employees will apply for a new position that is a new slot in the organization.

In Terri Hallenbeck's article in the Burlington Free Press:

Rep. Mike Hebert, R-Vernon, said he’s spoken with people who work at the plant who were relieved the announced layoffs weren’t higher. “Many of these cuts are going to be attrition,” he said. “I know a lot of folks who are slated to retire. They just won’t be replaced.”

Some people at the plant may be laid off by the end of the year, but attrition and retirement will also eliminate some jobs.  In other words, somewhere between zero and thirty people will actually lose their jobs at the plant by the end of the year. Six hundred and fifty people work at Vermont Yankee.

The Plant Will Stay Safe

Plant opponents have had a field day claiming the plant safety will be compromised by this layoff.   However, the plant will continue to be safe, for three main reasons:

1. It's a relatively small cut in staffing. By the time retirement and attrition are considered, I suspect that only about 2% of the workforce will actually be cut.  Pretty much any big business can handle this level of reduction.
2. Entergy is committed to safe operation.  Entergy VP Terry Young was quoted in an article by Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger  "We will pay special attention to ensure the changes we are making do not impact the hands-on, core functions of daily operations of plants, so that there’s no impact on safety and reliability."
3. The NRC is committed to safe operation. The NRC has seen reorganizations before and knows how to ensure safety during the process. Quoting the Vermont Digger article:  “There have been reorganizations in the past at other U.S. nuclear power plants,” (NRC Spokesman) Sheehan said. “As in those cases, the NRC (continues to use)... our Reactor Oversight Process. …"  The NRC also accepts allegations from any member of the plant staff who has a safety concern.  In other words, the NRC has seen reorganizations before, done this before, and the plants continue to operate safely.

My Conclusion

Job elimination is a painful and miserable process.  I had a hard time writing about it because it is difficult to keep an appropriate tone.

Rebecca

What is the right tone, after all?  I feel a mixture of sadness that this is happening at all, and relief that only a few people will be laid off at the plant. (IBM recently laid off more than 400 people in Vermont.) However, the people who are laid off may be badly affected, because there just aren't that many jobs in Windham County.  It may be hard for people to get another job without moving away. The last thing I want to do is appear as a Pollyanna about this announcement. 

Still, I think that Entergy is committed to continued operation of the plant. Furthermore, the vast majority of people working at the plant (96%) will continue to have jobs. Vermont Yankee has the lowest percentage job reductions of any of Entergy's merchant plants.  And  Vermont Yankee will continue to operate safely.  

I hope I can make these somewhat upbeat statements without being a Pollyanna. 

--------------

(I couldn't find a picture of Pollyanna, so I used Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm instead.)

Power, Carbon and Costs: Peter Lothes Guest Post

Petition Urging Granting a Certificate of Public Good to Vermont Yankee

Peter Lothes, Engineer and Business Manager
Queechee

My name is Peter Lothes.  I live in Quechee Vermont, and I am here to urge the granting of a Certificate of Public Good to Vermont Yankee so it may continue to operate.  As a retired engineer and business manager, I believe closing Vermont Yankee would result in a terribly negative  impact upon the state’s economy, the well being of its residents, and our mutual goal of reducing carbon in the atmosphere.

We need Vermont Yankee for a number of reasons:

First:  We need the power capacity

Over time, the need for power will grow in Vermont, and the rest of the northeast grid which Vermont Yankee supports. Without Vermont Yankee, the additional power will have to come from new construction of fossil plants.  This will be costly, and will increase carbon emissions. Obtaining power from Hydro Quebec (which itself includes nuclear power) may seem in the short term to solve Vermont’s problem, but  buying their power does nothing for the rest of the area that  Vermont Yankee serves, and relying on a power source from outside of the US has its own very considerable risks.    Every knowledgeable expert I have read agrees that other low/no carbon generators (wind, solar, thermal etc.) cannot provide the base load of electrical power that will be needed in the future.  Dr. James Hansen of the Columbia Earth Institute (on the world’s most respected environmentalists) makes this case persuasively in his Storms of my Grandchildren among other writings.

Second: We need it to contribute to the world’s control of carbon emission.

Dr. Hansen and others (e.g. Dr. Robert Hargraves, Dartmouth Professor, PhD physics)  argue persuasively that only the development of nuclear power  for base load,  can keep China, India,  and the United States from burning the huge coal resources each of these countries has.   This is because only nuclear power can generate electricity cheaper, significantly cheaper, than coal.  They will all burn the cheapest fuel, and if they do so, nothing else that the rest of us do will matter, and carbon emissions will grow dramatically

Third:  We need it to maintain our expertise in the nuclear power technology

We have, in Vermont Yankee,  solid nuclear power technology and experience, upon which we can build in the future, as nuclear power becomes an important industry.   This is an industry which can grow dramatically, providing technology driven manufacturing, scientific , clerical and administrative businesses and employment.  It could be a significant export opportunity for the US, and will provide jobs and economic growth that would not be outsourced.  In the 70’s’s and 80’s, we lost our nuclear technology leadership base, and now the next generation of power reactors are being built in France and China. They ultimately will generate electricity at about 4 to 5 cents per kWh.  If  we continue to lose this technology, we will be importing, in addition to plastic toys and clothing, nuclear power plants built in China.

The nuclear industry will have  good paying, reliable businesses and jobs, and we need to grow them here in Vermont.


Lastly:  We need it to contain the cost of electricity in this state to keep and attract new businesses, and citizens.

Vermont is a very unfriendly  cost environment for businesses and individuals, largely due to our tax  and distribution structure.  Electrical power cost has been one of the few areas where the price to consumers, while not advantageous, is not excessive.  It has been kept that way in the past due to the very low cost of Vermont Yankee power.

I understand the following to be the costs distribution utilities here now pay for power from various sources (data from memory, and could be off somewhat)

Solar:  27 cents per  kwh Wind  15 cents      Vermont Yankee  6.1  cents, plus revenue sharing

Quebec Hydro:  5.9 cents Coal: 12 to 13 cents ( in China 6 to 8)

The wrong selection of power sources would drive our electricity costs ever higher, and drive businesses like GE and IBM out of the state.  It will make it impossible to attract new industry, or even attract retirees. They are a considerable asset to the state, and they struggle under the tax burden.

If we fail to participate in this energy transition, our  Vermont economy will stagnate or worse, and we will suffer  significantly more  carbon emissions than would be the case with Vermont Yankee operating.

Respectfully,

Peter B. Lothes

Quechee, VT 05059

-----------

This is the 15th in a series of posts which share statements made in favor of Vermont Yankee at the Public Service Board hearing on November 7, 2012.

Video Views about the Vermont Yankee Injunction Ruling

Some recent local news videos explain a lot about the injunction ruling in a short time-frame.

Jobs

The first is a two-minute clip from WMUR in Hinsdale, New Hampshire, across the Connecticut River from the power plant at Vernon. The video gives a neighbor's view of the potential Vermont Yankee closing.

Potential VT Yankee Shutdown Raises Jobs Anxiety - Project Economy News Story - WMUR New Hampshire

Legal Implications

The second is a five minute clip of Cheryl Hanna of Vermont Law School, sharing her view of Judge Murtha's ruling. In summary, Hanna says that Entergy has lost this battle, but not lost the war. She also recommends that people read the footnotes in Murtha's ruling.

No injunction: Will Vermont Yankee keep operating? - WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

Prosperity for Rich Folks

Prosperity (and Electricity) for Rich Folks

Morality for Beautiful Girls is the title of a book in Alexander McCall Smith's No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency series. The title raises all kinds of intriguing questions: Is it harder for beautiful girls to be moral? Do beautiful girls need morality? Why would morality be different for "beautiful girls" than for anyone else?

Similarly, the question of electricity use in prosperous nations raises questions. The curve of kilowatt hours versus dollars per capita is pretty straight for at the lower levels of both (below $15,000 a year per capita and I recently blogged this in Why I Love Nuclear. I explained the need for more electricity use, especially in poor countries. Prosperity and electricity improve people's lives, especially the lives of women. Near the same time, Rod Adams did an excellent post about energy and prosperity, and my own post received many thoughtful comments. I was happy to see that all the comments agreed with the necessity of improving lives in poor countries with electricity.

However, us rich folks in the U S were another story. Maybe we need to use less electricity, not more? It's possible.

Are Rich Nations Wasteful Nations?

Let's look at two opposing views. Friend2all posted these comments on my blog post:

There is a large and even dominant segment of opinion that places as first priority item in energy policy the objective to strive first for energy efficiency as the lowest hanging fruit in a plan for providing energy for America's future.......

The method commonly proposed to reduce the use of energy presently is to increase the cost of energy .... Our slide would suggest that the unintended result of increasing the cost of energy, and thereby decreasing the use of energy, is a shrinking economy and a lower GDP per capita.

The consensus view is that the less painful way to get America out of its economic problems is to grow the economy.

However Karen Street posted this opposing view (Ms. Street blogs at A Musing Environment):

However, there is another thread about energy use important to acknowledge: a lot of behavior in the wealthier countries is conspicuous consumption--larger cars and appliances than needed, leaving stuff on when it isn't being used, driving when we can walk. This is true for both rich and poor first worlders....

The poor deserve access to clean energy.....

I add this because it can sound as if people advocating for the poor are also advocating for my right to waste. A lot more people will agree with you if you make this point.

So there we have it. Does America need more energy, or should we learn to make do with less, and be less wasteful?

This is mostly a philosophical question, and so I will approach it philosophically. What kind of country do we want?

A Short Punt with Uncomfortable Facts

Before I start philosophizing, however, I want to point out that America's energy infrastructure is aging, and power plants need to be replaced and expanded, just to keep the energy use we have now. As CNN reports, blackout rates are skyrocketing in many areas of the country. Since building power plants is not easy to arrange, many people hope that the Smart Grid will be able to levelize use instead.

Just as an example of aging infrastructure: According to CNN, Japan averages four minutes of power outages per user per year, not counting weather-related disasters. For the Midwest, that number is 92 minutes, and for the Northeast (my home) the number is 214 minutes. (Thank heavens, Vermont Yankee has a capacity factor of over 90%, and is mitigating this problem.)

A utility executive from Austin Texas was quoted in CNN: High-tech manufacturers want to locate their factories in places where electricity is most reliable, said Carvallo. "That's where the manufacturing facilities move to. That's where you get your high-paying jobs."

Jobs are important. America is hurting in terms of jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports (August 6) that 14.6 million people are currently unemployed, of whom 6.6 million are long-term unemployed (more than 27 weeks). Most people agree we could use some job growth in this supposedly rich country of ours. I would be happy to see growth in electricity use, if that will help.

Now, back to morality.

What Is Waste? What is Philosophy? What is the Good Life? Etc.

First, let's distinguish between efficiency and waste.

Efficiency is always good. I am on the Energy Committee for my town. We sponsor weatherization workshops, and we have encouraged the recent installation of LED traffic lights. We are moving toward LED street lights, too.

Efficiency of energy use is always good, and should be encouraged. Making the same product (a warm home, a well-lit street) with less input is always a Good Thing. On the other hand, efficiency often pays for its capital cost fairly quickly, so even in a complete free-market economy, Efficiency Happens. Efficiency is a practical issue, but not a moral one (in my opinion).

Waste

Waste is a moral issue, and Karen Street is concerned with the idea that I am encouraging a right to waste. Alas. I am. I don't like to legislate morality with taxes, scarce supply, etc. And I believe that every good thing will be misused by someone.

For example, I will have a glass of wine with dinner, and someone else will drive drunk. Since some people abuse alcohol, should we bring back prohibition? I don't think so. It didn't work the first time. People have free will, and people abuse all sorts of things. Energy is no different.

Also, I am not nearly as certain that I know what waste is and what waste isn't. Maybe I am mellowing out.

For example, I personally dislike SUVs and think nobody needs a car that big. However, I know sincere moms who feel it is far safer to drive kids around Vermont winter roads in a BIG car. They have made a safety assessment, and are willing to pay more for the car, and more for gas, for their kids' safety. Is their choice reasonable? Maybe. Shall I despise these women as energy abusers? I don't think so.

Or let's take smaller refrigerators. I find it amazing and annoying that so many people keep a spare refrigerator humming all the time out in the garage. These refrigerators are filled with beer and soft drinks. By golly, such things should be banned!

Or should they? Should we all be mandated to have small, European-style refrigerators? Many European housewives shop regularly, several times a week, which is adorable and a lovely life-style--unless you are person like me, who combined housewifery with responsible jobs. I couldn't possibly shop so often.

When I was working, I loaded up on groceries once a week, sometimes twice. In other words, my choices involved a big refrigerator and a station wagon. A big refrigerator meant I could have two kids and a career. If no "American-size" refrigerators had been available, it would have been very hard for me to work.

In other words, I wish people were more mindful, less wasteful, and generally all-around better. But I respectfully disagree with Karen about too-big appliances, too-big cars, and so forth. I think these can be reasonable choices.

I am advocating for her right to waste. Even in rich countries, abundant energy gives people more choices, including the choice to drive an SUV and have a fridge full of soft drinks in the garage. Some people use those choices "wastefully" in my opinion. They might well think the same of my choices.

Abundant energy means freedom of choice. Especially for women. Even in a rich country.

Sidebar: Meredith Being Really Really Snotty

My husband is a man of firm opinions, and one of his firm opinions is that he did not want a TV set in his house. In forty years of marriage, we have never owned a TV. However, we bought a set to watch movies on DVD, and we enjoy them.

So, from my point of view, TV is all a big waste. All those stations burning kilowatthours to transmit stupid pictures of disasters and The Biggest Loser. Who needs it? I don't. Talk about wasteful!

I agree with the Oompah Loompahs on this. (In the video link, the Oompah Loompah views of excessive TV watching starts after about two minutes.)

I have added this this rant to prove that dissing people's "wasteful" choices is a bad idea. You diss my refrigerator, I'll diss your TV. This kind of acrimony is not a good way to celebrate diversity. We all deserve the freedom to choose the lifestyle that reflects our hopes and values.

So, let's not go around saying "wasteful, bad girl, wasteful." Let's just have lots of clean energy instead. From nuclear, of course.

Prosperity graph courtesy of Robert Hargraves. LED traffic light from Wikimedia Commons.

Hot Air About Jobs

It was no surprise to me that all the Democratic candidates for Vermont Governor are determined to ensure that Vermont Yankee closes down by 2012. If nothing else, I heard them all speak at the Race to Replace in Montpelier in late April. The Race to Replace (replace Vermont Yankee, that is) began the same day that my Coalition For Energy Solutions group gave a press conference releasing our report on Vermont Electric Power in Transition. Listening the the candidates was disheartening: they ranged from attack-dogs like Shumlin to "the renewable future's so bright I have to wear shades" words of Matt Dunne. But they were all eager to shut down Vermont Yankee.

Yesterday, the Burlington Free Press published an article asking the candidates a simple question: "How are you going to replace the jobs lost if Vermont Yankee closes down?" Comment & Debate: Vermont gubernatorial candidates offer ideas to replace jobs if Vermont Yankee closes. The amount of hot air put forward by the Democratic candidates on this question is truly astounding.

A summary below:

• Matt Dunne wants bonds for efficiency projects. He is willing to admit that efficiency costs money.
• Deb Markowitz believes in HydroQuebec.
• Doug Racine gives the usual set of solutions: conservation and renewables. He likes what California did with SMUD. They put up solar panels right on the site of the retired reactor. And by golly, when the sun shines, they have two megawatts of power. (Rancho Seco was 950 megawatts). Of course, you can have this sort of terrific success in sunny California. Here's a video about Rancho Seco and its solar installation.
• Peter Shumlin. Look. Nobody pays me to blog. I don't have to read this one. Sigh. Okay. We expect every blogger to do her duty. Here goes....

Shumlin is concerned that VY will go into SAFESTOR and not immediately provide decommissioning jobs. He plans to prevent SAFESTOR from happening. Shumlin apparently has not read the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approving the sale of VY to Entergy. Article 9 of the MOU specifically allows SAFESTOR.
• Martha Abbott, Progressive Democrat, supports Sarah Edwards (long-time anti-Yankee representative) in her hope that Entergy employees will be retrained for "comparable jobs." Abbott and Edwards apparently believe that the workers lack training, not that Vermont lacks "comparable jobs." Abbott also warns against forces that "pit the VY workers against the environmentalists." Oh dear. Could that really happen?According to Abbottt, it IS happening, due to a conspiracy between Entergy and the Burlington Free Press to cause animosity between the two groups.
• Susan Bartlett believes SAFESTOR will create jobs (how about Bartlett and Shumlin having a little talk?) and also hopes for a biomass plant on the site.

They also interviewed Brian Dubie, Republican candidate for Governor who simply hopes to encourage economic growth by licensing and tax policy. He doesn't have a quick fix. Of course, he also supports the plant continuing to operate.

It's a long article, full of sound and fury, signifying little.

News flash: Three unions have endorsed Doug Racine for governor. The State Employee's Union endorsed him yesterday. I am not sure if that means Racine is the Democratic front-runner. Reading his comments, he seems the most moderate of the Democratic candidates about Vermont Yankee. He speaks about costs and plant management as reasons to close the plant down. He doesn't rant about tritium endangering workers and the public, etc.

I have learned to be grateful for small favors.